Even twenty years later, conspiracy theories continue to rage regarding the death of Princess Diana. On the night of 31 August 1997, she died in a car crash in Paris. However, many believe that it was pre-planned and intentionally done for personal gain. Reporters who wanted to write more compelling articles examined about 175 conspiracy theories, some of which were found to be more profound. As people’s imaginations cannot be controlled, they came up with even more convincing conspiracy theories than the original explanation. Let us go through some of the more convincing and widespread conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy Theory – Diana was pregnant
Fact: No, it isn’t
The discussion of Princess Diana being pregnant surfaced before her death. When she mentioned having a big surprise, almost everyone believed that she was pregnant with Dodi Fayed, the son of Mohammed al-Fayed. Mohammed al-Fayed stated that the royal family could not accept an Egyptian Muslim as the stepfather of the future King of England. However, this theory was denied, as there was no sign of pregnancy during the post-mortem. Her close friends also said that she had never mentioned the possibility of being pregnant. But it didn’t stop there—there are plenty of other conspiracy theories you can choose from, depending on your own beliefs
Conspiracy Theory – Henry Paul
Fact: No, it isn’t
The driver of the Mercedes S280, Henry Paul, was accused of being part of the accident and allegedly paid by the national security services of France, the UK, or both. Theorists speculated this scenario due to the money he had in his possession at the time of the crash. As a result, a special investigation was launched under the name Operation Paget. However, since there was no concrete evidence that Henry Paul was an agent for any security service, the case was soon closed. Another theory is based on the idea of drunk driving. Some believed that the claim of Henry Paul being drunk was a cover-up for the killing, as he did not behave as though he was intoxicated. However, there is no clear evidence for either of these theories. The blood test conducted by French investigators concluded that he was indeed drunk before taking control of the car
Conspiracy Theory – MI6 Involvement
Fact: No, not true
- Richard Tolimson, a former MI6 officer, claimed that Britain’s MI6 played a major role in the crash. In an inquiry in May 1999, he stated that the driver, Henry Paul, and one of Princess Diana’s bodyguards worked for the security services and British intelligence. Richard also claimed that she had been monitored in the days leading up to her death. However, in an investigation held on February 13, 2008, Richard Tolimson admitted that he may have misremembered the details and acknowledged that he had no evidence to support the claim that Paul was an MI6 agent.
- The main factor that raises many other conspiracy theories is Princess Diana’s belief that she was going to be killed by her family. A letter disclosed by Paul Burrel, Diana’s former butler, contains one of the strongest statements. She had written that someone was planning an accident in her car, with brake failure and a serious head injury, to clear the path for Charles to marry.
Conspiracy Theory – Medical reports were sabotaged
Fact: No, not true
Many people believed that doctors allowed Princess Diana to die intentionally. After the accident, the first call to emergency services was made at 12:26 am, while the SAMU ambulance carrying the princess arrived at the hospital at 2:06 am. At the scene of the crash, most of the treatment was provided, rather than immediately transporting her to the hospital. The length of time between the accident and her arrival at the hospital led to the emergence of new conspiracy theories. Unlike other countries like the UK, emergency crews in France typically focus on providing treatment at the scene. However, it is impossible to determine whether survival would have been possible if Diana had been taken to the hospital sooner. In response to these conspiracy theories, doctors later stated that it was impossible for her to survive her injuries.
Conspiracy Theory – Absence of CCTV
Fact: No, it isn’t
There were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont de l’Alma underpass leading to the hotel. However, the absence of CCTV footage from the hotel to the crash site was cited as evidence of an organized conspiracy. When Judge Hervé Stefphan, the examining magistrate, assigned the Brigade Criminelle to identify all videos and images related to the accident, none of the CCTV footage was deemed relevant for the inquiry. The security cameras had been installed for their own purposes, facing the entrance of the building.
Conspiracy Theory – Bright Flash
Fact: No, it isn’t
An alternative explanation is that the crash was caused by a bright white flash. Many people who witnessed the car accident stated that the bright white flash appeared just before the car entered the tunnel. A former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, stated in an investigation that the bright flash was caused intentionally by MI6 operatives to crash the car. However, the officer who investigated the crash rejected this evidence. Even when eyewitnesses provided testimonies that they had seen the bright light in the tunnel, the officials dismissed these claims and concluded that the alleged flash did not occur.
Conspiracy Theory – Fiat Uno
Fact: No, it isn’t
After analyzing the Mercedes Benz, a white Fiat Uno car was found, which had left traces of paint on the vehicle. Despite numerous attempts, the French police could not locate the car. While most people claimed they hadn’t seen a Fiat Uno entering the tunnel, some individuals did report seeing it. In 2005, Mohamed Al-Fayed stated that the white Fiat Uno had been used by MI6 and deliberately crashed into the tunnel.
Conspiracy Theory – Princess Diana faked her death
Fact: No, not true
This is the funniest of all: that Princess Diana faked her death to live on a small tropical island with Dodi Fayed, communicating with her sons via satellite video conferencing. Since we never saw her body, this theory emerged. It appeared just a few hours after her death.
People often create more exciting and elaborate stories when they become tired or disillusioned with the mundane or repetitive nature of everyday events. In the case of high-profile incidents, like the death of Princess Diana, it’s easy for individuals to speculate and imagine scenarios that offer more drama or intrigue than the reality. This is especially true when the facts of an event remain unclear or when the event itself is emotionally charged, as is often the case with public figures.
Conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Princess Diana’s death, thrive on the unknown and the unexplained. They offer alternative narratives that may be more thrilling or sensational than the official version. When the official story lacks concrete evidence or has unresolved questions, it creates an opening for imaginative theories to fill the gap. Some people, looking for answers that feel more satisfying or in line with their suspicions, may latch onto these theories, especially if they fit a particular worldview or if they resonate emotionally.
However, it’s important to approach information critically and prioritize evidence-based reporting. While conspiracy theories can be tempting to believe due to their dramatic nature, they often lack verifiable proof or rely on selective interpretation of facts. In the case of Princess Diana, for example, despite numerous theories about foul play or cover-ups, the official investigation concluded that her death was a tragic accident, and there has been no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.
Believing in random conspiracy theories can lead to a distortion of reality, as these theories are often built on speculation, misinformation, or half-truths. Relying on credible news sources and evidence-based journalism helps provide a clearer, more accurate understanding of events. It’s always better to approach news with a critical mindset, question the validity of sources, and look for reliable evidence to back up claims. By doing so, we can avoid being misled by theories that prey on our emotions or uncertainties, and instead form opinions grounded in fact.
“Very informative”, Interesting to read it.
I would recommend that every person who is interested in the truth put forth the effort to read this.
I’m with you here! I’m actually a huge fan of Diana (I wasn’t born when she was around, but she’s part of the social fabric in the UK so it’s hard not to be completely swept up in her story), and she deserves a thoughtful portrayal that doesn’t capitulate to one narrative or another. This always happens with depictions of Royal women (Anne Boleyn is a great example and Meghan Markle too)…they’re either victim or horror, when it’s almost always somewhere in between (as all of us are).
How has nobody mentioned Charles and Diana yet?!
It was a divorce that’s first of its kind in the family, preceded with mud slinging in the press, with cheating (not even allegations) on both sides, with young children stuck between them (and likely led to generational trauma between the divorce and her death). I remember the press at the time and the handwringing over her HRH, whether she’d still be a ‘Princess of Wales’, who’s paying for the settlement (turns out, the queen), which jewels belonged to her vs. the royal collection. The press and the public dined on the unraveling of that marriage for years!
I can see why there are conspiracy theories, but I don’t think Diana was murdered. If you look into what actually happened, the paparazzi were chasing her and the reason she was in the car that night, but the accident happened because the driver was drunk and lost control of the car.
Diana was kind of canonized post death, but unless I’m misremembering it came out that during their mutually unhappy marriage she threatened to throw herself down the stairs while pregnant and was having her own dalliances. No one wants to hear that sort of stuff about their mum though.