Should the Queen give evidence?

[anotheoldgit]

Should the Queen be called to give evidence at the Diana inquest, and if not why?

Paul Burrell, Diana's Butler is to be called and the centre of his evidence will be his claim that the Queen warned him that there were 'dark forces' at work in Britain.

So why shouldn't she be called to testify under oath whether or or not she actually said this?

[4GS]

No-one is above the law, not even the head of the world's most dysfunctional family, so yes, if called she should testify

[beryllium]

The Queen v The Queen??? is that possible.....

Paul Burrell??? lololol... :)

[4GS]

A queen Vs The Queen
excellent!!

[sp1814]

Absolutely not.

Too much nowadays people treat the Queen like she's just another celebrity.

She's not.

She's the queen and even if people don't respect her as a person, they should respect the institution.

I'm absolutely not a monarchist in any way whatsoever, but I don't see why she should go through the humiliation of giving evidence in what is, frankly, a ludicrous inquiry.

Wow...I even surprised myself with that post.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, i agree with sp1814.
The Queen should not even be involved with the case.
She is not just some lady who can be treat like anyone else.
Cant believe your even asking why she shouldnt give evidence...

[Tichman]

Yes of course she should testify if required. She should'nt be treated differently just because she's the Queen.

[sp1814]

If they want, I'll give evidence.

Here it is:

Diana and Dodi were the unfortunate victims of a car accident which happened when their driver crashed into a barrier in an underpass in Paris.

I love a good conspiracy theory, really I do - but this is getting daft. There are way too many variables for that to have been a contracted murder.

[MrBen5]

i cant believe all the money they are still wasting on this case.
It was an accident and people should just leave it at that...

[China Doll]

I don't think the queen should give evidence in this case as I believe the whole thing to be a ridiculous waste of time.

I do not believe there to be any conspiracy to kill Diana and Dodi. Plus I think that my feelings on the royal family aside, how awful must it be to have people speculating and salivating over the death of your mother on a daily basis. It's disgusting.

(However. Should there ever be something that requires evidence from the queen then of course she should give it. I do not believe her or anyone of royal blood to be above the law).

[anotheoldgit]

I agree with 4GS no one should be above the law, And although I have very much respect for the Monarchy of this country, I think if her evidence would prove once and for all that Diana was either killed wilfully or accidentally, she should then give her evidence.

Strictly hypothetically, would anyone wish to see a innocent person go to prison for a very long time even though they could be proven innocent by the Queens or anyone else's evidence?

[China Doll]

There have been stories in the paper I've read where people have been quite blatantly guilty of a crime but have gotten away with it.

Sometimes I've mused that it would be nice if someone could just frame the little bu88ers for another crime so that they could go away and rot. It's what they deserve.

But that's usually when I'm feeling particularly disillusioned with it all and that doesn't happen very often. It doesn't take me too long to remember that if they went to jail for a crime they didn't commit (very A-Team) then someone else would be getting away with a crime.

So on the whole no. I wouldn't like any innocent person to go to prison if it can be proven otherwise. That's why we have a justice system after all as opposed to lynch mobs.

It's just sometimes a little hard to swallow is all. Much like bread without butter.

[anotheoldgit]

So we should not question anything, just believe all we are told?

Marilyn Monro died of an overdose?
J F Kennedy was killed by Harvey Oswald ?
Twin towers collapsed due entirely as a result of the aircraft flying into them?
Sadam had weapons of mass destruction?
We are in Afghanistan to fight terrorism?

I am not in a position to say any of these are either true or untrue, so how can anyone state definitely that Diana's death was accidental or not?

[naomi24]

If it's thought the Queen has relevant information, then yes, she should be called.

[China Doll]

Is that directed at me or in general?

Yes, of course question it when there is good reason to do so and look at the evidence to support anything you might be speculating on. Don't just do it to be a sensationalist. I thought most crimes were supposed to have some sort of motive/reason.

I'm unaware of a theory that says the Twin Towers went down for reasons other than a ruddy great 747 smashing in to them at full speed but I'm willing to at least listen to the argument. (Then go ask in Science about any bits I didn't understand).

I don't know enough about Marilyn to comment on her death.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction andHarvey most certainly was a scape goat. Evidence (or indeed lack of in the case of Iraq) has proven that.

We are not in Afganistan purely to fight terrorism. But that is my opinon rather than anything I have solid evidence of.

And for me that's the problem, I have never seen good reason or evidence that Diana was killed as part of a conspiracy to stop her marrying Dodi. But I can think of quite a few reasons why people would want her alive.

[naomi24]

China, 9/11 conspiracy theory

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/nyregion/02c onspiracy.html

[Bazile]

Anyone who's evidence would benefit the inquest , should be called - queen or not .

The following IMHO , is the most important question relating to this tragic event .

Even If the Royal Family or the secret service had anything to do with it , do anyone really think that the powers that be would allow this information to come out - I think not .
On this basis alone , this inquest is a waste of time and money

[ruby27]

Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice what constitutional constraints prevent Her Majesty the Queen appearing as a witness in a (a) criminal court case, (b) civil action and (c) coroner's court case.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Queen cannot be compelled to give evidence before any court as it is an established constitutional principle that they are her own courts and have no jurisdiction over her.

This was asked in May 07, so it looks like the Queen constituntionally is above the law. Get rid of the monarchy and then she will only be like the rest of us, subject to the law.

[Dassie]

I am one of the 34% polled that is of the opinion that there is a cover up going on here. The Queen should definitely be called to give evidence - no-one is above the Law. Having said that I also sincerely doubt if the real truth will ever emerge.
sp - how can we respect an institution that is out of touch with its subjects, has its self inflicted embarrassing episodes and costs us a fortune to maintain?.