Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:02 pm

Hmm, I wonder, Can anyone ever remember an inquest being delayed for longer than 10 years ? Who on earth has the power to delay judgement to such an extent, not to mention, to install their very own Kangeroos ? FEAR of a cover-up over Princess Diana’s death deepened yesterday as it emerged that attempts to reach the truth have been delayed once again. The complexities of an increasingly difficult investigation mean that her full inquest will not now be heard until 2008, the Daily Express can reveal. So the public will have had to endure an agonising wait of more than 10 years for the truth to emerge – a decade marked by official attempts to cloak her mysterious death in secrecy. Last night a source close to the inquiry said: "Ten years is a scandalous length of time for something so important to drag on. People deserve answers, they want the truth." Amid that clamour, evidence has emerged of fresh delays and confusion continuing to hamper the inquiry into the deaths of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed in a Paris car crash in 1997. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the former judge appointed to handle the inquests, has yet to meet Lord Stevens, the ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner overseeing the £4million inquiry into the deaths. Insiders are astonished that the judge, who has come out of retirement to handle the inquest, has still not arranged her first meeting with her chief investigator. It underlines, they claim, the lack of urgency which has bedevilled attempts to provide a full and compelling explanation of the night of August 31. Sources are also concerned that the former High Court judge is engaged in a number of other projects which may add to delays in the Diana case. The scale of her task, in a role which experts acknowledge is not the 73-year-old family court specialist’s area of expertise, is staggering. She will have to study an estimated 20,000 documents, including 1,500 witness statements compiled by the detectives staffing the inquiry by Lord Stevens, whose report will not be presented to the new coroner before next year. Lady Butler-Sloss is likely to try to ease public anger over the scandal by tabling a series of preliminary hearings next year. Critics fear that she may be persuaded to hear some evidence in private, with lawyers arguing that national security could be at risk. Too funny ( slim) They are also deeply worried that the judge may try to avoid holding a joint inquest into the deaths of the Princess and Dodi by citing ancient rules governing hearings into royal deaths. Legal experts say that Diana’s inquest might have to be held within the jurisdiction of the Royal Household, and any jury made up of Buckingham Palace lackeys. Opponents claim this rule does not apply because Diana, who divorced Prince Charles in 1996, was no longer a member of the Royal Household when she died. Such a move is certain to provoke further claims of a cover-up, but Diana campaigners fear that Lady Butler-Sloss may try to get around such a problem by choosing not to involve jurors. Sources close to the judge have already indicated that she may choose this option "to maintain confidence in her independence," a claim likely to be challenged by many. Lady Butler-Sloss declined to answer a series of questions tabled by the Daily Express to establish what progress she had made. Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were killed with their chauffeur, Henri Paul. A two-year investigation in France blamed Paul for losing control of the car, which was being chased by paparazzi, because he was drunk and high on prescription drugs and driving too fast. But Lord Stevens has admitted that his exhaustive investigation has uncovered fresh witnesses and scientific evidence that the Princess’s death was ‘far more complex than any of us thought." Fears that Lady Butler-Sloss may turn out to be an Establishment mouthpiece were heightened recently when her appointment as Deputy Coroner for the Queen’s Household and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey, where Dodi Fayed is buried, was publicly welcomed by Buckingham Palace. (et cetera et cetera et cetera ) Link ; <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=599">www.express.co.uk/news_de...ml?sku=599</a>

by **Seamus OBlimey** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:33 pm

--------------------------------------- "It was Diana's involvement in the anti-personnel landmines that made this appalling weapon of war a global issue and persuaded many countries to sign the Ottawa Convention. Her involvement made a real difference, not just to those people running the charities, but to those people who were helped by them." With Diana gone, who is going to take her place? She really brought attention to the Red Cross. She just had that touch and personality to grab the attention all around the World. Dana, 36 Dallas, United States The Red Cross has made a deliberate point of not trying to find a replacement for Diana. She was, I agree, a very powerful communicator - and for many different causes - but I don't think we should try to find one single person to fill her shoes. Apart from being hard, I do not believe it would be a very helpful to the Red Cross in general and the landmines campaign in particular. What we have tried to do therefore is tackle the landmines campaign in a different way by using a range of people to help keep up the momentum. Everyone, we feel, has something unique to offer and though many would say Diana was more unique than most - if such thing were possible - anyone who is willing to give us support makes a very valuable contribution. Who chose David Ginola to take on Diana'a role in highlighting the landmine issue and why? He seems a bizarre and inadequate replacement to me. Kieran Miles, 29 Washington, United States David Ginola has not been taken on to continue where Diana left off but the press has in its own inimitable way chosen to highlight his involvement as if he had because they know it wiil sell newspapers. The French Red Cross was looking for someone high profile to help them in their work and a contact in the British office suggested David because they knew him and because he is French. It just so happens that he also plays for the English football team Tottenham Hotspurs which meant he was also able to work with the British Red Cross on the landmines campaign. However, despite the interest of the press, David is just one of many celebrities who support us in our work. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/diana_one_year_on/q_and_a/fri_response.stm">BBC</a> ---------------------------------------------

by **Byrne** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:10 pm

More on Butler-Sloss <a href="http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/butlerslossed.html#comments">here</a>

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:30 pm

Nomo, can you hear me ? I have a few questions for ya <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Bvo, are you there ?

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:44 pm

JFK....pissed off with war.......butchered by the KKK. RFK ....ditto...........................ditto MLK......pissed off with folks who seem to believe they are better than others . .........butchered by the KKK Pope JP1....sick of the KKK that surrounded him.Sick of arms dealing , drug dealing soulless pimps who have hijacked this planet Lasted an amazing 33 days before being butchered by the cretinous soulless ones. Princess Di.........see all of the above. Fuck the KKK.

by **greencrow0** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:34 am

Diana knew what the illumanti was all about before any of us did. She was brave and paid the price. One of these days...her two boys will just go ballistic about her death. Remember I said this. gc Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 10/24/06 11:46 pm

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:40 am

Everyone of us who knows the truth need to go "ballistic". The reason the serial killers of all our leaders and dreams get a way with it is because in our passivity we are complicit. The question is, how to "go ballistic" most effectively...Was Steven Jones effective or was he their tool?

by **antiaristo** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:21 pm

Interesting development here. Anybody see the Hegelian Dialectic at work? Anybody see the strategy, what's really going on here? (small prize for the winner) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Charles wants multi-faith coronation service Last updated at 00:15am on 26th October 2006 Reader comments (42) Prince Charles wants a multi-faith service when he is crowned King, it has been claimed The Prince is said to have decided that the Christian service in Westminster Abbey must be followed by a separate ceremony involving religious leaders from other faiths. Held in the ancient Westminster Hall inside the Palace of Westminster, the service would attempt to give room to Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh beliefs as well as other Christian denominations. Prince Charles believes reforms to the coronation are vital to reflect the changes in British society that have taken place since the Queen was crowned in 1953, according to a report in this week's Spectator magazine. It also claims he has been appalled by the string of politicians "sounding off" about multiculturalism, in particular the wearing of the veil by Muslim women. Clarence House refused to comment on the claims. It has always declined to discuss Prince Charles's coronation plans while the Queen is alive. However, a senior source told the Daily Mail that the accession plans had been reviewed last year, though he insisted this was "routine." The prince, who will become Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes king, has already said that he wants to be Defender of Faith - not Defender of the Faith - when he accedes to the throne. He is close to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who has called for a multi-faith coronation. That puts him at odds with Rowan Williams, his successor, and with most Anglican bishops, who oppose such a move. The crowning of the sovereign has taken place for almost 1,000 years at Westminster Abbey. The new king or queen takes the coronation oath which includes a pledge to maintain the Church of England. At her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to uphold "the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and maintain and reserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England." The Spectator article quotes a courtier as saying the Queen recognises, however, that she has no say over her son's coronation service. "Her Majesty has carried out her duties to the letter throughout her life and she knows that they extend to the very end of the final act," he says. "She recognises, however, that she should not exert her influence one second beyond the conclusion of her funeral. The coronation is a matter solely for the PoW." The report says Prince Charles is keen that his coronation should "bear his imprimatur" and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a new era and a new kind of reign. Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she felt to be too sacred. But Prince Charles is said to believe that such deference is now inappropriate. He also wants the service truncated into a "less unwieldy' and more 'focused and telecentric" event, according to the report. He also believes it should acknowledge the religious diversity of the country that he will be ruling. The report says that following the formal Christian ceremony in the Abbey, the Prince wants here should be a separate interdenominational ceremony in Westminster Hall to reflect his desire to represent the peoples of all religions. The separate gathering would be unlikely to take place immediately after the formal Christian coronation, but at a later date. While Labour politicians have attacked the failings of multiculturalism in recent months, the idea of a separate coronation service to meet the requirements of other faiths has recently been mooted by the Evangelical Alliance, which represents a million evangelical Christians in the UK. "It is no secret that the PoW has long felt passionately about this matter," the courtier added. "His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks." "It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions." "As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the entire country to follow."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412614&in_page_id=1770">www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...ge_id=1770</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 10/26/06 10:22 am

by **HMKGrey** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:20 am

Welcome back, Anti. Great to hear from you.

by **1 tal** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:52 am

Oo, Oo ... I know: "...Mr Williamson, a royalist, claims that the law is clear. â€œA member of the Royal Family cannot have a civil marriage, cannot be divorced, cannot marry a divorcÃ©e, cannot marry in church, and cannot marry abroad if he wants to become king,â€

by **greencrow0** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:04 am

Perhaps, rather than focusing on the trappings of ceremony.... ...Charles would do better to concentrate on why the United Kingdom... has become the largest aircraft carrier in the United States Navy.... much to the disgust of the world. gc

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:12 am

Thank you, oh Rigorous ones. It will be more sporadic. I can see I've bored many readers who perceive me as having said the same thing over and over..... not understanding that it is the same laws being used over and over again by different members of the Windsor family. Anyway. 1 tal wins the prize <blockquote>Quote:<hr>he's tryin' to do an end-run around the church!<hr></blockquote> He's trying to get the next Coronation done BEFORE the inquest into Diana. Once Camilla is queen she is fireproof (Treason Felony Act) - it won't MATTER about any inquest. And he's using the threat of disestablishment against the Anglican Church if they don't go along. That's the solution to the "Muslim Problem", isn't it? [This thread charts some of the recent background <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm29.showMessage?topicID=191.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=191.topic</a> ] As regards Butler-Schloss, all you need to know is the oath sworn when she became a privy counsellor <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Oath of a Privy Counsellor You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty’s Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty  SO HELP YOU GOD <hr></blockquote> I'm going to put up a fairly substantial post on the privy council over the weekend, so I won't go into it on this thread. But look one more time at those closing words from the Daily Mail. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks." "It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions." "As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the entire country to follow."<hr></blockquote> Thanks, Charles. For telling us WHY the British government has been pursuing "schitzophrenic" policies on Islam. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/nfaith08.xml">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...aith08.xml</a> For telling us WHO benefits from trashing the democratic process and "the politicians". Cui bono? Obvious!

by **Seamus OBlimey** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:43 am

I wonder why the Mirror (daily UK tabloid) had a full page yesterday on.. --------------------------- THE GREAT PRETENDERS Royal wannabes and their claims to the throne By Nick Webster ROBERT Brown says he's the secret, illegitimate son of Princess Margaret. The Jersey -based accountant (right) has launched a court bid to establish his claim, which, if successful, will leave him 12th in line to the throne. If not, he's just the latest in a long line of royal impostors. Luckily for him, these days they don't cut off the heads of men who would be king. Here, we take a look at some of the other great pretenders... JAMES ALEXANDER STEWART THE Scottish-born Canadian folk singer was unaware of his royal connections until an amateur historian traced his family tree back to Stuart king Robert II, grandson of Robert the Bruce, who ruled between 1371-90. After 20 years of research, Iain Fleming, 63, from Mother well, believed that he had found the rightful king of Scotland - and possibly England - in the now 57-year-old crooner. Iain said: "His heritage is as straight as an arrow. It's definite he is the true king of Scotland." PRINCE MICHAEL OF ALBANY HE styled him self HRH and claimed to be a direct descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie. But, in reality, Michel LaFosse, 48, is the son of a Belgian shopkeeper. Fosse lived in Scotland for 30 years and decorated himself with several grand titles. But earlier this year he fled back to his mum's house in Belgium after facing fraud charges. ANTHONY I STANDING on a soapbox in the middle of Birmingham's Bull Ring in 1931, Anthony Hall declared himself king and George V a German impostor who should be executed. These colourful claims by a former policeman and First World War ambulance driver were taken seriously by George. Hall said he was descended from an illegitimate son of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. At first the government tried to have Hall sent to an asylum and then threatened him with imprisonment and hard labour. He died in anonymity in 1947. BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE CHARLES Edward Stuart's supporters referred to him as King Charles III, a title the current Prince of Wales will eventually assume after the death of his mother. Charlie's rebellion of 1745 came to grief at the Battle of Culloden. And the beaten royal wannabe only escaped capture by disguising himself as a maid. His death in 1788 ended any realistic chance of the Stuart dynasty ever regaining the throne. PERKIN WARBECK WARBECK claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, one of the two princes in the Tower probably murdered by their uncle Richard III in about 1483 in his bid for Henry VII's crown. He gained support from powerful foreign monarchs including Charles VIII of France, the Holy Roman Emperor and James IV of Scotland - and crucially the recognition of the Duke of York's aunt Margaret of Burgundy. However, after three failed invasion attempts he was captured by the king's men and hanged as a traitor. LADY JANE GREY FAMOUSLY, she ruled for only nine days as the uncrowned queen of England in 1553. Her mother was a niece of Henry VIII and, after the death of the notorious king's only son Edward VI, his will was discovered to name her as his heir. This was a transparent attempt to keep the throne away from Edward's Catholic sister Mary. But Mary gathered a 20,000-strong army, deposed Jane and had her head chopped off. LAMBERT SIMNEL SHORTLY after the first Tudor king Henry VII (left) won the throne at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, he was challenged by a 10-yearold boy. Simnel was probably a son of a baker, but Tudor enemies championed him as the Earl of Warwick, a real claimant to the throne who was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Whisked off to Ireland, Simnel became the figurehead of rebellion after being crowned in Dublin as King Edward VI. Captured at the battle of Stoke in 1487, Simnel was pardoned and given a job in the royal kitchens. He died in 1534 aged 60. UBERTO I UBERTO Omar Gasche would be King of England if English monarchs were allowed to marry Roman Catholics and the throne could be inherited by the oldest child, rather than the oldest son. Instead, the eccentric Italian aristocrat with a droopy moustache breeds mastiffs rather than corgis. Gasche is descended from the Stuart kings and the Jacobite pretenders who succeeded them. FRANCISCO MANOEL THIS Portuguese furniture restorer claims descent from a love child of Queen Victoria and the Duke of Wellington. The 43-year-old from Lisbon whose mother (right) is said to resemble the Queen, has written to HRH asking for DNA samples to prove his point and to meet the Royals. If true, Victoria was only 15 when she became pregnant by the 64-year-old widower Duke. Francisco detailed his claims in a book, a copy of which he sent to Buckingham Palace and dedicated to "my dear cousin Elizabeth". THE OLD PRETENDER IF James Francis Edward Stuart had gained the throne he would have been the longest-serving English monarch ever, reigning from 1701 to his death in 1766. But it was his Catholic faith which denied him his goal and condemned him to exile after his father King James II was deposed in 1689. After two failed rebellions the man known to Jacobites as "the king over the water" ended as an exile in Rome's Vatican. nick.webster@mirror.co.uk <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_method=full%26objectid=17992360%26siteid=94762-name_page.html">The Mirror</a> ------------------------------------ No commentary, no reason why this is a story. Wasn't Diana from the Stuart bloodline? Didn't Charlie invoke the wrath of King Philip by refusing to join the masonic order? If divorcees are not allowed on the throne can Charlie ever be king? If not then how can Willie? Doesn't succession then fall to Andrew? But he's a divorcee too, so then to Edward? Maybe not... -------------------------------- The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701). When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers. It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his title through misgovernment. The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by statute; the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne. The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this. Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic. The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession. Line of succession Sovereign 1. The Prince of Wales 2. Prince William of Wales 3. Prince Henry of Wales 4. The Duke of York 5. Princess Beatrice of York 6. Princess Eugenie of York 7. The Earl of Wessex 8. The Lady Louise Windsor 9. The Princess Royal 10. Mr. Peter Phillips 11. Miss Zara Phillips 12. Viscount Linley 13. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones 14. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones 15. The Lady Sarah Chatto 16. Master Samuel Chatto 17. Master Arthur Chatto 18. The Duke of Gloucester 19. Earl of Ulster 20. The Lady Davina Windsor 21. The Lady Rose Windsor 22. The Duke of Kent 23. The Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor 24. The Lady Amelia Windsor 25. The Lady Helen Taylor 26. Master Columbus Taylor 27. Master Cassius Taylor 28. Miss Eloise Taylor 29. Miss Estella Taylor 30. The Lord Frederick Windsor 31. The Lady Gabriella Windsor 32. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy 33. Mr. James Ogilvy 34. Master Alexander Ogilvy 35. Miss Flora Ogilvy 36. Mrs. Paul Mowatt 37. Master Christian Mowatt 38. Miss Zenouska Mowatt 39. The Earl of Harewood <a href="http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page389.asp">www.royal.gov.uk</a> -------------------------------- Does this mean Lord Blair of Sedgewick (or his "democratically elected successor) gets to decide? Now I know what they mean by right royal fuckup!

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Does this mean Lord Blair of Sedgewick (or his "democratically elected successor) gets to decide?<hr></blockquote> Heh, heh, heh! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Seamus, If you still harbour an illusion that the great actor (or indeed, any commoner) gets to decide anything, you can put your mind to rest by running two searches: Queen Mother funeral Blair Black Rod and Irvine Chancellor young Blair They've always known Blair was a tool. The answer to your question is that the privy council will decide. As I wrote, I will post something more substantial over the weekend.

by **Seamus OBlimey** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:22 pm

I'm looking forward to it anti, we don't hear enough from you here now. Meanwhile here's a a little ditty from some friends of mine... ---------------- Lambert Simnel Bearing a superficial resemblance to the late Earl of Warwick, is insufficient grounds for giving you the job. Lord Derby thought his tarot cards would never tell him lies With a Yorkist Sunne in Splendour thought he'd backed the winning side That was on the field at Bosworth back in 1485 There was Stanley there was Percy with a pricetag on his shield Jackie Duke of Norfolk and Lincoln in the field There was weeping Henry Tudor with his sinus' and seals And ships lined up from Dungeness to Dover While the liar and the unicorn were fighting for the crown King Richard in the middle and the centre giving ground The Percys cast a sovereign up and lay their weapons down I was born of an Oxford joiner there and only twelve years old When the preacher took my measure ambition took me hold And I met the Earl of Lincoln and the jeunne d'armes De La Pole First they crowned me king in Dublin and we crossed the Irish sea Lord Derby sought his tarot cards a vision for to see Of one hundred thousand Furness men standing on the glebe But he cut the pack and turned the fool's card over When we failed to raise the commons we failed to raise the peers Back we rode like madmen through the missiles and the jeers With the sky as black with arrows as our boots were wet with fear Both John le Pole and Lincoln bold were better men than me To death they went impenitent and turning took their leave Saying never make concessions to placate the enemy While Henry Tudor licked his lips his lips he licked with glee As I trembling knelt before him his mercy to receive And when he sent me to his servant halls the closets for to clean I gladly kissed his ring and called him master Now Lord Derby and his tarot cards are scattered to the wind The hanging men are laughing as the tide is coming in And I'm a kitchen porter now instead of being King Chords: Intro. C F C G C F G Verse C F G C F G C <a href="http://www.blythpower.co.uk/lyrics/King/lambert.htm">Blyth Power</a> -------------------------------

Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

I wonder if Nomo read this thread.

Join the fucking dots folks.....

Re: Join the fucking dots folks.....

ballistic

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Anybody see the strategy, what's really going on here?

Re: Anybody see the strategy, what's really going on here?

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Re: Diana ; Inquest delayed to Ten Years.

Who is online