Fifteen years ago this morning my wife woke me at 6am with an uncharacteristically robust thump: Princess Diana had been killed in a car crash in Paris after trying to escape the paparazzi in the company of Dodi Fayed. Melodramatic and tacky, it was in that dawn moment close to being that over-used word: unbelievable. "Is it really true?" people later asked each other on the tube as they read the shocking newspaper headlines. It was indeed, and the royal family fell into its gravest crisis since the abdication of the Queen's uncle, Edward VIII, in December 1936. Its response to Diana's death was inept and seemingly callous. If the House of Windsor was saved by the shrewder "people's princess" instinct of its new prime minister, it was not grateful: neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown was invited to last year's royal wedding. – UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: The dove of Britain, now dead, will be remembered forever … And her death was an accident!

Free-Market Analysis: Late last week, the British and American press were in full cry over Princess Diana, the "People's Princess," and how lovely she was – and how she is missed.

Of course, it is always sad when a young person dies an untimely death but in this case one can certainly see power elite dominant social themes at work.

Having rid themselves of her one way or another, the powers-that-be are busy sanitizing her image. The 15th anniversary of her death in a Paris car crash gave them one more opportunity to do so. What we call the Internet Reformation gives a chance to review her passing as well and to draw at least one conclusion from it.

Her death, of course, remains controversial. Some say she was alive after the accident and executed on purpose … as part of a hit on a woman the Royal "firm" couldn't stand and had come increasingly to fear.

The firm being, of course, the British Royal family, which functions more as a business than as a collection of relatives. Step out of line and one is marked for discipline of a graduated sort, from mere humiliation and financial deprivation to something much more severe.

What did Diana think of all of it? In a letter apparently given to her butler Paul Burrell ten months before she died as "insurance" (futile, that), she wrote, "This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous, my husband is planning an 'accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry."

Business mogul Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died in the crash alongside Diana, has famously declared the pair were murdered. His perspective is that Dodi had got Diana pregnant and that the Royal consort Prince Philip masterminded a plot that resulted in the car crash and dual murder.

Does it finally stop there? Here's an excerpt from a Daily Mail article, circa September 2010, entitled, "The full, acrimonious story glossed over by the Queen Mother's new biography."

Diana was secretly recorded saying on her mobile phone to her friend James Gilbey, now running a property search company: 'His (Charles's) grandmother is always looking at me with a strange look in her eyes. It's not hatred, it's sort of interest and pity mixed in one.'

Was it merely Princess Diana's behavior in publicly resisting Prince Charles' affair with his now wife, Camilla? The crux of the issue is likely verbalized by butler Paul Burrell in an interview with talk-show host Larry King (12/5/2002):

She (Queen Elizabeth II) said that there are forces out there of which we have no knowledge. I think she meant there were people working in the country that – listening to telephone conversations and watching people all the time. I'm sure they are. I'm sure they're watching this right now, just to make sure that I'm not saying anything I shouldn't be saying, because the world's a very dangerous place, isn't it? You don't think?

Perhaps the pity that Diana noticed in the Queen Mother's eyes had to do with a kind of reluctant fascination that Princess Diana comprehended some but not all of the forces swirling around her. Money Power is a vicious mistress, subtle and then suddenly savage.

It is quite possible that Princess Diana, like her husband, had the kind of personality that was unsuited to royalty and the royal lifestyle. As the Guardian pointed out in an article, "All hail Her Majesty, the last silent celebrity in the land" (6/1/2012):

… Prince William but most pressingly Charles – appear not to have identified that inscrutability has been the keystone of the Queen's mythmaking. Pettish, peremptory, idiotically conservative, lacking in self-awareness, and perhaps a hundredth as clever as he thinks he is – if only we didn't know quite so much about Charles and his views on everything. There are less scrutable Big Brother contestants. Après mama le déluge?

As for Diana, a 1999 biography by Sally Bedell Smith – Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess – claimed the Princess had a personality disorder. "I can't give a professional diagnosis, but I think it's safe to say that Diana was seriously disturbed for many years," Smith told the [UK] Sunday News. "She suffered from chronic and severe symptoms of the kind that psychiatrists use to describe borderline personality disorder."

Perhaps it was this that brought down the Princess more than any specific stories about damning information she was going to reveal about the Royal Family and its connections. What Diana perhaps did not comprehend fully was that the Royal family in aggregate serves at the pleasure of the City of London and its central banking families.

It is these globalist families that prop up royal prerogatives and have no doubt insisted on supporting the most high profile royal family of them all, the British Royal family.

One can speculate they do it to ensure that the spotlight is directed away from THEM.

They are the true rulers of Britain and indeed most of the world. Britain's empire never really died and Money Power is regnant today as never before.

If one wishes to function in such rarified circles, one must be able to keep one's mouth shut. Simple as that.

It is the Internet itself that has provided us with a frame of reference about Money Power and how it works. Within the context of Money Power's rarified circles, nothing is probably an accident.

The "firm" survives because it serves a purpose. Its drama, traditions and personalities focus subjects on "Britain" and "patriotic duty" rather than the larger globalist effort that has made the nation ground zero for carrying out the conspiracy of global government.

Princess Diana's sad story is neither incidental nor ephemeral but part and parcel of the operation of the larger internationalist plot manipulating British institutions and citizens. Chances are that Prince William and Prince Harry have sustained personality damage similar to Princess Diana, and thus there will be more of these sad stories going forwards.

Because of her personality and apparent lack of a full grasp of the larger power structure, Diana was probably doomed sooner or later – to either a vicious marginalization or death. But her demise surely helped preserve the functionality of the firm and its usefulness for Money Power.

She didn't understand the depths of the waters in which she was swimming. Neither did most of us before the Internet.