I try not to be but I am something of a conspiracy theorist. I don’t subscribe to them seriously or fastidiously but I do like to read about them. Let’s face it; they’re often a more interesting read than the facts themselves. One of my favourite conspiracy theories is that of the royal family knocking off Princess Di. I want to believe this theory more than any of the others not just because I’m so anti-royalist, but also because I would like the truth to come out about something in a world where I don’t think the truth comes out about much. The recent report, of course, ‘cleared up’ any confusion over Diana’s death calling it a ‘tragic accident’, and it could well be right. However, of all the conspiracies that someone can think up, this one has to be one of the most plausible. Diana had become nothing short of the thorn in the royal family’s side with all her shenanigans (and the last thing that family tolerates is shenanigans unless they’re being conducted by one of their own), so she was a prime target for bumping off. And if anyone can bump someone off and get away with it, the royal family can. And things like this are certainly food for thought:
Lord Stevens is unlikely to be so lucky. His 900 pages are intended to be the end of the story but, for the community of the institutionally suspicious, they can never be so. Because their central allegation is that the princess was killed by the British establishment, refutation from a man who received a peerage for a lifetime of service to the police will be the equivalent of a press release from Texaco calling global warming a myth.
We’ll never, ever know, particularly not now, but thinking it was a possibility was fun; for me anyway.
(Oh, and I also like to believe that they didn’t land on the moon in 1969. That’s another favourite of mine.)
Another thing I like to believe is that the bible is a load of nonsense (blame my Catholic upbringing): for example, that Mary was no virgin.
One may wonder whether her astonishment resulted from the knowledge that, not having reached the age of puberty, she was not yet ready for motherhood, for virgin in Jewish parlance could designate a girl too physically immature to conceive. The angel, in his answer, seems to argue that God could allow the pre-pubertal Mary to conceive just as he had caused the post-menopausal Elizabeth to become pregnant. Again in Jewish parlance, a married woman past child-bearing age was a virgin for a second time.
The article cited here is explaining it by identifying anomalies in the four gospels (and there were enough of them, let’s face it), but I’m rather more of the opinion that this – the virgin birth – is just one more lie told to us by a Church which thrives on pulling the wool over its followers’ eyes. I’ve tried many times to change my mind about this – largely by talking to people who believe the bible is the Word of God and the Whole Truth – but I remain unconvinced. I’m assuming that after almost 20 years of this line of questioning (I started young), I’m likely to stay unconvinced for a while longer. No, it’s not for me.
It hasn’t been the best day in my world, truth be told, but I don’t really want to get into that here.