A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, August 31, 2010, August 31, 2011, August 31, 2017, August 31, 2020, and August 31, 2022.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). British Royalty Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Paris Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a incorrect statement contained in the article "The jury at a British inquest in 2008 returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the paparazzi."

The correct statement should be The jury at a British inquest in 2008 returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by the driver Henri Paul and the following vehicles.

It was the royal judge in a royal court in his summing up while giving his own opinion. That equated the following vehicles with the paparazzi. This was in opposition to the evidence presented in the trial. That had demonstrated that the eye witness descriptions of the following vehicles large black motorcycles and a large silver car did not match the vehicles a mixture of mopeds one motor cycles and small cars driven by the paparazzi. Or the evidence that the paparazzi did not arrive at the crash until one to two minutes after the crash. The judge also gave his opinion that the following vehicles were not necessarily driving dangerously. The judge withdrew the verdict option of murder and chose the wording of the remaining verdicts. Describing the vehicles that were witnessed surrounding and in front of Diana's car as following rather than surrounding.

The BBC royal correspondent at the trial was the first to misreport and misquote the Jury verdict incorrectly replacing following vehicles with paparazzi. All other media to this incorrect quote as accurate and repeated it.

The verdict was unlawful killing. It is normal for a police investigation to follow such a verdict but not in this case. The following vehicles and there drivers and riders have not been traced. A possible match to the White Fiat Uno involved in the crash in the White Fiat Uno belonging to James Andanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AEE3:F400:85D:EA0F:9D08:D341 (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 billion seems a little high, given the world population at the time was only 5.8 billion. Estimates vary quite a lot:

"The European Broadcasting Union estimated that 600 million people in 190 countries watched the funeral on live television. In the United States, an estimated fifty million watched. [Nielsen Media Research]"^[1]

"The funeral of Princess Diana in September 1997 was perhaps the most widely watched event in the history of mankind. More than 50 million Americans got up at an early hour on Saturday morning to tune in their television sets, and an estimated 1.2 billion were watching around the globe." ^[2]

"By September 1997 an unprecedented 2 billion of the world's 6 billion people viewed live television broadcasts of Princess Diana's funeral, the largest television audience ever to gather for a single event."^[3]

"a staggering 2.5 billion people are estimated to have watched her funeral. If this figure is correct, it means that of the three-quarters of the world's population who have access to television, no less than 80 percent were watching."^[4]

"It is estimated that a billion people watched the funeral service - the world's largest ever TV audience."^[5]

Firebrace (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Death of of Diana, Princess of Wales. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://hovasse.tripod.com/mercenary/diana.htmlMmmarkkk (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what actually killed Diana and Dodi? They were in the back seat, the car went into the pillar head-on. The only survivor from the wreck was the man in the passenger seat, who was presumably closer to the impact and structural deformation of a head on collision. While no place in a car is safe in an accident, the back seats should be safer than the fronts, especially in a head on collision. So what was the actual cause of trauma to the back seat victims? Was it being thrown against the seat backs by the deceleration? Did the passenger in the front have an air bag? This stuff is of medical interest, and there is almost no detail given here. We don't need gruesome injury descriptions, but some sort of explanation of how the man closer to the crash lived and the two in the back were killed would be nice.

64.222.85.154 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In collisions of this type, frontal impact is not the chief danger. Human bodies have evolved to survive front and rear impacts rather better than side impacts; what happens in a side impact is that the heart and other organs become detached from interstitial and connective tissues, producing internal contusions and tears to these organs and large blood vessels. It is my understanding that Lady Diana's injuries were consistent with such an occurrence. Sadly. rowley (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed died in the Pont de l'Alma, Diana technically died at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, and the name of the article is Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. --The Vital One (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flowers for Princess Diana's Funeral.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The S280 Mercedes-Benz in which Diana has died was not armoured, as the Paget Report clearly states, it was a standard sedan. 2A02:A314:C539:BA00:CD28:612D:DB58:C4E7 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense as the Mercedes was doing over 100kph which means the Fiat was going faster still (which is incorrect). Could this ever be clarified for Wikipedia, as far as the wording of the 'circumstance' is concerned, I mean? 120.16.144.78 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Fiat was not going faster than the Mercedes. It had just entered the road from a slip road (highway ramp in American English), and was not going very fast. The fact that it was not going very fast contributed to the accident. Paul was driving so fast that he came up on the Fiat with not enough time to slow down enough to maneuver around it safely. Therefore, he clipped its left rear with the right front of the Mercedes, which pushed the Mercedes to the left. Paul then overcorrected to the right, and the car went out of control and hit the pillar head on.

The word "passing" is inaccurate. The Fiat was not passing the Mercedes. I'm going to remove that word. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is cited to source 43, an article about the differences between French and US Trauma care, and does not back up the statement "Her heart had been displaced to the right side of the chest,[43]" 122.62.143.155 (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D’Oman 70.81.80.212 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lede describes various theories that were published over the years, but I think it would be better to summarize the investigation first and then add something at the end that various other false theories were developed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Trevor Rees-Jones did and did not wear a seat belt. Only one is correct. Extralars (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? There were conflicting reports reports that he wore a seat belt and the article reflects that. DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, the article states that operation paget found that the bodyguard was not wearing a seatbelt, then that he was (both statements depending on operation paget). if the article reflected conflicting information, then it would say something to that effect. instead, it states both contradictory statements as fact. 174.55.229.35 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be two conflicting sentences in the intro and in the earlier events section, both with sources — which one is it? Flyinggrasscat (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

didn't realize this had already been posted, my bad Flyinggrasscat (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]