When a couple of people retrieved a body of a person who drowned at sea, what they saw wasn’t quite what anyone would expect.
Dozens Of Fish squeezed themselves out of a dead man’s neck once he was brought to show. These fish made their way in to the body through the neck area and were eating the body from inside out, unfortunately for them the body was recovered and brought to show before they could finish what they started.
this however the sad destiny of anyone who drowns in a sea, river or lake.
Nicki’s 2015 VMA night was off to a great start — she performed “Trini Dem Girls” and then brought out Taylor Swift to collab on “The Night Is Still Young” and “Bad Blood” to open, and then she took home the award for Best Hip-Hop Video for “Anaconda.”
But she wasn’t all smiles in her acceptance speech.
After having some fun on the way to the stage — she paused for a quick dance break before walking up the steps and to the mic — the Young Money rapper launched her speech with plenty of positivity.
“I wanna thank my beautiful fans,” she said. “I love you so much. You guys are so epic and I hope you follow your dreams.”
But then, when she was getting ready to toss back to host Miley for the introduction of the next segment, she ripped into the night’s host.
“Back to this bitch that had a lot to say about me the other day in the press; Miley, what’s good?”
Miley, from a different part of the stage, quickly hit back: “Hey, we’re all in this industry, we all do interviews and we all know how they manipulate sh-t. Nicki, congratulations.”
If you’re a little confused, here’s what’s going on here: Nicki’s comments were in response to an interview Miley gave with The New York Times last week, where she was asked about Nicki and Taylor Swift’s online war of words.
“What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind,” she said. “It’s not very polite. I think there’s a way you speak to people with openness and love. You don’t have to start this pop star against pop star war. It became Nicki Minaj and Taylor in a fight, so now the story isn’t even on what you wanted it to be about. Now you’ve just given E! News ’Catfight! Taylor and Nicki Go at It.’”
Right after she got off the stage, Nicki hopped onto Twitter for a good laugh.
Transgender actress and model Viviany Beleboni became the center of a big controversy after a gay pride event in São Paulo on June 7.
In preparation for the event, Beleboni asked FX artist Dennis Dal Ballo to do her makeup to simulate Christ’s crucifixion wounds.
Del Ballo posted some really intense shots of the makeup to his Facebook.
According to Brazilian news outlet O Globo, Beleboni appeared crucified on a parade float in order to call attention to what LGBT people suffer in Brazil, drawing parallels to Jesus’ suffering on the cross.
The sign above Beleboni’s cross read: “Enough of homophobia.”
Prominent local pastor Marco Feliciano posted this photo questioning whether her protest went too far because it included religion.
Images that contradict, harm, and hurt:
Do you think it’s right to do this. It’s freedom of speech isn’t it?
Is it right to mock faith at the door of a church?
Is it right to have Jesus do a gay kiss?
Is it right to insert a crucifix in my anus?
Is it right to sexualize Catholic symbols?
But I can’t say I’m against it. That makes me intolerant right?
However, other Facebook pages have sprung up supporting Beleboni and her right to free speech.
This is also not the first time crucifixion imagery has been used in mainstream media in Brazil.
As recently as 2012, sports magazine Placar featured famous footballer Neymar crucified on the cover.
Fashion spreads have featured models in the pose.
And back in 2001, Placar also did it with soccer player Marcelinho Carioca.
A wheelchair-bound pensioner who married a Tunisian toyboy 36 years her junior has spoken of her heartbreak after he left her after just a fortnight of married life in Britain.
Patricia Hancocks, 64, met Mondher Mezni, when he was 26 on an online dating website and believed at last she had met ‘the One’ – but now fears he ‘only married me for a visa’.
The couple enjoyed a whirlwind romance and got engaged after just 19 days together, on Ms Hancocks’ second holiday to Tunisia to visit her toyboy.
New life: Patricia Hancocks, 64, met Mondher Mezni when he was 26 on an online dating website and after a short engagement they married, but two weeks after moving in together in Britain he left her
Fears: Ms Hancocks has claimed that her husband, 36 years her junior, may have only married her for the visa she helped him secure, left and right
They married in north Africa in November 2012 in a lavish ceremony, which included the ceremonial slaughter of a sheep, and she paid for it by living on toast and butter.
After a brief honeymoon they spent eight months apart while the twice-married retired cleaner secured him a visa.
Mr Mezni, now 29, then he moved to her home in Leicester where he stayed at home to cook, clean and care for his new wife before he suddenly fled a fortnight later.
After six months of silence he texted out of the blue and started asking for money from her to support his new life in Britain, while his wife is now slowly saving for a divorce.
She said: ‘He treated me like a princess, and the sex was incredible. I hadn’t felt the touch of a man for so long. I thought he was The One.’
But the couple’s fairytale romance was not to last and Mr Mezni left her after living in her home in Leicester for just two weeks.
Now Ms Hancocks – who is saving for a divorce – has been left questioning whether her husband ever loved her, or whether he was only interested in a visa.
The mother-of-three said: ‘I started speaking to Mondher in summer 2012 and we instantly hit it off. Even over the internet I could feel the chemistry.
‘I hadn’t had a relationship for ages, and wasn’t looking for love but there was just something about him. Pretty soon we were speaking online five times a week.
‘He showered me with compliments and our conversations were the highlight of my day. When he asked me to go out and visit him I jumped at the chance.’
The retired cleaner did not tell her internet lover that she had been in a wheelchair for the past 12 years after suffering from crippling osteoarthritis.
She says: ‘I was anxious. What would he think of me? But I needn’t have worried. The first thing he told me was that I was beautiful. He couldn’t speak much English, but we used a translation app on his phone.
‘When we’d been speaking online he’d done the same. I paid for dinner on the first night, knowing that Mondher didn’t earn much working in a local café.
‘Then we headed to his bedroom in his family home and for the next few days we barely left. After the first time we made love I asked him whether I was too old for him, but he told me I was perfect.’
Whirlwind: The couple were married after 17 days together on Ms Hancocks’ second holiday to his native Tunisia
Wedding: The bride said she lived on toast and butter to pay for her dress and much of the ceremony in 2012
Romance: She said that after their wedding they were madly in love but suddenly things changed after they moved in together
Following the two-week holiday, Ms Hancocks scrimped and saved so she could return.
‘Five days into my next visit we were having coffee when Mondher told me that we were getting married,’ she recalled.
‘By now I’d fallen for him hook, line and sinker, so of course I accepted.
‘My first marriage had ended 25 years ago. I never thought I’d be a bride again. We organised the wedding for just three weeks’ time.’
She bought the rings and back home ordered an ivory gown. But the bride-to-be’s happiness was tinged with sadness as none of her family or friends could make it to Tunisia at such short notice.
She said: ‘My daughters were happy for me, but told me to be careful.
Only the wedding was proving costly for me, so I survived on a diet of butter and toast to afford it.
‘But back in Mondher’s arms I was sure I had made the right decision.’
In November 2012, the couple said their vows at the local register office. Afterwards a sheep was slaughtered to commemorate the occasion.
She says: ‘It was all so magical. Everyone was thrilled for us. The next morning I woke to Mondher handing me a present.
‘When he gave me the small box I was so excited. He’d never got me a present before, and it was just the right size for a ring.
‘But when I opened it, it wasn’t jewellery. It was a pair of false eyelashes. He told me I’d look beautiful in them. I tried to hide my disappointment.’
Message: Ms Hancocks says that after six months of silence she started getting these messages asking for money from her husband who said he had ‘no one’ in Britain to help him
Just a week later Ms Hancocks headed back to the UK without her husband.
She said: ‘There, I worked on getting Mondher a visa, and eight months later I managed to secure him a visitor visa.
‘It was only temporary but I couldn’t wait to live properly as husband and wife. For the first week, life was perfect. We were still in the honeymoon period.
Fresh start: Ms Hancocks says she is slowly saving for a divorce and cannot trust men after what happened to her
‘But then he started to act differently. The chores, sex and compliments all dried up, he said it was like living in a prison.
‘And, just a fortnight after he’d arrived, he packed his bags and moved to Portsmouth. I was distraught. I thought I was going to spend the rest of my life with him.
‘Then everything went quiet, until he text me asking for money six months later.’
The message read: ‘I don’t have no penny baby…if you can send me £100. I don’t have no one to help me in ur country just u baby (sic).’
Ms Hancocks said: ‘After everything that happened I can’t believe he asked that.
‘He broke my heart. I wouldn’t let him break my bank balance too. Though, in all honesty, I’ve spent thousands on flights, gifts and the wedding.
‘Now I haven’t seen Mondher for over a year, and I’m still trying to get my life back on track.
‘We’re still married, but I’m slowly saving up for a divorce. When I feel low I start to doubt whether Mondher ever really loved me.
‘But I don’t need a man. I’ve got my dogs, Benjy, Caesar and Lucy, and they’re my world. Unlike Mondher, I know that they’ll never leave me.’
Mr Mezni, now back in Tunisia, said: ‘I want to forget this problem with my wife. I married her and when I moved to the UK I respected her.
‘When she came out to see me, she came to my family house. She never had to pay for hotel because we accepted her like a member of the family.
‘She never gave me a visa. At first I was happy living with my wife, I cleaned, hovered and did the washing up. But she scared me, so I left to a different town to go and work.’
Like usual, Kanye West’s ignorant comments has found him sitting in the corner on time out…If you recall, Mr. West had some pretty bold things to say comparing the status of his chick Kim Kardashian to our first lady, Michelle Obama. He told The Breakfast Club the following on the subject of politics:
“Don’t nobody care about that Obama wearing…Do you care about Vogue? Do you read that? I don’t care what position anybody got. You are either helping me or hurting me.” This isn’t the first time he’s spoken out against the first lady and president. Last month he told Ryan Seacrest: “No one is looking at what [Barack Obama] is wearing. Michelle Obama cannot Instagram a [bikini] pic like what my girl Instagrammed the other day.”
Word got around town and as it hit the White House, Mrs. Obama responded with some ether of her own:
Hi, it’s Michelle.
Michelle Obama, Barack’s wife. Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America. That makes me the First Lady of the United States of America. Me = Michelle Obama.
I hope all is well.
You know, Kanye, I woke up this morning. In the White House. And one of my aides told me she had something to show me. Something that would make me laugh. A “cute” thing, if you will. It was a series of quotes, Kanye. About my husband and me. About my Vogue magazine cover. And fashion. And classism. They were your quotes. You were the cute thing, Kanye.
And my aide was right. It did make me laugh. Oh, what a hearty White House laugh it was. Tell me, Kanye, what’s your goal with this? Why us? Are you still mad about my husband calling you a jackass a few times? Is that why you’re focusing on me instead of on all the other women who have been on the cover of Vogue? That’s what this is all about, isn’t it? You’re out here all mad simply because we’re stylin’ on you? I know Barack never did apologize for the name-calling, because you know how you men are with your stubbornness. But it’s more than that. It’s bigger than fashion. To you, this has become a couple vs. couple thing. I once overheard some of our summer interns talking about you — about how mad you get when you’re compared to other rappers, because your peers are Jesus and Jobs and Walt Disney. I heard it and actually respected that. It shows you have some drive to be a great man. You should fight to get your respect. I see my husband, the President of the Free World, get disrespected every day. And it tears me apart.
So you have to understand where I’m coming from when I say it’s laughable for my 21-year marriage to be mentioned on the same website as your thing with Kim. Imagine if someone compared you to Papoose, Kanye. Well, you’re Barack’s Papoose. And yes, Kim is my Remy Ma. My husband’s not moving our family out the country so you can’t see where we stay. Because he runs the country, you see. And, again, we live in the White House. Very visible.
An Indian judge has sentenced Bollywood superstar Salman Khan to five years in jail over the killing a homeless man in a 2002 hit-and-run after a night out drinking.
Judge DW Deshpande found Khan guilty of culpable homicide after driving his Toyota Land Cruiser into a group of homeless men sleeping rough in suburban Mumbai after spending the evening in an upmarket bar.
One man was killed and several others were injured in the incident.
Khan, the star of blockbusters such as Dabangg (Fearless), looked stunned as the sentence was read out, according to reporters inside the courtroom.
He had always denied being behind the wheel, but now faces up to 10 years in prison, potentially bringing the career of one of the Indian movie industry’s biggest box-office stars to a shuddering halt.
Khan’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade argued against prison for his client. He said Khan had given generously to charity and was also suffering from a neurological condition.
But prosecutor Pradeep Gharat said that “fines are not enough”, adding that “the punishment has to be a deterrent” to others.
The sentence was expected to be passed later Wednesday.
Trial finally begins after 12 years
The trial began in earnest in 2014 after a series of court hearings and legal hold-ups.
A string of prosecution witnesses, including survivors of the crash, testified that Khan was driving the vehicle when it ploughed at speed into the men sleeping on the street near a bakery in September 2002.
When 49-year-old Khan finally took the stand in March, he pleaded not guilty and told the court that his driver was responsible for mounting the pavement in the upmarket suburb of Bandra West.
The driver testified in court last month that he had been behind the wheel, and that the crash occurred after the front left tyre burst, making steering and braking difficult.
But the judge found him guilty of all charges including driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Khan is likely to appeal the verdict, while the court was now hearing submissions from his lawyers on the length of sentence to be decided by the judge.
A constable attached to Khan’s security detail said in his statement to police that the drunk actor lost control of the car while driving at about 90 kilometres per hour.
“The people were sleeping on the footpath. Salman and (his cousin) Kamaal ran away from the spot,” the constable, who died in 2007 of tuberculosis, said.
One of the sleeping labourers injured in the accident said in his statement that “Salman was so drunk he fell. He stood but he fell again and then he… ran away”.
Khan was ‘only drinking water’
Khan’s lawyers said the action and romantic comedy star had in fact been drinking water all evening and had climbed out of the driver’s seat after the accident because the passenger side door had been damaged.
They also said that the victim, Nurulah Mahbob Sharif, was killed during an operation to move the car, rather than the crash itself, when the bumper fell off and landed on him.
Television news channels carried virtually non-stop coverage on Wednesday, with camera crews parked outside Khan’s home and surrounding the court.
Khan, the son of a respected film writer, has starred in more than 100 films and television shows since his first hit Maine Pyar Kiya (I Fell in Love) in the 1980s.
But the body building actor is no stranger to controversy off screen and he spent more than a week behind bars for killing an endangered Indian gazelle in 1998 during a hunting trip.
The verdict has been keenly awaited both by his fans and Bollywood studios who stand to lose millions of dollars if they have to cancel filming for movies he has been signed up to.
One report by the Press of Trust of India said more than $US31 million was riding on the verdict.
If he were to be jailed, Khan would become the second big-name Bollywood actor to be imprisoned in the last two years.
Sanjay Dutt, the star of a series of gangster movies, is behind bars over possession of weapons linked to several bombings in Mumbai in 1993.
Tall tales: A story circulating in the U.S. media claims Diana and Charles had a secret daughter – although not quite in the way one would expectAmerican tabloid claims ‘Sarah’ is Charles and Diana’s IVF daughter
Says she is the result of a fertilised embryo implanted into doctor’s wife
Globe goes as far as to claim Kate had a ’44 minute’ meeting with ‘Sarah’
Ridiculous tale has even caught the attention of the Spanish media
This weekend, the nation is poised to celebrate the birth of a new royal baby. The Duchess of Cambridge, having already provided us with the heir — a bonny future king in the person of Prince George — is about to complete her dynastic duty by delivering ‘the spare’.
Under the terms of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which now allows females the same priority in the order of succession as males, the new baby, even if it is a girl — as William and Kate are rumored to be hoping — will be fourth in line to the throne, after Charles, William and George, and will maintain that position regardless of the birth of future sons to the Cambridge.
But is this really the case? Certainly not if you pay attention to sensational and scandalous claims that have been circulating in the U.S., and are now making headlines in Spain and other parts of Europe.
Prepare to suspend your disbelief for a moment. For it is alleged that Prince William was not his mother’s first child: that he has a ‘secret sister’, now 33, called Sarah and living incognito in a small New England town in the United States.
How, you may well wonder, can this possibly be true when William was born in June 1982, only 11 months after his parents’ marriage?
The answer, according to this unbelievable claim, is that in December 1980, Lady Diana Spencer, then a 19-year-old virgin, was ordered by the Queen to undergo gynecological tests to establish that she was capable of bearing children before her engagement to the heir to the throne could be announced.
During these tests, so the story goes, Diana’s eggs were harvested and fertilized with Prince Charles’s sperm. The tests proved successful, and the engagement of Charles and Diana was duly announced. Charles, asked if they were in love, responded with his famously cynical observation, ‘Whatever in love means’ — and the embryos were ordered to be destroyed.
But one of the team who examined Diana, a ‘rogue doctor’, secretly held one of the embryos back and implanted it in his own wife. Unknown to her, she became the surrogate mother of the biological child of Charles and Diana.
The baby, a girl, was born in October 1981, ten weeks after Charles and Diana’s fairy-tale wedding on July 29 of that year, and eight months before William’s own birth on June 21, 1982, in the Lindo Wing of St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, where fans are already camping out to catch the first glimpse of Kate and William emerging with their new baby.
There’s more. Sarah is reported as claiming that as she was growing up, she was always being told that she was ‘a dead ringer’ for Diana. Then, in her late 20s, her parents were both killed in a car accident. After their deaths, she came across a diary which revealed that she was the product of a donated embryo and of in vitro fertilization (IVF), which was still in its infancy in the early 1980s.
Sarah says that she attempted to trace the origin of the donated embryo to find out who she really was. But about two years ago, a menacing message was left on her answer-phone, warning her to stop looking if she valued her life.
It’s almost comic. But this tasteless nonsense — part of a long history of ghoulish exploitation of William and Harry’s adored mother — seems particularly tawdry at a time when Kate is about to give birth to Diana’s second grandchild.
Terrified by the thought that her life might be in danger, and haunted by suggestions that Diana’s death in Paris was not an accident but murder, she emigrated to America, where she now lives under a secret identity.
This is the extraordinary account that we are being asked to believe. Far-fetched though it sounds, could there be any truth in it?
As with all conspiracy theories — particularly those relating to Princess Diana’s death — there is always a narrow basis in fact. On her own admission, Diana did undergo a gynaecological examination before her engagement to Charles.
‘I had to be checked out before they would let me marry him,’ she told a close friend, Elsa, Lady Bowker, who was also a friend of mine.
The examination was almost certainly carried out by the late Sir George Pinker, the Queen’s highly respected surgeon-gynaecologist. Understandably, its purpose was to confirm that there was no malformation of the womb or uterus, or anything that might preclude normal child-bearing.
That such an examination would ever have gone to the extreme of harvesting eggs and in vitro fertilisation seems incredible, though one cannot state as a fact that such a procedure did not take place.
The whole story of the secret baby began as fiction — which is perhaps where it ought to have remained. In 2011, a former New York businesswoman, Nancy E. Ryan, living in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, self-published a novel entitled The Disappearance Of Olivia.
Mrs Ryan, who never met Princess Diana, had been fascinated by the first in vitro baby, Louise Joy Brown, born in Oldham in 1978. She considered Diana ‘one of the most fascinating women in my lifetime’ and had ‘read many stories about Princess Diana wishing she had a daughter’.
All this was surely on her mind when she conceived the story of Olivia Franklin, an oncologist who ‘admired Princess Diana and wanted to emulate her’. Her task becomes somewhat easier when she discovers she is Diana’s secret daughter — the result of fertility tests and procedures which somehow led to another woman being implanted with a royal embryo.
In the novel, Olivia is living in hiding, fearful for her life, because of the supposed threat her existence would pose to the Royal Family.
It’s outrageous stuff even for fiction, but, in Ryan’s mind, her outlandish tale was far from risible. ‘I believe my story could have been true,’ she said. ‘Many have told me that they believe my story is entirely plausible.
‘These same people also think that Prince Charles wanted Diana to be fertile . . . that he might have pushed Diana into having her eggs harvested to prove her fertility.’
And, despite the book clearly being a work of fiction, when it was published at the end of 2011, an astonishing media metamorphosis occurred. Almost overnight, the possibility of Diana having had a secret daughter ceased to be fantasy and began to be promoted as fact.
Globe magazine, a mass-circulation supermarket tabloid published in America, devoted its entire front cover to the screaming headlines: ‘Bombshell New Book. Princess Diana’s Secret Daughter!’
Opposite a photo of Princess Diana was a picture of an attractive young girl with shoulder-length blonde hair. The girl’s face and smile bore an overwhelming resemblance to Diana.
Was it perhaps a little too overwhelming? A careful study of ‘Sarah’ — as she had started to be named in reports — revealed identical eyeliner to that used by Diana, identically placed eyes, and identical eyebrows, nose and teeth.
In support of its alleged scoop about ‘rumours the Palace has battled to keep under wraps for decades’ and the ‘amazing details about the young woman’s bizarre birth and why she’s living in hiding’, it appeared that the magazine had taken a picture of the real Diana, tilted it to a different angle and Photoshopped out the lines on her face, then superimposed it on to the body of a young girl.
And if the photograph was a fabrication, the next question to be asked, of course, was whether ‘Sarah’ existed at all — or was she simply a cynical media creation?
Mystery: Exactly how Prince Harry felt about his ‘secret sister’ was not revealed in the ‘expose’
But the legend of Diana’s secret daughter had now been given lift-off into that stratosphere where bizarre rumours are instantly believed.
Four months ago, Globe returned to the subject, devoting its front cover to the announcement, Kate Meets Diana’s Secret Daughter!, again with the computer-created photograph of the elusive ‘Sarah’, who seemed remarkably unwilling to be either seen or heard.
This time the magazine assured its readers that ‘Prince William’s pregnant wife Kate carried out a top-secret mission while in New York — quietly meeting with a woman Palace insiders believe is Diana’s secret daughter’.
A ‘royal insider’ insisted: ‘This was the real reason for the couple’s trip to The Big Apple. The other events were just a cover. William wants to know the truth.’
By way of further explanation, it was alleged that Nancy Ryan’s novel ‘spurred a Palace investigator to probe the old rumours about a secret Diana baby — and the path eventually led to Sarah. That’s when William first learned of her existence.
‘Insiders say William didn’t think it “appropriate” to meet Sarah himself, so he asked Kate to have an informal private chat in New York — and arranged the trip.
‘William was stunned when Kate told him she was a mirror image of his mother and really could be his sister.’
It hardly seems necessary to point out that there is not a word of truth in any of these statements. William and Kate’s visit to the U.S. in December — the first made by either of them to New York and to Washington DC — was planned months in advance and undertaken partly on behalf of the British government.
It was certainly not arranged with the object of meeting a ‘secret sister’ whom neither William nor Kate had any reason to believe exists. The couple carried out ten official engagements during their three-day visit.
In spite of all this, the magazine insisted that Kate ‘nervously waited’ in her suite at New York’s Carlyle Hotel ‘for the arrival of the mystery woman, known as Sarah, who believes she is William’s older sister’.
‘Sources say Sarah was smuggled into Kate’s sitting room by aides under the guise of being part of the royal party’s domestic staff. And an informed insider [yet another one!] has revealed exclusively to Globe that Kate was left almost speechless at her first sight of Sarah.
‘“She’s tall, elegant and the spitting image of Princess Diana,” declares the source. “They spent exactly 44 minutes together while Sarah answered Kate’s questions about her upbringing with apparent honesty.”’
Even if any of this story were true, can anyone believe that William — whose protective attitude towards Kate was so manifest on the day of their engagement — would allow his pregnant wife to deal alone with such a woman?
Globe magazine is also deeply unconvincing in its attempts to suggest the ‘Sarah’ saga has profound constitutional significance.
‘Sources say’, it maintains [still more of those ‘sources’] ‘the existence of a secret Diana daughter won’t sit well in the corridors of power. With historic changes in the constitution imminent, the oldest child — male or female — inherits the Crown. And that would be Sarah, if DNA tests confirm she really is a royal.’
Celebrate: Mail writer Michael Thornton argues the birth of George’s brother or sister should be a time to celebrate ‘not for inventions and falsehoods’
Wrong. Globe is a bit out of step over this. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which amended the long-established rules of succession, allowing the eldest child to succeed regardless of gender, received the Royal Assent in April 2013.
But the Act only applies retrospectively to people born after October 28, 2011, the year in which it was first tabled.
It would not apply therefore to the mythical ‘Sarah’, supposedly born in October 1981, even if she did exist. The Duke of Cambridge’s position as the future King William V would not be threatened in any way. And even if ‘Sarah’ were genuine, it is highly debatable legally whether a biological child of Charles and Diana, born from the womb of a surrogate mother, would have any right of succession to the throne.
But Globe is not about to surrender its prized myth. This month, it has returned to the saga yet again, claiming that ‘Sarah’ has now travelled to Britain for a showdown with the Prince of Wales.
With yet more shrieking front-cover headlines, it insists: Di’s Secret Daughter Confronts Charles: You Killed My Mother! The Most Shocking Royal Story Ever.
And in another highly dubious-looking photograph, a gesticulating Charles is shown apparently in conversation with a young woman with long blonde hair who has her back to the camera.
According to Globe, there is ‘surveillance camera footage’ of this encounter that ‘caught the entire confrontation on tape’. We await its release with bated breath.
And the story has been taken up in Spain, too, where a magazine called Pronto — another supermarket tabloid — has re-told the tale. One result is that an entirely sensible and well-read friend of mine called from Spain to ask if it might be true.
It’s almost comic. But this tasteless nonsense — part of a long history of ghoulish exploitation of William and Harry’s adored mother — seems particularly tawdry at a time when Kate is about to give birth to Diana’s second grandchild. Surely the time is more than overdue for the late Princess of Wales to be allowed to rest in the peace she deserves.
The nation has taken William and Kate, and Prince George, to its collective heart.
The birth of their second child should be an occasion for rejoicing and celebration, not for inventions and falsehoods that might overshadow the new young life that is about to begin.