That this series of installments has proved to be the most popular here at Newsspell has not gone overlooked. Therefore, one has decided to provide one’s loyal readers with the results of additional and recently performed research concerning the creation of the Diana Spencer myth.

As one shall soon observe, it is a myth rooted deeply in the annals of classical antiquity, a mythological story that has appeared over the centuries many times and under many varying incarnations. It is a myth that when meticulously studied, reveals the nuanced methodology utilized by the ruling elite families in their cruel perpetuation of the phenomenon the author has chosen to dub, the actor based reality.

For all intents and purposes, the classical antiquity from which the Diana myth derives truly represents the blinding shroud that has been so thoroughly clasped about the eyes of the masses, shielding them from ever perceiving the enormity of the grand illusion that has perhaps for centuries enslaved their blunted perceptions.

As usual, one would encourage loyal readers to seek out some of the texts one shall observe mentioned, if only to corroborate or to refute the author’s research on this thoroughly mystifying and intriguing subject matter.  

Comparatively, perhaps no other era of human history holds a greater and inherent fascination than that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Much of Western European and North American culture – or so scholarly consensus indicates – rests firmly upon the ruins of its marbled bedrocks. Those concepts of democratic, representative government, as well art, music, sculpture and architecture that have for so long been cherished in the Western world, all allegedly derived from these heralded pair of ancient civilizations.

Arguably however, and above all perhaps the most influential elements to have been passed forward from out of the mists of that era of ancient antiquity, are those surviving myths and philosophies, those conceptual traditions still prevalent today within the halls of prestigious academia. Not even the daily reportage distributed by the corporate mainstream news consumed by the unwitting masses in the West is spared from its vast and all-pervasive influence, and nowhere was this influence more evident than with the story of the towering myth made into the people’s princess, that of the late Diana Spencer.

Though her glittering image may still resonate in the mind, her legend was born out of those same ancient, mythological traditions. Indeed, it may be more accurate to say, Princess Diana Spencer was a myth transformed into royal flesh and then into symbolic tragedy.

Can delving into the dark essence of those very myths, bequeathed to a latter day age from the distant past, somehow manage to illuminate the historical and perhaps even the psychological and symbolic significance of the alleged death of Diana Spencer?

What mythological secrets can be exhumed from the inscrutable tombs of the past, and once unearthed and deciphered, what universal truth will their mysterious message reveal?


The first detail demonstrating Diana Spencer, the former and late Princess of Wales was nothing more than a theatrically created character, can be observed with her alleged birthdate: 1 July 1961 (8+19=27/2 7’s+7=777/intelligence joker code).

Beyond that however, the more deeply one delves into the tragic plot of Diana Spencer’s saga, a greater realization becomes readily apparent, hers is a story that has been told before in varying incarnations, borrowed from the pages of classic, Western literature, and originally conceived from the narrative womb of classical Greek and Roman myth.

According to many mainstream historical scholars and texts, the source of the Hellenized Roman myth of the goddess Diana began at Ariccia, a small town and commune within the Metropolitan City of Rome, central Italy, 16 miles (7/Zayin mind weapon) south-east of Rome nestled between what has been traditionally named the Alban Hills of the Lazio region. The 3rd century Latin grammarian, Caius Julius Solinus, documented that Ariccia was founded by Archilocus Siculus in very ancient times. Later, it was documented that ruins found in the city confirmed existence of settlements from as early as the 8th-9th centuries BC. Per Wikipedia and other corroborating mainstream sources, from the 6th century BC until approximately 338 BC, before the fall of the Roman Republic, Ariccia was the central member of what has been historically termed the Latin League, a confederation of 30 (33/high degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry) towns and villages located in central Italy in and around the outskirts of the City of Rome that banded together for mutual defense against invading enemy forces such as the Etruscans, who during this pre-imperial Roman era were Rome’s prime rival for control of the Mediterranean region.

If one clicks on the photograph available immediately above and examines carefully its details, one shall discover a telltale piece of architecture that should strike an immediate chord of recognition. The architecture to which one refers is the depiction of the high arch rising near the foreground, which is symbolic of Royal Arch freemasonry.

Royal Arch Masonry, also known as “Capitular Masonry”, is the primary part of the York Rite system of the masonic degrees, including the following conferred degrees: Mark Master Mason, Past Master (the title of a Beatles compilation album) Most Excellent Master, and Royal Arch Mason. A similar masonic body exists in the UK, called the Holy Royal Arch.

Within this chapter exists the Supreme Order of the Royal Arch, which is practiced not only in the British Isles, but throughout much of Europe and the British Commonwealth. Within this body of masonry is included the Sacred Order of the Garter, which has been traditionally lead by the sitting British monarch. It’s presiding public symbol is displayed at the link provided below. It should be pointed out, that many of the modern, latter day corporate logos that have become so familiar are in fact symbolic of the occult philosophies hidden or shielded by the exoteric doctrines of all the world’s established religions, and representative of the symbols utilized in all phases of high and low degrees of masonic ritual:

Near this small commune of Ariccia sits Lake Nemi, and it is from the shores of this mysterious lake that the legend of Diana Nemorensis, also known as “Diana of the Wood” is traditionally said to have originated. The lake has been dubbed “Diana’s Mirror”, and loyal readers can no doubt divine the occult significance inherent in that moniker. As legend would have it, the goddess Diana’s sanctuary is near the northern shore of the lake, just beneath the cliffs of the modern city of Nemi. Historically, classical poets of the Roman era rhapsodized quite frequently about the lake in verse, and according to the poets, this lake is to be found situated exactly three miles (there’s that number again, folks/ee=33)  from the town of Ariccia at the foot of Albanus Mons, or the Alban Mount. Around the time of the 4th century BCE, this legend of Diana became Hellenized, becoming part of not only Roman myth, but synonymous with that of the Greek mythical traditions.

The myth and worship of Diana, both in the Grecian and Roman incarnations, romanticizes sacrificial death, particularly that of a king or monarch. Foundationally, the Greek version of the myth is said to have originated with the mythological figure of Orestes, who was said to have been the son of two other mythological figures, Clytemnestra and Agamemnon, characters who both appear in Homer’s classical tale of murder, mayhem, revenge and war, the Odyssey. As the legend would have it, Orestes killed Thoas, a Crimean king, and in fleeing in the aftermath with his sister to Italy, brought with him the image of Diana hidden in a mound of sticks. His bones, the legend continues, were posthumously transported from Africa to Rome and buried at the foot of the Temple of Saturn located on Rome’s Capitoline Slope, beside the Temple of Concord in the Roman forum. In examining the narrative details of this legend or story, it is obvious that similar to the nature of the more well-known and familiar tales of biblical lore, the legend of Diana is meant to be allegorical.

However, the secret or hidden meaning of Diana’s legend is revealed in yet another esoteric work of literature, The Golden Bough, published in 1890.


The scholarly works of the Scottish folklorist and anthropologist James George Frazier are perhaps, along with those of the renowned Joseph Campbell, representative of the most influential bodies of documentation in the studies of mythology and in the field of comparative religion. He is also best known for his seminal tome, The Golden Bough, which was cited soon after its publication by many in the Western academic community as the pinnacle of scholarly documentation concerning the similarities among magical and religious beliefs throughout the ages.

Said to have been inspired by contemporaries such as social anthropologist E .B. Taylor and biblical scholar and editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica William Robert Smith, Frazier’s work also proffers the thesis that stages of human belief pass through three stages: primitive magic, replaced by religion, which is in turn replaced by scientific inquiry. It is interesting to note, that one of the world’s foremost occultists, the infamous Alistair Crowley was an adherent of Frazier’s work, and Crowley wrote of the ritual significance of human sacrifice which echoes the important nexus Frazier ascribed between the occult paradigms of ritual and sacrifice.

It should also be noted, that since the publication of Frazier’s Golden Bough, and despite many noted cultural figures touting its significance through the decades (feminist Camille Paglia has cited the Golden Bough as influential in the development of her own philosophical ideas), Frazier’s insistence on the significance of the annual sacrifice of the Year King, not only its theocratic and sacral significances, but it’s parallels to early Christianity have now experienced waning support among latter day scholars. Nevertheless, could it be that the “death” of the character known as Diana Spencer was a theatrically staged pantomime of the paradigmatic relationship between ritual and sacrifice articulated in Frazier’s Golden Bough?

But, is there a deeper question implied concerning the very idea of historical accuracy when it comes to divining an objective analysis of historical texts culled from the distant past?

For a possible answer, one harks back to Frazier’s contemporary and scholarly colleague, William Robert Smith, who articulated in print his own jaundiced view of the historical method of criticism:

“Ancient books coming down to us from a period many centuries before the invention of printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by editors, who mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book fell altogether out of sight for a long time, and when it came to light again all knowledge of its origin was gone; for old books did not generally have tittle-pages and prefaces.”

But here, in the following passage culled from the volumes of his own writings, Smith becomes decidedly more pointed concerning his views on historical criticism:

“Once more antiquity had handed down to us many writings which are sheer forgeries. In all such cases, the historical critic must destroy the received view, in order to establish the truth.”

Based upon this barbed criticism from a noted scholar and colleague of the very man who wrote and compiled a tome upon which is based the popularly conceived myths of both ancient Greek and Roman culture, and that of the myth of the goddess Diana, could one not conclude that perhaps all of written history up to the point of the invention of the printing press, including those texts which were compiled and reinterpreted by King James’ forty-seven royal scholars, updated ancient texts which came to be known as the latter day version of the Bible so often quoted by modern theologians, is purely based on myth’s ethereal and ungraspable mists rather than the firm foundation of that which resembles scientific, objective truth?

If so, can it be said that any historical text, whether modern or ancient, is indeed an accurate and objective portrayal of historical events?

Furthermore, and perhaps to put it more simply, is it possible scholarly historians have created history purely out of whole cloth, and that the very idea of history is borne out of the repeated reenactment of ancient myths, such as that of the death of Princess Diana?

Could it be, this is the way history has been made for centuries, and that through sheer repetition, whether through word of mouth, the printed word, or through the channels of modern, digital media, the shadows of myth are perpetually and permanently transformed, and then scripted into whatever desired material visions?

Is this truly the grand secret so tightly held by the upper echelons of the International Brotherhood of Freemasons, that the carefully laid bricks of material reality, utilized to build the walls and monuments of history are constructed of nothing more than the shadows and dreams of myth? Is this the true essence of stories such as that of Diana Spencer, that shining historical myth, who in death was made into the people’s immortal  princess?

Once again, one shall include a visual aid so that loyal readers can make up their own minds, so that they might see if the shifting and lying eyes of the mainstream news media sorcerers can convince them of the truth. And when observing, pay especial attention to the news anchor featured at 2:58. Does one recognize her? A word of caution while you’re thinking about it: don’t allow the anchor’s red hair dye to deceive you:

Yes folks, believe it or not, comparative voice analysis reveals that is none other than Diana Spencer’s host actor, Ondine Rothschild, who later adopted the pseudonym Theresa May and became Britain’s Prime Minister.

Like pop star David Bowie AKA Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, she portrayed her role so well she was awarded the rare opportunity of announcing to the world at large the tragedy of her very own death!

Oh and by the way, it should also be noted that the primary profession of Dodi al-Fayeed, Diana Spencer’s companion on that fateful and tragic night, was that of a producer and filmmaker.

Coincidence folks? One should decisively think not.






4 thoughts on “Diana: The myth made people’s princess (Part IV)

Leave a Reply