British Royals news: November 2002 - May 2004

[Jacqueline]

Prince Charles is said to be ordering a formal inquiry into the rape allegations.

Prince orders rape case inquiry
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Posted: 1:15 PM EST (1815 GMT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Prince Charles has ordered an internal review, to be conducted by the private secretary of the heir to Britain's throne, into the collapse of the Paul Burrell theft trial and its aftermath, St. James's Palace said.

Sir Michael Peat will look into allegations that a royal servant was the victim of homosexual rape by an aide to the heir to the British throne, and that it was covered up.

But the queen -- who came forward with crucial information that led to claims that the royal family intervened to prevent embarrassing revelations emerging when Burrell gave evidence -- will not herself be a "witness" in Sir Michael's review as Buckingham Palace said he already knew her side of the story.

The palace inquiry, expected to publish its report for public consumption by Christmas, will also look at the sale of royal gifts by palace staff which has been widely reported in the British press.

CNN's royal commentator Robert Jobson said that for the royal family the inquiry would be "embarrassing to say the least."

The allegations were brought into the public spotlight amid the recent trial of Burrell, Princess Diana's former butler.

Burrell walked free after a statement made by the queen exonerated him. That has prompted questions over whether the queen had withheld information she should have shared earlier -- something an independent inquiry may also look into.

Evidence given in the Burrell case fuelled a frenzy of tabloid stories in the UK, with competing British newspapers promising sensational new revelations. Among the reports is an allegation that male prostitutes were regularly smuggled into the palaces.

Of most concern to the royal family, Jobson said, are the allegations of rape.

"They're hugely damaging," he said. That's partly because the royals held their own investigation in 1996, which they said found no evidence of a rape, but they did not bring in the police at the time.

"There must be some degree of truth in the allegations there was a cover-up," Jobson said, "because there was only an internal investigation."

Under British law, a member of the royal family can be charged and prosecuted -- except for the queen.

The alleged rape victim, George Smith, made his claims in The Mail on Sunday, which paid him for the story. The 42-year-old former valet said he was raped in 1989 by a prince's aide -- who was not identified in the article -- and that the man tried to assault him again in 1995. Smith said Prince Charles "covered it up."

The accused man, without revealing his name, released a statement through his attorneys denying the allegations and calling Smith an "unreliable alcoholic."

Police learned of the rape allegations last year, and held an investigation that concluded in early 2002. They spoke with Smith, but he did not pursue a claim. After Smith's allegations were published on Sunday, a Scotland Yard spokesman said prosecutors had found no grounds for prosecution, and unless Smith comes forward with new evidence "we are not investigating any further."

Lawyers for the man accused said the information Smith gave to The Mail on Sunday did not fully match what he told police.

During Burrell's trial, prosecutors asked him about a tape Princess Diana once recorded in which a royal servant described the alleged rape. The tape has since disappeared. There is no dispute over whether the tape was recorded, but what happened to it is not clear.

The tape's disappearance feeds speculation that there may have been a cover-up.

At a news conference Monday in New York, where Burrell was travelling, he said, "The clear implication was in court that these items were in my possession. They never have been."

After Burrell's trial ended, he was paid £300,000 ($477,000) by the Daily Mirror to share his stories, including that of the tape. He insisted Monday he has not made anything up.

"Telling my story was never about money -- only about truth and justice," Burrell said. "That's what all this is about -- truth."

But Jobson says Burrell has severely damaged his credibility after sharing intimate stories about Diana with the Daily Mirror and scheduling an interview with a major U.S. television network airing next week.

People who want to know the truth about the recent allegations, Jobson said, are looking forward to the inquiry.


ABOVE THE LAW
* The queen is the only person in the UK who cannot be prosecuted

* She is the chief prosecutor and all prosecutions are brought in her name: regina v. .........

* Prince Charles and other members of the royal family can be prosecuted

* The last British royal in court was King Charles I in 1649 for treason... he was executed

* Charles's sister, Princess Anne has been ordered to court on November 21to face allegations her dog bit two children

* Although royals have faced speeding charges in the past they have been dealt with via letter so Anne will be the first royal in court since 1649


Direct link to article, photos and other links: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...als/index.html

[Jacqueline]

Concerning the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

Photographers to stand trial

A Paris judge has ordered three photographers to trial for pictures they took of the 1997 car crash that killed Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.

The move follows a complaint for invasion of privacy filed by al Fayed's father, Harrods owner Mohamed al Fayed, said judicial officials.

The cameramen will only go on trial for the photographs they took of Dodi Fayed, however, since Diana's relatives and the Royal family are not plaintiffs in the case, the officials added.

In April, France's highest court dismissed charges of manslaughter against the photographers - who were pursuing the princess's car at the time - ending years of court battles over who was responsible for the crash.

Link: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_713189.html?menu=

[Jacqueline]

Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 17:18 GMT
Diana memorial fund sued

The memorial fund set up in the name of the late Princess Diana - along with Diana's mother and sister - is being sued by an American company for £16m.

US-based Franklin Mint has launched the lawsuit in the latest twist of a row over a commemorative plate.

The Mint has accused Diana's sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale and her mother Frances Shand Kydd and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund of "maliciously" fighting to retain the rights of the princess's name.

Lady Sarah and Ms Kydd are executors of Diana's estate.

The fund has branded the action "a waste of time."

Mint's legal success

In June, the fund lost an attempt to prevent the Mint producing Diana souvenirs, leaving it facing a £4m legal bill.

The fund and estate had argued the Mint's production of a "limited edition commemorative plate" soon after her 1997 death violated their "exclusive rights" to Diana's name and image.

The estate's action was thrown out after being labelled "groundless and unreasonable".

Now the company is counter-suing.

A fund spokeswoman said: "They are suing us for malicious prosecution.

"We are seeking advice. It's a lot of money they are demanding but, as far as we're concerned, it's a complete waste of time and brought about in very bad blood.

"They have had their cash and won the case - they should let sleeping dogs lie.

"We brought the case in good faith based on legal fact, rather than a malicious whim."

The Franklin Mint is claiming that in 1998, Diana's estate "decided to run a public relations campaign".

It says the estate launched legal action against the mint "on the theory that a high-profile lawsuit must be pursued to send a message to others".

But the US-based company claims the action was "merely an effort to damage the Franklin Mint's sales efforts, embarrass it and sully its reputation".

The mint is seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

A spokesman for the Spencer family did not wish to comment.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2492995.stm

Hey Everyone,

How are you all? This article is from the latest Australian Women's Day, dated November,25th,2002.

It begins with..A year which promised so much has turned into "Annus horribulus" mark two for the Queen and the Royal family. It started badly with the death of Princess Margaret as well as the Queen Mother. Then things improved temporarily with the amazing success of the Jubilee celebrations. But the extraordinary fallout form the acquittal of Diana's butler Paul Burrell on theft charges has tarnished those memories, plunging the monarchy into its worst crisis since the Princess's death in 1997.

No wonder the Queen burst into tears at the Remembrance day service outside London's Westminister Abbey. Not only had the deaths of her sister and mother finally sunk home, in a case of delayed grief, but she also knew that 2002 is most likely to be remembered for the a serious of embarrassing moments rather than her half century of devoted duty.

Diana continues to haunt the Royal family. According to Journalists who knew her best, Richard Kay of Daily mirror, whenever things went wrong in the Palace. Courtiers would say "Its all Diana's doing...she's out on her broomstick again". At the heart of the scandal are the so-called "Crown jewels" which Diana kept in a monogrammed oak box at Kensington palace, her London home. Police were looking for these explosive belongings when they raided the home of paul Burrell - the man Diana called - "her rock".

So what were the box's content and why were they so dangerous that the Queen and Prince charles were desperate to halt a trial? Most damaging was a tape recording Diana has made, interviewing Royal servant George Smith in 1996. The valent claimed that in 1989, when he was 29 years old, he was raped by a senoir male aide to charles and had to fight off a similiar attack six years later on a Royal trip to Egypt. The servant suffered several nervous breakdowns and developed a drinking problem, as a result fo the horrors he witnessed in the falkland wars which led to his wwife leaving him.

Diana who hated the alleged attacker because of his closeness to Prince charles, told George "You will get over this, I have been through worst". She encouraged him to have a drink and to tell her the details of what happened. He told her about a homosexual encounter between a member of the Royal family and a servant. For years there had been rumors that Prince Edward was gay and had a realtionship with a footman. There were even stories that fergie left Prince Andrew because she came home to find him in bed with a sailor. Neither has been proven to be true. But George Smith was given $100,000 pay off to keep his mouth shut. The box also contains letter from Prince Philip to Diana which he called the Princess a "trollop" and a "harlot" and Fergie a "Whore". There was also a signet ring given to Diana by her lover of five years James Hewitt.

The box also contained official papers about Diana's divorce as well as resignation letters from Diana's private secretary who later betrayed her by writing a book about her life. The police did not find the jewellery box at Paul Burrell's home and its whereabouts are a mystery. But they did find more than 300 other items which once belonged to Diana - and charged him with theft. After the Queen eventually remembered a cinversation in which Paul told her about the items for "safe keeping" he eventually walked free on November 11, in a blaze of publicity.

The Queen did not kill the scandal by doing this, but instead opened a Pandora's box of gossip. She has now told friends, "Charles has really dropped me in it this time". For it was the Prince of Wales who was anxious to stop the trial at all costs, to protect himself and his staff.

Paul Burrell has now also betrayed the Princess of Wales, he has always promised not to reveal any secrets. But recently released to the press that Diana used to ask him to go out and buy porn magazines for Prince William. He has also signed a deal with Daily Mirror for 1.3 million dollars as well as other newspapers to write his story. There was reports that Paul Burrell dressed in Diana's clothes and tried to seduce top entertainer, Micheal Barrymore just days after Di's funeral.

At laest two ex-boyfriend's have come out and told about Paul's double life and gay lifestyle. This secret out in the open has shocked his wife and two sons. Australian Greg Pead has branded him a hypocrite and told of a long affair they had when he was a waitor in Sydney. Many are shocked when Paul burrell called himself Diana's rock and then sell her secrets. Maria Burrell who was a former palace maid and dresser to Diana, says that she knew about his double life and that she felt often that there was three people in their relationship.

Same magazine.

Another Butler shames the Queen. Just as the paul Burrell fiasco dies down, a second Royal butler is to go on trial. heaping more misery on the Queen. Harold Brown worked with Paul Burrell for Diana and the late Princess Margaret and became her favourite servant. After the collapsed of the Burrell case, meetings took place between the attorney-general lord Goldsmith and the prosecutors as Brown is accused of stealing more than $1 million dollars worth of valuables from Diana's estate. Allegedlt taken were earrings, a bangle and a gem-encrusted dhow, an Arab boat which was broken down and re-sold.

But the fear for the Royals is that if Harold Brown feels he is heading for prison, he too may expose Palace scandals in court. "The Queen will be just as glad when all this is over" said one courtier, "She doesn't deserve this after 50 years of service. The other bog losers in this saga are the Spencer family, who took a terrible bashing in court. It was revealed that Diana had not spoken to her mother Frances Shand Kydd for the past four months of her life, after she had criticised Diana's choice of boyfriends. Diana's brother Earl Spencer had abgered her by not allowing her to live on his Althorp estate. And her sister Lady Sarah McCorqudale, who once dated Prince Charles, said bitterly, "I thought all this would be mine one day". According to Paul Burrell, the Spencers had found Diana unacceptable in life but she suddenly became acceptable in death at $10.50 ($30 Aus) a ticket for the Earl's museum at Althorp.

[Jacqueline]

Prince Philip denies Diana insults
Saturday, November 23, 2002 Posted: 10:22 AM EST (1522 GMT)

LONDON, England -- Prince Philip has denied writing insulting letters to Diana, Princess of Wales, in the latest twist following the collapse of the trial of royal butler Paul Burrell.

In a statement on Saturday, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II denied calling Princess Diana "a trollop and a harlot."

A statement authorised by the Duke of Edinburgh said: "Prince Philip wishes to make it clear that at no point did he ever use the insulting terms described in media reports, nor that he was curt or unfeeling in what he wrote.

"He regards the suggestion that he used such derogatory terms as a gross misrepresentation of his relations with his daughter-in-law and hurtful to his grandsons."

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Burrell trial, faith healer Simone Simmons said the princess had shown her letters from the duke in which he branded Diana a trollop and a harlot.

Simmons, 47, told a Sunday newspaper the letters were handwritten on cream-coloured A5 headed notepaper, were short and to the point, and signed curtly "Philip."

However, a source close to Prince Philip told the UK's Press Association that the duke typed all his personal letters, rather than write them by hand, and used white A4 paper, not the smaller, cream A5 notepaper.

The royal source told PA said the duke's letters to Diana were not short and were signed "With love from Pa" rather than a curt "Philip."

The whereabouts of original letters have apparently been lost but, according to Prince Philip's Buckingham Palace statement, he kept copies as well as Diana's replies.

But the duke refuses to make the letters public, insisting the correspondence was private.

The authorised statement said the duke started the correspondence in June 1992 "in a friendly attempt to resolve a number of family issues" during the period before the Prince and Princess announced their official separation in December that year.

While the duke would regard any publication of his original letters -- should they be found -- as a breach of his copyright as their author, the emergence of the original letters would confirm his statement, said the royal source.

Should any copies of the letters seen by Simmons, and purportedly handwritten by the duke, be published, the handwriting alone would show these alleged letters did not come from him, said the source.

Whatever letters were seen and described by Simmons, they were certainly not written by the duke, the source added.

The faith healer, who says she was a close friend of Diana for four years, made her statements to a Sunday newspaper two weeks ago, saying she had been prepared to reveal the contents of the letters when called as a defence witness for Burrell.

But a last-minute intervention by the queen caused the trial's collapse and the acquittal of the ex-butler who was accused of stealing 310 items belonging to Diana, the Prince of Wales and their son Prince William.

Simmons told the newspaper Diana kept the bundle of correspondence in a now infamous mahogany box with a signet ring given to the Princess by her lover James Hewitt, and a tape-recording detailing an alleged homosexual rape by a close aide of the Prince of Wales on then Royal valet George Smith.

The contents of the box, referred to during the Burrell trial as the "Crown Jewels", have since gone missing.

Immediately after the damaging allegation against the duke, he considered various courses of action including taking legal advice and making a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, PA reported.

However, on reflection, said PA, the duke and his palace advisers decided to issue a statement -- albeit delayed -- timed for the Sunday media where the allegation first appeared

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/23/uk.philip/

[Jacqueline]

Palace at war with BBC over 'biased diatribe' against Queen
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
(Filed: 01/12/2002)

Buckingham Palace has sent a furious letter to the BBC complaining that a report by the Corporation's "flagship political programme" on the future of the monarchy was biased and inaccurate.

In a rare move, one of the Queen's most senior officials formally protested about last Sunday's On The Record on BBC1, which her aides thought was irresponsible and potentially damaging. They were particularly incensed that a public service broadcaster should screen such a one-sided report.

"The programme was inaccurate and extremely biased," said one Royal official yesterday. "Our letter takes the BBC to task and criticises it for broadcasting a diatribe against the monarchy."

The Telegraph has discovered that the letter was sent by Penny Russell-Smith, the Queen's press secretary, to David Jordan, the editor of On The Record, on Friday. It was done with the knowledge - and support - of the Queen's private office.

Miss Russell-Smith criticises the BBC for not seeking a "right of reply" from Buckingham Palace and for not checking facts, particularly over the Civil List payments, the money paid annually by Parliament for the Royal Family's expenses.

There has been a series of disagreements between Buckingham Palace and the BBC in recent years. In 1995 the BBC's Panorama programme broadcast a sensational interview with Diana, Princess of Wales. It was screened without Marmaduke Hussey, then the chairman of the BBC, being forewarned, because his wife, Lady Susan Hussey, was a lady-in-waiting to the Queen.

The following year, in apparent retaliation, the Palace ended the BBC's monopoly of producing the Queen's Christmas Broadcast. Two years ago there was private anger within the Royal Family at the BBC's refusal to broadcast live coverage of the Queen Mother's 100th birthday celebrations.

Buckingham Palace has become more active in challenging inaccurate and unfair stories. Last weekend Prince Philip publicly denounced as fictitious claims in the Mail on Sunday that he had called the late Princess of Wales "a harlot" and a "trollop" in letters to her in 1992.

In the On The Record report, Gloria De Piero, the BBC reporter who presented the item, said the Golden Jubilee celebrations had been "spectacular but expensive", costing nearly £500,000 from the Civil List, "the £7.9 million a year we give the Queen".

The BBC in its poll of MPs asked whether the Civil List should be cut back, which in turn "would reduce the money available for the Queen's extended family, for her staff and for a suitably regal lifestyle", said Ms De Piero.

There was no mention of the Queen's reforms to the Civil List. Since 1990 she has repaid all Parliamentary annuities to members of the Royal Family with the exception of those for the duties carried out by herself, Prince Philip and the late Queen Mother.

Payments for eight other members of the Royal Family, totalling more than £1.5 million a year, are reimbursed to the Government. There was also no mention of the Queen's decision in 1993 to pay income tax.

Ms De Piero opened her report by saying that "a poll last week showed even lower public support for the royals than at any time since Diana's death. An embarrassing court case, allegations of rape and rumours that you're raising cash on the side are bound to spoil the festivities".

The report continued with interviews with committed republicans and Left-wing Labour MPs. Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West, said the popularity of the monarchy had "collapsed in ruins and we had these stories that are more reminiscent of a porn movie, or the fencing that takes place in an Arthur Daly shop".

A spokesman for the BBC declined to comment on the criticisms of On the Record, which is presented by John Humphrys. "We have no indication that a letter of complaint has been sent or is being sent," he said.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

[Jacqueline]

December 04, 2002

Prince's wedding-ring note widens palace inquiry
By Andrew Pierce

THE emergence yesterday of a note from the Prince of Wales, which offers his staff the chance of a “very good gold wedding ring”, is the first written evidence that senior members of the Royal Household are involved in the lucrative sale of private gifts.
The disclosure of the note, scrawled on the back of an old envelope, will intensify demands for a proper independent inquiry into the royal-gifts-for-sale practice endemic within the Royal Household.

The swift agreement of St James’s Palace, after questions from The Times, to extend the investigation to cover the fallout from the collapse of the Harold Brown case will increase pressure for similar transparency on the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who authorised the trial to go ahead despite the collapse of the Paul Burrell case.

St James’s Palace was at pains yesterday to say that it had never denied that senior members of the Royal Family, including the Prince of Wales, regularly gave their employees expensive gifts.

The Harold Brown prosecution team was told as much more than two years ago and the witness statement from Mr Burrell, butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, made the same point. The information given by St James’s Palace to the prosecution was that the Prince regularly gave champagne and polo prizes to staff.

However, few gold wedding rings are given as prizes in polo.

The Peat Inquiry, which is being assisted by Edmund Lawson, QC, will look at the flourishing grey market in royal artefacts, which has included chairs used at the investiture of the Prince of Wales, menus from the Queen’s Flight, books given to the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother by her grandchildren, and wrought-iron chairs from the garden at Highgrove.

They were sold through upmarket jewellers, on the internet and through newspaper advertisements. The Prince of Wales has himself benefited by more than £100,000 a year from the sale of gifts no longer wanted or loathed in the first place. They were sold on his behalf by Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers, who kept about 20 per cent from the sales, earning him the nickname Fawcett the Fence.

Mr Fawcett remains a paid and trusted member of the Prince of Wales’s most intimate circle of advisers.

The existence of the envelope suggests that the largesse over royal gifts extends to all 85 of the Prince’s employees.

Sir Michael, in a series of interviews when he announced last month the establishment of his inquiry, admitted that the rules distinguishing between public and private gifts had become “blurred”.

Guidelines at the palaces, which have been in existence for years, state that official gifts given during engagements have to be catalogued, displayed, put on loan or in storage. They are not subject to tax because they belong to the nation.

Private gifts are barred to members of the Royal Family if they are cash or of a commercial nature. However, as with any private individual, private gifts can be disposed of in whatever way they regard as appropriate. The wedding gifts of the Prince and Princess of Wales, which were numbered in their hundreds, were regarded as private, even if they came from heads of state. Staff members are entitled to gifts: they are logged if they are valued at more than £50.

Mr Brown, a servant of Diana, Princess of Wales, had been selling off her unwanted treasures for years. Unlike the Prince, she never paid commission, but was generous with gifts as Mr Burrell was able to testify successfully in court.

The Peat report could well bring an end in the new year to the lucrative gravy train that has been a big earner for royal retainers, who are badly paid, although many live in cut-price accommodation.

The fallout from the collapse of the latest butler trial will be more limited than the aftermath of the Burrell case.

Mr Brown, who remains a favoured servant of the Royal Family as butler to Viscount Linley, the son of the late Princess Margaret, whom he served after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, will never sell his story. Not while he remains a fully-paid-up member of “the Firm”.

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-...-502016,00.html

[Jacqueline]

Kents sit tight at Kensington Palace six months after peppercorn rent outcry
By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent

05 December 2002

Palace insists it did not obstruct police inquiry into royal butlers

Kents sit tight at Kensington Palace six months after peppercorn rent outcry
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are still paying a peppercorn rent for their sumptuous apartment in Kensington Palace almost six months after the arrangement was heavily criticised by MPs.

In a parliamentary written reply, Kim Howells, the Culture Minister, confirmed that the couple were paying £69 a week for the property.

Angry MPs accused the Kents of ignoring calls for them to increase their rent or move out by the end of this year. One backbencher described the sum paid for the grace and favour apartment, in one of London's finest addresses, as a rip-off.

Sir Michael Peat, the Prince of Wales's Private Secretary, who lives in a neighbouring apartment pays £48,000 a year compared with the £3,500 a year rent paid by the Kents.

MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee first raised the issue of the Prince and Princess Michael's cut price accommodation after visiting Kensington Palace in June.

Edward Leigh, the Tory chairman, said he wouldn't be surprised if "a hint was dropped" that the royal couple should either move out or pay a more commercial rent.

The Kents own a £3.5m listed 16th-century house in Gloucestershire.

Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, said they were unfairly benefiting from a form of taxpayers' subsidy.

"It's a form of royal housing benefit for millionaires," he said. "It's very dangerous to have a dependency society whether it's among working- class estates or the recipients of regal housing benefit."

Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP whose question prompted the disclosure, accused the Palace of presiding over a "royal rip off." He said: "Why should poor taxpayers subsidise this pampered pair living in the lap of luxury?

"We are now at the date when they were going to vacate the premises or pay a sensible rent back dated to their date of occupancy. This shows total contempt for public accountability and public finances. It's disgraceful that they are continuing to get away with this."

The Prince and Princess, who do not receive the same financial support to defray the cost of their duties as the Queen, the Prince of Wales or the Duke of York, were given the royal apartment in 1978 by the Queen after they married.

The Queen is said to be reluctant to renege on an agreement she made with them to allow them to live in the accommodation, although her senior advisers are said to want them to move out or subsidise their work.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said last night: "From the Queen's point of view the couple have been living in Kensington Palace since their marriage and it was agreed at the time that they would remain there.

"That is the agreement that she came to at that time and as far as the Queen is concerned that won't change."

The private office of the Prince and Princess at Kensington Palace said yesterday that they could not add to Buckingham Palace's comments and the matter was "entirely a matter for the Queen to decide".

A spokesman said: "The Prince and Princess carry out close on 200 charitable and other engagements per year on average over the last five years in the same way as is undertaken by their cousins." He said the Kents' duties were not official, and they paid their own costs.

Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_brit...sp?story=358606

[Jacqueline]

The duchess and the Gainsboroughs

Angelique Chrisafis
Thursday December 5, 2002
The Guardian

Buckingham Palace last night refused to comment on suggestions that the Duchess of Kent discreetly sold off two Gainsborough paintings through Spink and Son, the trusted royal art dealers who also purchased Princess Diana's golden dhow from her butler, Harold Brown.
A senior royal is reported to have taken two watercolour landscapes by the 18th century master Thomas Gainsborough into Spink's headquarters near St James's Palace in the early 1990s and sold them for around £100,000.

She is said to have asked for the paintings to be photographed. The high-quality photographic replicas were replaced in the original mounts and frames and taken to her apartment at St James's Palace. The duchess, who is married to the queen's cousin, is believed to have inherited a series of Gainsborough paintings from her father, Captain William Worsley, a baronet who collected fine art.

A jeweller who worked for Spink's, Jan Havlik, was acquitted on Monday, alongside Mr Brown, of handling stolen property. Spink bought the dhow for £1,200 from the butler as part of their traditionally discreet service to members of the royal family and their staff. It still possesses it.

Hugh Belsey, curator of the museum at Gainsborough's Suffolk birthplace, said: "I understand that the Duchess of Kent did own a number of Gainsborough drawings inherited from her father, which she has sold."

One of the watercolours sold is thought to be a study for Gainsborough's 1788 landscape painting, Cottage Door, owned by the Cincinnati Art Museum in Ohio, US.

A good Gainsborough landscape drawing is expected to reach between £50,000 and £70,000 on the art market and the duchess is said to have received a fair price for the watercolours, believed to be among Gainsborough's finest.

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said: "If such a sale took place it would involve private possessions, not official gifts, and it would be a private matter that is no one's business. Individuals are allowed to sell private items." Spink'swas unwilling last night to comment.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0...,854087,00.html

Hey Everyone,

Just stumbled across this today which I thought was very interesting. It is from New Idea, dated 30 November,2002.

It is titled "Sex, drugs and Royals" by Ingrid Seward, Majesty magazine. :)

Prostitutes, rent boys and drug dealers were all smuggled into Buckingham palace for wild sex and drug parties, according to shocking new reports. Former Royal staff have now revealed that they regularly indulged in ecstasy, LDS and cannabis at the debauched below stairs parties were there were drunken and nude servants running around and gay men dressed in women's clothes. Even more shocking is the fact that the paries were attended by members of the Royal family themselves.

"Parties happened two to three times a week and were attended by dishwashers and Royals alike" former palace aid Geoffrey Todd told British paper News of the world reporters Clive Goodman and Anna Gekoshi. "Princess Diana, Prince Charles. Andrew and Edward used to come. The Queen encouraged the wildest parties. I lost my virginity at the palace". And former Royal housemaids told reporters " Drugs like Pot, ecstasy and acid are routinely available at the palace. At least a quarter of the staff were on something.". :o :x

The Queen is said to be shocked by the reports, which come hot on the heels of weeks of bad publicity over the Paul Burrell trial. Questions are now being asked as to how such breaches of security could have been allowed to go on for so long. The article calims that staff would pick up strangers in nightclubs and bring them back to the palace for sex, putting the Royal family's safety at risk. "They could have been anyone, even a terrorist" says one former Royal footman. "Security there is a joke. One time an American girl was smuggled in, who bragged that she'd let a group of under butlers have sex with her if they showed her around the palace. She got her wish". :x

Another Royal servant revealed how the staff even sneaked prostitutes in to the Queen mother's home, Clarence House, while she was ill in bed. Another told how one servant would watch the Queen drive off for the weekend before letting his drug dealer in to the Palace under a false name. "The Paul Burrell trial has blown the lid on the bizarre behavior of the Royal family and their staff". A Royal source tells New Idea. "They don't live in the real world. Can you imagine any other employer allowing their staff to behave this way?". The insider adds that the staff can get away with o much as the Royal family is so dependent on them. A majority of the staff employed there are Gay, as Liam Brooks, a former footman to the Queen, explains that the large number of gay men at work in Royal households goes back to when the Queen and her sister, the late Princess Margaret were young girls. The Queen mother thought it was better to have men around who were not going to touch them' says Liam who is Gay. He adds "Its not the Royal family that is the problem, It is some of the people who run their households. They are servants - but believe they are Royal".

The same magazine also has a section about the late Princess Diana and claims that she had a close friendship with Princess Margaret's son, David, Lord Linley, after it was revealed that the pair had exchanged intimate letters. The two became close as Charles and Diana's marriage was breaking down in the early 1990's. David accompanied her and sons William and Harry on a skiing trip. The letters were unearthed during the Paul Burrell case. Some were so sensitive that Diana's mother, Frances Shand Skydd had them shredded right after her death. One letter survived and became eveidence at Paul's trial. It started with "Darling Diana" and ended with "masses of love from David". The rest was deemed to epersonal to be read out in open court. Lord Linley who is now happily married to Serena Stanhope, insisted last week that they were just good friends and never had a intimate relationship.

[Jacqueline]

People by Andrew Pierce

The Queen Mother's secret diary

AS IF turbulent butlers and missing dhows were not enough, Buckingham Palace now faces more embarrassing revelations — from beyond the grave.

The Cabinet Office is to make an announcement shortly about the publication of secret papers concerning the 1936 Abdication crisis, which were withheld during Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother’s lifetime to protect her sensitivities.

She deeply resented Edward VIII’s decision to abdicate and marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. She believed the consequent burden placed on her husband, George VI, contributed to his death in 1952 at the age of 56. The duchess was known for ever afterwards as “that woman” and the “the lowest of the low”.

While the official papers will reveal far more than has ever been told about Edward and Mrs Simpson, the most interesting document may be the diary of the Queen Mother herself, which is stored at Windsor Castle.

The existence of her memoirs was revealed in the entertaining diaries of the late Woodrow Wyatt. The Queen Mother, according to Wyatt, said of her diary: “I shall put it in the archives at Windsor and they can decide what to do about it years ahead. Nobody else knows that I’m going to do this.”

Buckingham Palace, which has no control over the release of the official papers, declined to comment on whether the Queen Mother’s thoughts would ever see the light of day.

A spokesman for the Public Record Office said: “Papers about the Queen Mother have been identified. We are looking to them being available to the media in the new year.”

Unless, of course, the most interesting documents have been through the shredder.

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-...-504440,00.html

[Jacqueline]

Transcript from Paul Burrell's (The Princess of Whale's former butler) interview with Larry King on CNN Larry King Live.

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Paul Burrell

Aired December 5, 2002 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARRY KING, HOST (voice-over): Tonight Princess Diana's butler Paul Burrell. He sold intimate details of palace life to the tabloid, setting off a royal scandal that infuriated Di's own family. Tonight in his first live primetime interview, what other secrets will we learn? Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's rock, is here for the hour taking your phone calls. He's here next on LARRY KING LIVE

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Every time I get around the British I either go British or resort back to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Brookland. Any ways Paul Burrell our special guest. He was Princess Di long time butler and confidant, she referred to him as her rock. He was arrest on charges of stealing more then 300 hundred items. That whole trial collapsed when the queen literally exonerated him. We welcome him to LARRY KING LIVE.

What's life been like for you?

PAUL BURRELL, PRINCESS DIANA'S LONG TIME BUTLER: It's been a roller coaster of emotions, ups and downs.

KING: When you were arrested were you shocked?

BURRELL: I was. How naive could I be to think the police would not come to my door. They did come to my door and they found more than they should have.

KING: How did you get to be a butler?

BURRELL: How? I went to Buckingham Palace when I was 18.

KING: Learned it there?

BURRELL: They taught me. For three years they taught me the ropes and how to behave and speak properly and behave properly around the palace.

KING: What does a butler do?

BURRELL: A butler does everything for his master. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was it Helina (ph) the film "Gosford Park" she said? To be a servant is to have no life. That's exactly what a butler does. KING: You married, have children. So you were able to have that kind of life, weren't you?

BURRELL: Well, True, for some of the time. But your boss always comes first, and the princess always came first.

KING: Before your wife and children?

BURRELL: That's right. My family knew that.

KING: And accepted it?

BURRELL: Yes, they knew and understood it.

KING: How did you get the specific job of being her butler?

BURRELL: Well, the princess was looking for someone she could trust. And I was looking after the queen at the time, at Buckingham Palace. She worked on my wife. She said to Maria, wouldn't you like to come and live at Highgrove it's beautiful down in the country side? And you could have an idealic lifestyle there. Why not come and look after Charles and I in country home. And I said, No, I couldn't leave the queen. She said, course you can. So I did. And I went to look after both of them, in Highgrove.

KING: Looking out means -- anything they want?

BURRELL: Everything. Every single aspect of their life. Absolutely everything.

KING: Where they want to go, you take care of their travel, you do all the kind of things. Lay out their clothing?

BURRELL: A dresser normally does that. If they're traveling alone then you take all responsibilities.

KING: What was she like to work for?

BURRELL: She was sometimes very difficult, but interesting. She was an amazing lady. Huge amount of giving. Wherever she went in the world she was embraced. Especially in America.

KING: There are lots to talk about tonight. Well be taking calls. How do you account -- you said especially in America. You mentioned before to me before we started, she was going to live here?

BURRELL: That's right. Yes, she had plans to live in Malibu.

KING: Malibu?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Was she going to marry the friend who died with her?

BURRELL: I never saw any plans for marriage. I have to say that because that's true. But she did want to come to America, because America is all embracing, isn't it? People easily are forgiven here in the states and not so much in England. She wanted to come here and start a new life. Great place to bring the boys for summer holidays and a great lifestyle.

KING: What happened with the items? How did those items come to you? How did you come to possess them? Give me the story.

BURRELL: Well, during my time with the princess, she gave me lots of things to keep safe. She was paranoid about her security inside the palace. She never knew who was coming in and out of her rooms at any one time. No, when she was away, a plumber or electrician or somebody could have been entering her room and looking at her private things.

So she gave me things to keep safe, and said, Paul, you take care of them, they're safe with you. Other things she had given to me and my wife and children as gifts. She was a very generous lady. She gave Maria a cast of clothes, Vesache, Valentino, all the beautiful clothes that she didn't want, Maria had. Hand bags from Gucci. Valentio hand bags and hand bags from famous designers. So all these shoes, hand bags, clothes. The police said -- course, they don't belong to you Maria, they belong to the princess took them and said that I had stolen them. Course I hadn't stolen them.

KING: They were given to you to take care of...

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: ... and what had you intended to do with them after she had died?

Well, some of the items she had given to me, she said destroy them. Very recognizable suits or hats. And they were in my possession at the time of her death, but after she died, Larry, I couldn't burn anything or destroy anything which belonged to her. But a I was going through a very deep grieving process. And actually, I wanted to keep everything safe. I sort of mummified everything.

KING: You had no idea of keeping this for sale or profit? Step right up and buy lady's hat?

BURRELL: No. The police said I was selling things to America. What they didn't know was I have some very close American friends who had supported us during the time we didn't have an income. A very wealthy American family in Manhattan had sent us many thousands of dollars and course, the police thought that I was selling items to these people for gain.

KING: Could you reveal that family's name?

BURRELL: Could I reveal that family's name. Would that be very fair to say that?

KING: Why not, if they helped the queen.

BURRELL: They helped us a great deal -- Mr. And Mrs. Kingsberg in America, in Manhattan. Very generous family.

KING: A couple? What does he do?

BURRELL: He's a financier and works in the city.

KING: So you have all this stuff. Now you're arrested.

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: Did you fear that nothing happening like the queen stepping in, you would be found guilty?

BURRELL: Yes, of course. When you're sat in the number one court in the Old Bailey on trial in a place where murderers and rapists had sat for generations. People were taken from that dock downstairs and hung. I was sat there thinking well my fate's sealed. I'm going to prison. I can't prove myself. The only person that could prove that was the lady that wasn't here any more.

KING: But you also knew the queen knew?

BURRELL: Well, I did, but you know, Larry, conversations I had with the queen I thought were private. One to one conversation I had with her majesty of Buckingham Palace, we spoke for literally three hours. Lot of newspapers say three minutes.

KING: Standing all the time.

BURRELL: We stood in her sitting room.

KING: Why didn't you sit in her sitting room?

BURRELL: She didn't invite me to sit down, so I stood with her and we chatted.

KING: You knew she knew you did nothing wrong?

BURRELL: Yes, absolutely.

KING: You didn't expect her to come forward?

BURRELL: No, I didn't.

KING: Because queens don't do that?

BURRELL: Unprecedented.

KING: Why do you think she did?

BURRELL: Because I felt she really thought at the time this has gone far enough. And she never expected it to go that far. She had to step in. The queen's incapable of telling a lie. She can't tell lies she's a good, kind, Christian lady, fascinating woman. And...

KING: How did you get the news that she revealed it?

BURRELL: My brief, my (UNINTELLIGIBLE), my QC, in the Old Bailey, she said, Paul, it's over and thought...

KING: Where were you?

BURRELL: I was sat in the dark and...

KING: Who knew you was in the court room.

BURRELL: In the court room. He beckoned me to come out of the dark, which is the place you sit surrounded by glass. And I stepped out of the dark and went to him. He said, the queen's stopped the trial. I literally embraced him and cried.

KING: Why suddenly did everyone come down on you?

BURRELL: Because I sold my story to a tabloid newspaper in England.

KING: Why -- that was the "Mirror," right?

BURRELL: "The Dailey Mirror"

KING: Why did you do that?

BURRELL: I had to do that because I had to; a, tell my story. I was denied telling my story because the prosecution had their go. They had two weeks to try and prove me guilty. It was my turn then to tell people why I was innocent. Plus, the amount of money which I received for telling my story replaced the money which I would have earned previous two years when I didn't have an income. I literally...

KING: You were out of work for two years?

BURRELL: I was out of work for two years.

KING: You had a shop though.

BURRELL: I had a small flower shop which had a small income which paid for the small expenses such as paying the phone bill and electric bill. But in that time, there was no money coming in. Maria had to sell some of her jewelry. I had to spend the boy's savings, we cashed in our life policy.

KING: So you needed the money?

BURRELL: We needed the money. To replace our debts.

KING: What happened is, what every other tabloid jumped on you.

BURRELL: They all turned against me.

KING: Were they all offering you money before they turned against you?

BURRELL: They were. But when I was acquitted, the day I was acquitted all the newspapers were for me. The day after I had signed the deal, everyone was against me except the "Daily Mirror." They all offered me money ranging from 50,000 pounds to 2 million pounds. That's $3 million which is a lot of money.

KING: What did you get from the "Mirror"?

BURRELL: I got 300,000 pounds.

KING: Why didn't you take the 2 million.

BURRELL: Because I'd have to sell my soul.

KING: Meaning they wanted what.

BURRELL: They wanted everything. They wanted a lot.

KING: Paul Burrell is our guest, former butler to Princess Diana. We'll be take your calls as well. This is LARRY KING LIVE don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES: It was a symptom of what was going on in my marriage. I was crying out for help, but giving the wrong signals. And people were using my bulimia as a coat on a hanger. They decided that was the problem. Diana was unstable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Instead of looking behind the symptom at the cause? What was the cause?

DIANA: The cause was a situation where my husband and I had to keep everything together because we didn't want to disappoint the public, and yet obviously there was a lot of anxiety going on within our four walls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Why did she give that interview to the BBC?

BURRELL: Because she didn't have a voice. She was trapped inside a palace and she tried to shout out and no one would listen.

KING: Did you know about her bulimia?

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: How did she manage to stay healthy? Was she throwing up her food?

BURRELL: Yes. That's what happens.

KING: She thought she was fat?

BURRELL: Yes. I aided and abetted. I provided bowls of custard, rice pudding, yogurt. You name it. It was there. KING: To do what with?

BURRELL: Well, because what happens is people eat large amounts of food and then get rid of it. And you know what's going to happen. I knew the symptoms, raiding the fridge. And then I'd follow her into the bathroom and set the towels into the right place.

KING: Were you close enough to tell her maybe you shouldn't do this?

BURRELL: Of course I was. But I wasn't the professional. I wasn't able to help in the professional way.

KING: Did she ever seek professional help?

BURRELL: No.

KING: Never at all, with any of her problems?

BURRELL: It was very difficult for a princess to ask professional advice of anyone. Because, as you know, turns into a story overnight.

KING: You claim that after her death the queen warned you of powers that be in the palace.

BURRELL: That's right.

KING: Lurking and -- what? What?

BURRELL: Not dark forces.

KING: A lot of intrigue. What's going on?

BURRELL: Someone said dark forces it sounds like "Star Wars," doesn't it? It wasn't.

She 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?

KING: I guess, yes. But I mean, what are they worried about?

BURRELL: Well, I suppose they're worried about me saying too much. Because I worked for the royal family.

KING: You know too much?

BURRELL: Well perhaps I do. I don't know that I do because I always...

KING: Did you hold back things from "The Mirror?" BURRELL: Of course I did. Yes. I didn't tell everything. It would take far too long to do that. We would still be running the story now until Christmas probably.

KING: But you knew about her dalliances, right? You knew that she saw other men?

BURRELL: Of course I did. I knew every aspect of her life. And I was there to make sure things happened in the right way. A controlled environment is a much better than one that flies off the handle.

KING: You had to cover for her?

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: Now, what happened to your shop?

BURRELL: My shop was burned down.

KING: Arson?

BURRELL: Yes, it was arson. The police haven't yet released the report about it, but it was premeditated. Someone actually did go with an intent to burn it down.

KING: Who's mad at you?

BURRELL: Someone is.

KING: The tabloids are jealous because you gave it to one another and not the other.

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: But who's mad at you? I mean, who...

BURRELL: I think people misunderstand me. People have thought that I have told too many secrets. Actually, I haven't. I told my story. It was my right to tell my story.

The other tabloids, of course, mixed up the mixture. They got a hold of a document which was confidential between me and my legal team and they leaked that to the media. The media used that as a story. It was information which was very private, very personal and only to be used as background.

Remember, my life was on the line. I was going to prison. I could have gone to prison for a very long time.

KING: Why do you have security?

BURRELL: Because...

KING: You travel with security, right?

BURRELL: I do, absolutely.

Mike, my security man, comes with me everywhere I go. Because -- you never know quite who's around the next corner. And he's there to help me through that problem.

KING: You knew that in selling the story, though, you'd be criticized?

BURRELL: Yes, I did.

KING: He's out to take advantage...

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: ... of a situation that he had privy to?

BURRELL: Yes, I did. But I never expected such a vicious, vindictive attack on me as a person, which would -- I was acquitted of a huge crime: stealing from my princess.

KING: Another guy was just acquitted, right?

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: Someone -- what was that about?

BURRELL: That was about a similar thing, but nothing to do with my case. He had served the princess previously to me and had allegedly stolen items from her, too. But there was nothing to do with me in that trial. But the problem was, you see, the public linked the two because we're both butlers.

KING: Yes. How do you get along with Charles?

BURRELL: I got along with him very well. He's a very kind generous man. And he looked after us during our time at Highgrove (ph). Every luxury was afforded to us. He rebuilt my little cottage. He built the boys a playroom. He looked after us. He's a very kind man.

KING: What were the boys like?

BURRELL: William and Harry? When I grew up with them and my boys grew up with them in the nursery.

KING: Are they the same age? Your boys?

BURRELL: Similar ages. Mine are 17 and 14. William and Harry are sort of in between.

My boys now have fond memories of living a royal lifestyle. See, we've always lived in that environment. They went everywhere with William and Harry to theme parks, to theaters, to premieres. And so they're sort of used to the media spotlight.

KING: Like them? BURRELL: Do I like them? They're wonderful boys. They're their mother's...

KING: She was a good mother.

BURRELL: Yes. Their mother's true legacy.

KING: Why weren't you with her when she died?

BURRELL: Because every year we took down and we discussed the diary. And I take two weeks off a year.

KING: A diary? You mean her diary?

BURRELL: Her engagement diary.

KING: Her schedule?

BURRELL: Yes. And so, these two weeks in August were my family time to go away with my family. And she would go away to Mediterranean on the boat. Well, she did this year. In '97. And I spoke to her every day on her mobile phone.

KING: Was she in love with Dodi Fayed?

BURRELL: In love? That's a very -- that's a loaded question. She was very fond of him. She was very fond of him. He provided -- wasn't it strange? He provide something which she desperately needed: security.

And that was the one thing that let her down. She had a fun time. She was having a good time. She was with someone that cared for her. And she needed that.

KING: But you're not sure that they would have married?

BURRELL: No, I don't think they would have married.

KING: How did you learn of her death?

BURRELL: I was sat with her PA, Jacqueline Allen (ph). And...

KING: PA is?

BURRELL: Her personal assistant. And we heard from Balmorale (ph) at 3:00 in the morning. In fact...

KING: Somebody called?

BURRELL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The Brazilian ambassador's wife in Washington at the time, she rang me and said, Paul, there's been an accident. CNN has just reported the fact that princess had an accident in Paris and did I know about it? And I said, No, I didn't know anything. She said, Ring her on her mobile phone. Ring her. You'll find her.

So I did ring her. And it rang and rang and rang. No answer, which was very odd because she always carried that phone with her.

And, in the end we found, that the accident had been fatal. So I flew to Paris immediately to attend to her person.

KING: Were you rocked?

BURRELL: I was. I was severely traumatized by what I saw.

But, you know, I think there should be someone there for everyone at that time. Because there's no dignity in death. And you can't actually take care of yourself. So isn't it a comforting feeling to know there's someone there that can do that for you?

KING: So what role did you play? What did you do?

BURRELL: I looked after her. I took care of her.

KING: Took care of her in death.

BURRELL: As I had in life.

KING: Saw the body?

BURRELL: Yes.

KING: Attended to the funeral?

BURRELL: Yes. Watched over her. Stayed with her. Kept her safe.

KING: Did you love her?

BURRELL: Course I did. I defy any man to say that they didn't meet her and fall in love with her. She was such an lovely person. She was an egmatic (ph), vibrant, lively person. She was a lovely person.

KING: We'll be back with more of Paul Burrell. We'll be including your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCESS DIANA: She'd rung me up ten days before it arrived in the book shops to tell me there was nothing to worry about. And I believed him, stupidly. Then when it did arrive, the first thing I did was rush down to talk to my children and William produced a box of chocolates and said, Mummy, I think you've been hurt. These are to make you smile again. So..

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did your relationship go beyond a close friendship?

PRINCESS DIANA: Yes, it did. Yes.