The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 3: September 2005-September 2006


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've never quite understood why the court bought his explanation that he was just holding onto her things in safe keeping for William and Harry. The princes were over 18 at the time of the trial, and he could have handed them over at any time. It makes you wonder just how long he was planning to keep them safe for the princes.
 
Well, I think the court "bought" his explanation, simply because the Queen intervened at the last moment. And I think the reason that the Queen intervened, was not because she believed his explanations, but because the Palace was afraid of what intimate details Mr. Burrell might disclose during the trial. Of course, unfortunately, even though he was let off, these details came out any way, when he chose to sell his story to the tabloids (& then later write his book). What a nice guy!:rolleyes:

Tiaraprin, I tend to agree with you. I don't think he was "in love" with Diana. I do think he was incredibly obsessed with her (& addicted to the special feeling of being part of a very famous person's life). I think it's incredibly sad that he sacrificied his own family life, just to be on call to Diana 24/7.
 
Squidgy said:
Well, I think the court "bought" his explanation, simply because the Queen intervened at the last moment. And I think the reason that the Queen intervened, was not because she believed his explanations, but because the Palace was afraid of what intimate details Mr. Burrell might disclose during the trial. Of course, unfortunately, even though he was let off, these details came out any way, when he chose to sell his story to the tabloids (& then later write his book). What a nice guy!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the Queen didn't believe Burrell's claim he was keeping some items for safekeeping. I do believe Prince Charles and the boys wanted the case to go away and the Spencers did not. Most of the items he possessed were typical for a trusted servant of the Household who receives "cast-offs" from their employer.

Burrell made a mistake though in all of his articles about Diana and then the book he wrote. For someone who claimed to love the Princess, it's hard to imagine a worse betrayal of confidence, especially from a man who understood the code of honour.
 
I think you're right in that Charles and the boys wanted the case to go away and the Spencers were hell-bent on going after PB. They had, after all, given him 50,000 from Diana's estate, even though he was not mentioned in her will--so they were likely very irritated to learn he had more than 300 things of Diana's in his home, which he'd never mentioned to them or, even more importantly, Princes William and Harry. (Was it ever determined how the police were tipped off he had all these things?) Interestingly enough, friends of Diana's like Lucia Flecha de Lima and Rosa Monckton publicly supported Mr. Burrell but were equally public with their anger when he "sold her out" by writing his book.

I think the point he was "in love" with the power he wielded being so close to Diana is an excellent one. But to write that book--understanding the "code of honour," as you accurately point out--is just wrong. Was he so hard up for money??? Now, I wish he would just go away and stop being "the royal expert," weighing in on Kate Middleton and Prince William, for example. Does he do anything work-wise? I honestly don't know. I don't even know how much he made off the book or the excerpts he allowed to be serialized. But enough is enough; I wish Mr. Burrell would find the tact and discretion and integrity and just go quietly into the night once and for all.
branchg said:
I'm not so sure the Queen didn't believe Burrell's claim he was keeping some items for safekeeping. I do believe Prince Charles and the boys wanted the case to go away and the Spencers did not. Most of the items he possessed were typical for a trusted servant of the Household who receives "cast-offs" from their employer.

Burrell made a mistake though in all of his articles about Diana and then the book he wrote. For someone who claimed to love the Princess, it's hard to imagine a worse betrayal of confidence, especially from a man who understood the code of honour.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure he was planning to ever hand them over--that's the sad part. Perhaps it was too soon, or he didn't have everything when the Princes went through Diana's apartment shortly after her death to choose what they each wanted but, surely, by the first or second anniversary of her death, all of these items--save for the gifts from the Princess to Mr. Burrell and his family--should have been dispersed. He quite easily could have asked for a meeting with the boys to discuss what he had and ask how they would like to deal with it or if they cared to have any of it turned over to them. I'm sure they would've elected to have many of the things, particularly the photos and letters.
Elspeth said:
I've never quite understood why the court bought his explanation that he was just holding onto her things in safe keeping for William and Harry. The princes were over 18 at the time of the trial, and he could have handed them over at any time. It makes you wonder just how long he was planning to keep them safe for the princes.
Click to expand...
 
What does everyone think of his claim he was given a lot of things as gifts from Diana?
 
Aussie Princess said:
What does everyone think of his claim he was given a lot of things as gifts from Diana?
Click to expand...

Perhaps some things were gifts, but not the whole hoard he had, no way.
 
Don't get me wrong I love Diana butl, if you think about it. the fountain is causing as much problem as Diana did...So it fits her personality perfectly.
 
It's a twisted thought, but I have to agree.:)
 
This fountain is just another example of how Diana is not honored or respected in the way she should be.
 
Spencers and Windsors turned out in force for its opening. They must have thought it was appropriate enough to attend.
 
I think the need for the fountain to be accessible for children, which is something the organisers thought she would have wanted, overrode people's common sense about boring details like its infrastructure. That's a shame, because there's no reason why a safe, child-accessible water feature should be beyond the skills of the designers and engineers.
 
Please...Hewitt is a low class piece of....

Harry is Charles's son. You can tell by looking at his face.

The red hair is from the Spencer side.

What amazes me...NO, what is astounding to me, is how stupid and dense people are to believe this.

Hewitt and Burell need to have their backsides kicked in sideways from Sunday.

One was an ex-lover

And the other nothing more than a lowly, useless servant who should come clean about his own identity...and stop pretending he is something he is not..and I am talking about which way the pendulum goes..so to speak. He behaves like a catty, bit**y, bitter woman who has been scorned.
 
somebody see the panorama's interview the last night? Here only is bbc world so I cant see it.
 
Re:

Another guest had remarked that Prince Charles' new wife Camilla was approaching the age of 60.
Clarkson. 44, then said: "Well Diana was approaching 120 when she went in the tunnel."
The reference to the car-crash death of Charles' first wife brought gasps from the studio audience.
Viewers phoned the Beeb's complaints line after the show was screened on Friday.
Click to expand...

Can I just point out that this part of the article is incorrect. On 'Have I Got News For You', the panel discuss a story and then the host makes a few comments. He actually said (read from autocue) ;

"Camilla is after all nearing 60 whereas Diana was nearing 120 when she went into that tunnel".

It was in very bad taste and certainly didn't make me laugh BUT the audience did not gasp. They actually laughed as they did with any other joke that Clarkson told on that programme. I'm not saying that Clarkson was right, I'm not saying that his joke was funny - I'm just pointing out that he didn't write the joke he just delivered it, to a laugh not gasps - the article is partially inaccurate - being pedantic I'm just correcting it!​
 
Who is this man Jeremy Clarkson? I have never heard of him. Sounds like a second-rate comedian. If I knew him, I would take him to task for that tasteless joke. If he said something tasteless about Charles and Camilla, others would be up in arms in protest!
 
He has to be a second-rate comedian. That joke isn't even funny anyway. I hope it destroys his career.
 
Re:

Who is this man Jeremy Clarkson? I have never heard of him. Sounds like a second-rate comedian. If I knew him, I would take him to task for that tasteless joke. If he said something tasteless about Charles and Camilla, others would be up in arms in protest!
Click to expand...

He used to do a programme called 'Top Gear' about cars and fancies himself as a good presenter. In fact, he's extremely irritating and very very unfunny. But the point here is that it wasn't him who wrote the joke. He just delivered it. The scriptwriters wrote the gag, slapped it on autocue and then he read it. So it'll be the BBC not Clarkson who gets the rap.
 
BeatrixFan said:
He used to do a programme called 'Top Gear' about cars and fancies himself as a good presenter. In fact, he's extremely irritating and very very unfunny.
Click to expand...
I hope someone actually tells that Clarkson guy that,right on his face:mad:.But what amazes me is that the audience actually laughed at his pathetic joke!
 
Re:

The audience of 'Have I Got News For You' tend to be of a political bent and tend to be students. I imagine that the audience that night were not particularly monarchy friendly - they laughed at jibes at other members of the RF as well and cheered when another guest made a republican rant.
 
somebody see in the bbc the panorama interview.?
 
BBC sciptwriters set him up-that is very mean I hope they get into a lot of trouble. I bet Mr. Clarkson feels stupid.
 
Wouldn't he get to review the scripts before going on the show? He does have a choice of speaking the lines written for him, doesn't he?
 
Wouldn't he get to review the scripts before going on the show? He does have a choice of speaking the lines written for him, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

TV is a strange thing. I should know - I do enough of it myself. Usually, one will get a script a few days before and you read through it. If it's a small TV Company then you can usually get away with suggesting a few alterations. But if its the BBC then its a bit tighter and the chances of changing the script are almost zero. Once the contract is signed and the fee is agreed, you are contracted to deliver the lines, just as a builder is contracted to construct a house.
Clarkson could have said, "I'm not saying that" and they may have taken notice.
Now, sometimes one only gets the script on the day. I've done TV where you arrive - into make-up with a script and you work like mad to memorise it. Then there's usually an autocue or dummy boards and you do your best. I suspect this is what happens on 'Have I Got News For You'. It is recorded so that means that he could refuse to say it.

So it can go either way and in this situation, its the BBC not Clarkson who is responsible.
 
BeatrixFan said:
So it can go either way and in this situation, its the BBC not Clarkson who is responsible.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I know the programme you're talking of. I've seen it several times on the BBC and we also have a Dutch version of it over here. The host of the shows just reads the pre-written 'jokes' from a screen or something. At least that's what the Dutch host always does (our Dutchie is not a very good host, it's too obvious he's is reading it from a screen or board). The joke you're talking about is just a plain example of very bad taste, imo.
 
Last edited:
Diana, Princess of Wales, by Mario Testino at Kensington Palace
From 24 November 2005.
But...look the link.....this exhibition work with the HSBC......is where william is working, right?
This event is approved for the queen?, because only she can approve the use of a royal palace.

http://www.hrp.org.uk/webcode/content.asp?ID=38
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
30K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Somebody
The Princess of Orange, News and Events Part 2 (Jan 2024 - present)
2
Replies
59
Views
11K
Somebody
Somebody
Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
2 3
Replies
60
Views
13K
winifred
W
Marengo
Juan Valentín, Pablo, Miguel & Irene Urdangarín, News and Events 3: Jan. 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Biri
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom