Paul Burrell, Diana's Former Butler

[Mermaid1962]

Good grief. He really can't leave well enough alone, can he? He's supposed to have moved on by getting married and running his flower shop, yet he still clings to what were his glory days of being butler/personal assistant to the late Diana Princess of Wales. Showing up and trying to get too close to the wedding of the son of a former employer is simply odd. This wasn't a typical wedding in a run-of-the-mill place of worship. IMO he wasn't simply looking to get a glimpse of the bride and groom and the rest of the Royal Family. He was going to a place where there would be cameras and microphones and he would be noticed. Remembering his Princess in quiet reflection isn't enough for him. He wanted the media attention, and he got it.

 

[Elan]

Of course, if what he desired was publicity for it's own sake, he could have had his ceremony after Harry's event, and done so in this Cathedral...

(Maurice André..tpt) [youtube]

 

[Denville]

I doubt if anyone would indulge his whims for publicity in this way. he was in te wrong, he was in the wrong to take Dianas things, he was in the wrong to write repeatedly about her and to try and garner publicity for himself on her son's big day...

'Uninvited guests standing at the back of a Chapel' :
(weddingbee.com)
______

"It's not weird or rude or strange – its a generational thing. It used to be an expected thing to do – hence why showers used to commonly be thrown by 'church ladies' or mom's friends. Wedding announcements would be posted in the local paper, and who ever wanted to would and could show up for the church ceremony."

"If you find it rude or it would make you uncomfortable then you should have your ceremony in a private venue where you can control admission. Churches, state parks, and places like that are open to all, and you should at least consider that strangers or uninvited distant friends /relatives might wander by."

as has been pointed out, it was a private venue, and admission was controlled, because of security reasons. Paul's going was making himelf a nuisance, because the police and security people had the job of ensuring that the wedding passed off without any frightening incidents and they had to waste time getting rid of someone who knew very well that they had no right ot be there...

 

[Mermaid1962]

It seems to be somewhat of an obsession with him. Definitely unhealthy, in any case.

as has been pointed out, it was a private venue, and admission was controlled, because of security reasons. Paul's going was making himelf a nuisance, because the police and security people had the job of ensuring that the wedding passed off without any frightening incidents and they had to waste time getting rid of someone who knew very well that they had no right ot be there...

 

[Denville]

It seems to be somewhat of an obsession with him. Definitely unhealthy, in any case.

I do fee a liltte sorry for him as I think to an extent he can't help himself. But when he betrayed Diana's trust, exaggerated their relationship and took her things its hard to feel much sympathy. However, others who worked for her also wrote books and made commetns about her, so he's not the only one who deserves crticisim.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I know what you mean. Perhaps his obsession also leads to some kind of compulsion to show up at these events. I certainly don't think that he's entirely "well", and a person has to have some sympathy for that. The others who've written about Diana don't seem to share Paul's particular type of attachment to her memory. The others, such as Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, although they wrote books and show up for interviews and write articles seem to have a more objective view of Diana as a person. Jephson's book was bitter, but he seems to have mellowed in time. Wharfe's book seemed to be rather matter-of-fact.

 

[Elan]

I have no doubt that he FELT like he was Diana's sibling (which is definitely not the same as actually being her brother) and that he helped with things like smuggling her lovers into KP under her neighbours' noses. I am sure Diana would have loved a devoted member of staff living at KP and attending to her everyday needs 24/7.

But did her sisters speak about him visiting their homes with Diana, was Paul included on dinner and party invitations with her, did people in the US and in Europe automatically include him when Diana went to stay with them? Did she introduce Paul to people as 'My very Best friend, and my adopted brother!'? I would say 'No!' in all instances.

While that's true, it also falls in the category of compartmentalizing the circle of friends from different walks of life, and a comfort level of enjoying them separately, as she was known to do.

When the public came to learn he resided at Kensington it would have made for some fodder in the press. Maybe it could have worked initially, but a job like his would prove difficult in such proximity and not to mention a great many eyebrows would have been raised.

This is just one of those things that (if true) made Diana a warm and creative spirit.

 

[Denville]

Did she invite Paul to "lve with her at KP? ior was that his own self aggrandising imagineation? She didn't IMO. she was fond of Paul and friendly to him, but it was a mistake. she clearly gave him ideas that it meant they were close friends, and they weren't... She mainly saw him as a servant...

 

[muriel]

At some point it ought to be said that there is nothing that stirs more resentment of him than this "rock stuff", and I get that. Otoh, to be abhorred by that notion is reflective of a very defensive posture toward him, to say the least. In other words, people are projecting and reading more into it....as if there goes Paul claiming to be of importance in her life when..

HE WAS OF NO IMPORTANCE !

HE MEANT NOTHING TO HER !

Lets put all of this to one side for now. Do you actually believe that Paul's behaviour since 1997 displays loyalty to either Diana or her beloved sons?

 

[Iluvbertie]

'
"If you find it rude or it would make you uncomfortable then you should have your ceremony in a private venue where you can control admission. Churches, state parks, and places like that are open to all, and you should at least consider that strangers or uninvited distant friends /relatives might wander by."

Those rules apply to most churches but not to the 'royal peculiars' where the Queen controls what services take place, who can marry and even who can enter. St George's is one such church - along with Westminster Abbey.

That is why when a royal marries in one of these places no one can just wander in and watch.

In the case of a chapel in the grounds of Windsor Castle - access to the Castle grounds can be limited at times such as royal weddings and the Garter Ceremony. Invitation only into the grounds of the castle for those events and very tight security along with the invitation.

Without such an invitation no one would be allowed into the grounds of the Castle on the day - same as for Garter Day - all those people in the grounds are there with the appropriate paperwork (you can apply for such a ticket - grounds ticket - inside the chapel is limited even further).

 

[Elan]

Do you actually believe that Paul's behaviour since 1997 displays loyalty to either Diana or her beloved sons?

Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue. I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty. Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.

It just snowballs further from there.

 

[muriel]

Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue....... It just snowballs further from there.

I have had about 20 years to watch Burrell in action publicly, and I, along with most people who have read about him, have formed an opinion on the matter.

I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty.

IMO, it has nothing to do with protocol. It is about discretion, and decency. It is about divulging, for commercial reasons, information he may or may not have gleaned whilst employed in the royal household, in direct contravention of a confidentiality obligation (both legal and moral) he had. It is especially the case when the said member of the royal family is no longer alive, and therefore, in a position to check him or respond accordingly. In my book, that certainly "disqualifies him as a symbol for loyalty" of any kind.

Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.

Here again, you are right. From a public perspective, it is very difficult to look past this lack of loyalty to look for "decency and honesty".

Lets also be clear, it is not that there has been a one-off error of judgement. This man has spent 20 years repeatedly and ruthlessly exploiting his relationship with Diana for commercial gain, quite often in a way that is directly hurtful to the Princes.

If you have a different perspective to this, I will be happy to hear your thoughts.

 

[Denville]

Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue. I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty. Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.

It just snowballs further from there.

what decency and honesty is there in someone who could take Diana's possessions, write and talk about her incessantly, revealing things she didn't want revealed.. and embarrass her son by his silly insistence on appearing at his wedding- to which he was not invvted...

 

[Pranter]

I somehow missed this...or forgot...he went to William's wedding and tried to get in without an invite???


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Nope, the wedding he tried to crash was Harry's back in May.

 

[Pranter]

SMH...unreal.


LaRae

 

[muriel]

SMH...unreal.


LaRae

For the uninformed, what might SMH stand for?

 

[Denville]

For the uninformed, what might SMH stand for?

Yes Im cuirious too.

 

[Curryong]

Shaking My Head.

 

[Denville]

Yes, I know what you mean. Perhaps his obsession also leads to some kind of compulsion to show up at these events. I certainly don't think that he's entirely "well", and a person has to have some sympathy for that. The others who've written about Diana don't seem to share Paul's particular type of attachment to her memory. The others, such as Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, although they wrote books and show up for interviews and write articles seem to have a more objective view of Diana as a person. Jephson's book was bitter, but he seems to have mellowed in time. Wharfe's book seemed to be rather matter-of-fact.

Jephson and Wharfe didn't care for Diana. In his weird way, I think Paul did and does. So I ptity him a little. IMO the 2 of them are more to be criticised for their writing books and being "Diana commentators". They both esp Jephson are men of more education and had good career prospects after they stopped working for her. Paul wasn't as lucky. He was given a job on the Diana Foundation but wasn't really suited to it. But the 2 of them could have made a living easily without resorting to writing about Diana for money. So I disapprove of thtem more, because I think neiter of them particularly cared for her and boht had an element of spite in their writing books, because she had parted with both of them..
and I think that yes he is very wrong in his behaviour but some of it IS due to the fact that he has an obsession with her and can't let go...

 

[Denville]

Shaking My Head.

Oh! thanks...but Paul is the way he is. I don't think he's ever going to change now.. but if people didn't read the articles etc, he would not be writing or being interviewed... He has nothing new to say, so I don't know why people do.. He is an idiot and has behaved badly but I think in his twisted stupid way he genuinely cared for her..

 

[muriel]

He is an idiot and has behaved badly but I think in his twisted stupid way he genuinely cared for her..

I guess he may have served her well when she was alive, but to me, his behaviour since her death is not one of someone who 'genuinely cared for her", just that of somebody ruthless, shamelessly and repeatedly exploiting her and her beloved boys for personal gain.

Shaking My Head.

Many thanks!

 

[Denville]

I guess he may have served her well when she was alive, but to me, his behaviour since her death is not one of someone who 'genuinely cared for her", just that of somebody ruthless, shamelessly and repeatedly exploiting her and her beloved boys for personal gain.

I don't think it is as "ruthless" as you see it. I think he did love her in a twisted weird way.. and even now 20 years later, he still cares, still thinks about her.. and he doesn't say anyting bad about her.. Of course he says embarrassing STUPID things.
The other 2 were crtitcial of her. THey had parted on bad terms, and while they mostly wrote their books for money, I think there was also a revenge element in writing critical books.
But Paul is a dimwitted guy, who still clings to his glory days when he was working for this beautiful and famous woman, and was at least treated with fondness by her.. and he can't let go of it.. AND he is alsos selifish and egotitiscal and has become addicted to being interviewed and getting his face in the papers at times as someone who knew her, and he can't let go of that either..

 

[muriel]

I don't think it is as "ruthless" as you see it. I think he did love her in a twisted weird way.. and even now 20 years later, he still cares, still thinks about her.. and he doesn't say anyting bad about her.. Of course he says embarrassing STUPID things.
The other 2 were crtitcial of her. THey had parted on bad terms, and while they mostly wrote their books for money, I think there was also a revenge element in writing critical books.
But Paul is a dimwitted guy, who still clings to his glory days when he was working for this beautiful and famous woman, and was at least treated with fondness by her.. and he can't let go of it.. AND he is alsos selifish and egotitiscal and has become addicted to being interviewed and getting his face in the papers at times as someone who knew her, and he can't let go of that either..

Let's just agree to disagree.

Not doubting that he may have "loved " her, but he pits himself before her boys, and that's not great in my book.

 

[Denville]

Let's just agree to disagree.

Not doubting that he may have "loved " her, but he pits himself before her boys, and that's not great in my book.

of course. I certainly don't approve of him but he is not the only ex employee to write about Diana and to still be commentating about her many years later. IIRC Ken Wharfe was chatting on about Di last year and criticising William, whom he probably hasn't seen for literally a decade or more..
Im sure the boys are inured ot the fact that some of Diana's staff will continue to use their former relationship with her to talk about her.. and they just ignore it or try to.

 

[Elan]

I have had about 20 years to watch Burrell in action publicly, and I, along with most people who have read about him, have formed an opinion on the matter.

Lets also be clear, it is not that there has been a one-off error of judgement. This man has spent 20 years repeatedly and ruthlessly exploiting his relationship with Diana for commercial gain, quite often in a way that is directly hurtful to the Princes.

If you have a different perspective to this, I will be happy to hear your thoughts.

On the subject of St. George's Chapel, if no one's offended..Paul speaking a few hours before the wedding. Maybe he was offered a stipend for his opinion, but at 1:10 he visibly quenches back tears which don't seem contrived. Display of genuine warmth to Meghan and Harry. That he was there on the idea to keep prospects going, would portray the complete opposite.

When someone is crying heartfelt tears of joy on a day widely touted as a wonderful occasion, then with a burst of emotion attempts to stand at the rear of a Chapel, but instead finds himself treated like a pariah or outcast of some kind.. This is the right outcome ?

[youtube]

 

[Mermaid1962]

Paul didn't have an invitation to the wedding. Surely he would know enough about royal protocol and security to realize that his place was with the regular onlookers who showed up to watch Meghan and Harry's carriage procession after the wedding. He should have known that he wasn't in a position to get closer to the Chapel than any other uninvited guest.

 

[Denville]

Yes it is the right outcome. He was not invited to the wedding. Harry and Megahn did not want him to be there. he knew quite well tht he was just making himself conspicuous, by trying to put himself forward at their wedding

 

[Elan]

Bump..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/dianas-ex-butler-paul-burrell-29246347#comments-wrapper

as has been pointed out, it was a private venue, and admission was controlled, because of security reasons. Paul's going was making himelf a nuisance, because the police and security people had the job of ensuring that the wedding passed off without any frightening incidents and they had to waste time getting rid of someone who knew very well that they had no right ot be there...

Food for thought -- had Diana been alive and able to realize who it was being thrown out of the Cathedral on her son's wedding day, toward the back standing.. how she would have reacted, if at all ?

 

[Denville]

Bump..

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/dianas-ex-butler-paul-burrell-29246347#comments-wrapper



Food for thought -- had Diana been alive and able to realize who it was being thrown out of the Cathedral on her son's wedding day, toward the back standing.. how she might have reacted, if at all ?

I can not imagine that Diana would want a man who was not invited, a former servant, to come to a wedding and cause trouble to the police. People cannot simply walk in to royal weddings. Paul knew that and was just making himself conspcious by turning up.