Social Norms: Diana and Staff


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I must admit something, I've always felt it was a little sad that Diana couldn't have long standing friendships and she instead had to confide in her staff like Paul Burrell. I wonder if she knew some of the staff could not be trusted and would leak stories and she thought Paul wasn't like that.

In any way it is unprofessional. Staff is paid for services one demands from them. It is always an employer-employee relationship, how friendly it possibly might be. Du moment one is no longer paid for his/her services, naturally also the "loyalty" ends. Diana, used to servants all her life long, should have known this. Letting staff come to close to private affairs is definitely not recommendable.
 
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:

An immediate consequence of the separation of the two households was the division of the staff. At Kensington Palace the charming, loyal and discreet head butler, Harold Brown, remained with the Princess; the Highgrove butler, Paul Burrell, was assigned to Kensington Palace against his wishes. With his wife, Maria, and two sons, Burrell was happy in his cottage on the Highgrove estate and was extremely unwilling to be transferred to the Princess's service.
I find this a little confusing. After Diana's death Paul Burrell was in possession of many sensitive items purported to have been entrusted to his care by Diana herself. Needless to say this was challenged and, when the items were not returned, legal action ensued.

If he was not a happy camper moving to Diana's household from the get go I cannot see her ever even liking him let alone striking up the kind of "friendship" that she did. And, the subsequent legal action found in his favour that there was enough evidence to support the case.

So, who do we believe? Sarah Bradford or Paul Burrell. Neither is a sterling example of integrity but I am actually leaning toward Burrell because he was able to make his case in a court of law.

Wow, talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
 
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:

Diana seriously intended to sack Paul Burrell when she decided that he was running up huge telephone bills on her account.
 
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:

Outwardly Diana got on with Lady Susan but inwardly she was as suspicious of her as she was of anyone who had been close to the Prince.

Lady Susan Hussey was one of Queen Elizabeth II's Women of the Bedchamber.
 
I find this a little confusing. After Diana's death Paul Burrell was in possession of many sensitive items purported to have been entrusted to his care by Diana herself. Needless to say this was challenged and, when the items were not returned, legal action ensued.

If he was not a happy camper moving to Diana's household from the get go I cannot see her ever even liking him let alone striking up the kind of "friendship" that she did. And, the subsequent legal action found in his favour that there was enough evidence to support the case.

So, who do we believe? Sarah Bradford or Paul Burrell. Neither is a sterling example of integrity but I am actually leaning toward Burrell because he was able to make his case in a court of law.

Wow, talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

My understanding was that Burrell did not actually make his case, but the Queen suddenly remembered that Burrell was in fact given the items - or am I mixing things up here?
 
:previous: You are right! Ugh, definitely the Devil or the Deep Blue Sea! :hammer:
 
My understanding was that Burrell did not actually make his case, but the Queen suddenly remembered that Burrell was in fact given the items - or am I mixing things up here?

It was a little more complicated than that. Shortly after Diana's death, Burrell told the Queen that he was taking control of the items because he was concerned they would be sold off. However, when Burrell was first arrested, the news media reported (and the Queen was told) that Burrell was selling items and there were pictures of him actually wearing some of her clothes. Those stories turned out not to be true and Burrell was charged with taking possession without permission.

Apparently no one actually asked the Queen if she gave Burrell permission to store the items. The Queen doesn't read tabloids so she didn't realize the actual charges against Burrell. At some point during the trial, she told Charles that she had given Burrell permission to hold Diana's possessions and Charles realized the impact.

The tabloids tried to claim that the royal family was in damage control mode but, if they were, it was too late: I think all the damaging stories were already out there.

I think there was also a question about whether the Queen had the authority to give Burrell permission to store the items. IIRC, the Queen was William and Harry's legal guardian, but the executors of Diana's will had control over her estate. My memory is that technically, Burrell should have gotten permission from the executors rather than grandma but, given that Grandma is the Queen, I think the prosecutors decided they couldn't make their case.
 
It was a little more complicated than that. Shortly after Diana's death, Burrell told the Queen that he was taking control of the items because he was concerned they would be sold off. However, when Burrell was first arrested, the news media reported (and the Queen was told) that Burrell was selling items and there were pictures of him actually wearing some of her clothes. Those stories turned out not to be true and Burrell was charged with taking possession without permission.

Apparently no one actually asked the Queen if she gave Burrell permission to store the items. The Queen doesn't read tabloids so she didn't realize the actual charges against Burrell. At some point during the trial, she told Charles that she had given Burrell permission to hold Diana's possessions and Charles realized the impact.

The tabloids tried to claim that the royal family was in damage control mode but, if they were, it was too late: I think all the damaging stories were already out there.

I think there was also a question about whether the Queen had the authority to give Burrell permission to store the items. IIRC, the Queen was William and Harry's legal guardian, but the executors of Diana's will had control over her estate. My memory is that technically, Burrell should have gotten permission from the executors rather than grandma but, given that Grandma is the Queen, I think the prosecutors decided they couldn't make their case.

Why would the Queen by the legal guardian of William and Harry instead of their father?
 
Another interesting aspect to the Burrell case is that he was not the only one of Diana's staff who was charged with theft. Harold Brown, who was also a butler was charged with stealing and selling some items. After the charges against Burrell collapse, they dropped the charges against Brown.

It seems to me that the case against Brown was stronger: he told several different stories about how he came to sell some of Diana's possessions. The link to the story is here. Harold Brown gave three different stories - Telegraph
 
I could be wrong but I thought all the royal children are in her legal custody, but only in name. The parents make the decisions.

She does have some control, doesn't she have to give her permission for a child who's an HRH to leave the country?
 
It was a little more complicated than that. Shortly after Diana's death, Burrell told the Queen that he was taking control of the items because he was concerned they would be sold off. However, when Burrell was first arrested, the news media reported (and the Queen was told) that Burrell was selling items and there were pictures of him actually wearing some of her clothes. Those stories turned out not to be true and Burrell was charged with taking possession without permission.

Apparently no one actually asked the Queen if she gave Burrell permission to store the items. The Queen doesn't read tabloids so she didn't realize the actual charges against Burrell. At some point during the trial, she told Charles that she had given Burrell permission to hold Diana's possessions and Charles realized the impact.

The tabloids tried to claim that the royal family was in damage control mode but, if they were, it was too late: I think all the damaging stories were already out there.

I think there was also a question about whether the Queen had the authority to give Burrell permission to store the items. IIRC, the Queen was William and Harry's legal guardian, but the executors of Diana's will had control over her estate. My memory is that technically, Burrell should have gotten permission from the executors rather than grandma but, given that Grandma is the Queen, I think the prosecutors decided they couldn't make their case.

So, the queen doesn't read tabloids, but has no one on her staff that tells her what they say or how she may be implicated in something. Oh, come on. She is a bright woman and they cover their tracks. Which is what happened here.
 
Yes, I believe that's the case for any members of the BRF.

Yes you are right Monarchs have always had control over many aspect when it comes to children's and even some Adults . They are Legal Guardians but mostly in name now. You need The Queen/King Permission for names, a child to leaving a country, etc,.

Sometimes There been Royals who choose not follow orders for various reasons. Queen Victoria wanted to attend the births of her all her Daughters, Daughters In Laws and some Granddaughters. it was said that Many were able to bypass this by giving The Queen a fault Due Date and Would only call The Queen after they give birth. Alexandra The Princess was said to have done this for all of her Pregnancies as she did not want the Queen there and is said to be the reason why all her kids were born prematurely. Needless to say The Queen was not amused. She wanted The first son of George and Mary The Duke and Duchess and Cambridge first name to be named Albert when they choose Edward i stead George got a letter from his Grandmother expressing her unhappiness of them going against her will. It was promise next child would named Albert

Victoria became a Mother figure to Princess Alice Kids after she died and acted as legal guardian as she was.

George I took his Grandchild George William away from his Son George II and Caroline.




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Yes you are right Monarchs have always had control over many aspect when it comes to children's and even some Adults . They are Legal Guardians but mostly in name now. You need The Queen/King Permission for names, a child to leaving a country, etc,.

Sometimes There been Royals who choose not follow orders for various reasons. Queen Victoria wanted to attend the births of her all her Daughters, Daughters In Laws and some Granddaughters. it was said that Many were able to bypass this by giving The Queen a fault Due Date and Would only call The Queen after they give birth. Alexandra The Princess was said to have done this for all of her Pregnancies as she did not want the Queen there and is said to be the reason why all her kids were born prematurely. Needless to say The Queen was not amused. She wanted The first son of George and Mary The Duke and Duchess and Cambridge first name to be named Albert when they choose Edward i stead George got a letter from his Grandmother expressing her unhappiness of them going against her will. It was promise next child would named Albert

Victoria became a Mother figure to Princess Alice Kids after she died and acted as legal guardian as she was.

George I took his Grandchild George William away from his Son George II and Caroline.




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

I think you're getting some of your Georges mixed up here.

Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, was the cousin of Queen Victoria. He married, in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act, Sarah Fairbrother. Since their marriage wasn't legally valid she was never Duchess of Cambridge, but was rather known as Mrs. Fairbrother and Mrs. FitzGeorge. Their sons were named George, Adolphus, and Augustus, all of which were family names.

Victoria's grandson, Prince George, Duke of York (later George V), married Princess Mary of Teck. Their eldest son was christened Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. Edward Albert was a reversal of the names of his paternal grandfather, who was Albert Edward, but it's said that the "Edward" was chosen in memory of his deceased uncle (Albert Victor, known in the family as "Eddy") and Albert at his great-grandmother's insistence. Christian, of course, was for his great-grandfather Christian IX, and his last four names were the patron saints of the different British countries.

George and Mary's second son was born on the anniversary of Prince Albert's death, causing the Queen great distress. As a result the then Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) suggested to his son that they name the child Albert to make the distressed Queen happy.
 
I think you're getting some of your Georges mixed up here.

Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, was the cousin of Queen Victoria. He married, in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act, Sarah Fairbrother. Since their marriage wasn't legally valid she was never Duchess of Cambridge, but was rather known as Mrs. Fairbrother and Mrs. FitzGeorge. Their sons were named George, Adolphus, and Augustus, all of which were family names.

Victoria's grandson, Prince George, Duke of York (later George V), married Princess Mary of Teck. Their eldest son was christened Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. Edward Albert was a reversal of the names of his paternal grandfather, who was Albert Edward, but it's said that the "Edward" was chosen in memory of his deceased uncle (Albert Victor, known in the family as "Eddy") and Albert at his great-grandmother's insistence. Christian, of course, was for his great-grandfather Christian IX, and his last four names were the patron saints of the different British countries.

George and Mary's second son was born on the anniversary of Prince Albert's death, causing the Queen great distress. As a result the then Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) suggested to his son that they name the child Albert to make the distressed Queen happy.

Thank for the correction. I meant Duke of York.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Why would the Queen by the legal guardian of William and Harry instead of their father?

The normal family law which counts for every British citizen applies as well on the members of the royal family. Prince William and his spouse are the legal guardians of their minor children. After the untimely death of the mother, The Prince of Wales was the sole legal guardian of his minor sons. It was Prince Charles, and Prince Charles alone, who was responsible for the upbringing of his sons. Not their grandmother the Queen, not their uncle the Earl Spencer.

She does have some control, doesn't she have to give her permission for a child who's an HRH to leave the country?

Also here the normal laws which count for every British citizen apply as well on the members of the royal family. They are adult ladies and gentlemen with a British Passport and are -in principle- free to travel, to go and to stay. Of course there will be coordination because of security, transportation and accessibility. The story that the Queen needs to give permission to HRH's for leaving the country has no logic. Her cousins the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester are HRH's but are lower in the line of succession than Peter, Savannah and Isla Phillips. Even Zara and Mia Tindall are much higher. They do not need to ask permission? It is just one of these nonsense stories which go around.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all for the correction about the legal custody of William and Harry. It makes the Queen's involvement even less relevant. The items in question belonged to Diana. After her death, they belonged to her estate and were in control of the executors of her will. The Queen could not give Burrell permission to remove and safeguard any of Diana's possessions.
 
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:

An immediate consequence of the separation of the two households was the division of the staff. At Kensington Palace the charming, loyal and discreet head butler, Harold Brown, remained with the Princess; the Highgrove butler, Paul Burrell, was assigned to Kensington Palace against his wishes. With his wife, Maria, and two sons, Burrell was happy in his cottage on the Highgrove estate and was extremely unwilling to be transferred to the Princess's service.

I find this a little confusing. After Diana's death Paul Burrell was in possession of many sensitive items purported to have been entrusted to his care by Diana herself. Needless to say this was challenged and, when the items were not returned, legal action ensued.

If he was not a happy camper moving to Diana's household from the get go I cannot see her ever even liking him let alone striking up the kind of "friendship" that she did. And, the subsequent legal action found in his favour that there was enough evidence to support the case.

So, who do we believe? Sarah Bradford or Paul Burrell. Neither is a sterling example of integrity but I am actually leaning toward Burrell because he was able to make his case in a court of law.

Wow, talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.


Burrell himself has said that he chose to go with the Princess. He was unhappy at the break up of the couple because his family was happy living at Highgrove, but when the break came, he was definitely in Diana's camp.
 
It was a little more complicated than that. Shortly after Diana's death, Burrell told the Queen that he was taking control of the items because he was concerned they would be sold off. However, when Burrell was first arrested, the news media reported (and the Queen was told) that Burrell was selling items and there were pictures of him actually wearing some of her clothes. Those stories turned out not to be true and Burrell was charged with taking possession without permission.

Apparently no one actually asked the Queen if she gave Burrell permission to store the items. The Queen doesn't read tabloids so she didn't realize the actual charges against Burrell. At some point during the trial, she told Charles that she had given Burrell permission to hold Diana's possessions and Charles realized the impact.

The tabloids tried to claim that the royal family was in damage control mode but, if they were, it was too late: I think all the damaging stories were already out there.

I think there was also a question about whether the Queen had the authority to give Burrell permission to store the items. IIRC, the Queen was William and Harry's legal guardian, but the executors of Diana's will had control over her estate. My memory is that technically, Burrell should have gotten permission from the executors rather than grandma but, given that Grandma is the Queen, I think the prosecutors decided they couldn't make their case.

Diana's mother and sisters were loading up the boots of their cars with Diana's possessions and shredding documents. I don't think executors get to help themselves. They can petition the court for a reasonable fee. I found it reasonable that someone stepped in to safeguard some things.
 
Yes you are right Monarchs have always had control over many aspect when it comes to children's and even some Adults . They are Legal Guardians but mostly in name now. You need The Queen/King Permission for names, a child to leaving a country, etc,.

Sometimes There been Royals who choose not follow orders for various reasons. Queen Victoria wanted to attend the births of her all her Daughters, Daughters In Laws and some Granddaughters. it was said that Many were able to bypass this by giving The Queen a fault Due Date and Would only call The Queen after they give birth. Alexandra The Princess was said to have done this for all of her Pregnancies as she did not want the Queen there and is said to be the reason why all her kids were born prematurely. Needless to say The Queen was not amused. She wanted The first son of George and Mary The Duke and Duchess and Cambridge first name to be named Albert when they choose Edward i stead George got a letter from his Grandmother expressing her unhappiness of them going against her will. It was promise next child would named Albert

Victoria became a Mother figure to Princess Alice Kids after she died and acted as legal guardian as she was.

George I took his Grandchild George William away from his Son George II and Caroline.




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

I did not know Victoria wanted to be present at all the births - thanks for the tidbit. I knew she was overbearing and intermeddling (understatement!) but had no idea she wanted to be at deliveries. What the heck for?

Maybe she wanted to be at the conceptions, too. :p

She also loved to grieve and when family members were not grieving quite enough to her liking they would get some stern letters about that too.
 
Diana's mother and sisters were loading up the boots of their cars with Diana's possessions and shredding documents. I don't think executors get to help themselves. They can petition the court for a reasonable fee. I found it reasonable that someone stepped in to safeguard some things.

Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.
 
Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.

I think people do it all the time.
 
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway
Diana's mother and sisters were loading up the boots of their cars with Diana's possessions and shredding documents. I don't think executors get to help themselves. They can petition the court for a reasonable fee. I found it reasonable that someone stepped in to safeguard some things.

Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.

It's been a long time since I've read about this, but it seems that the way the charges against Burrell were worded had to do with his taking the property to deprive the rightful owner or something along that line. Therefore, since he hadn't sold the property -- he had it all stored -- and he had told The Queen that he was storing some property, then the charge went away. Of course, we all know that The Queen's remembrance was quite convenient, spurred probably by the fear that Prince Charles might be asked to testify. :lol:

Anyway, the executors of Diana's estate did not carry out her wishes regarding her godchildren and that was discussed at length in the media. So, her mother and sisters played a bit loose with her wishes.
 
It's been a long time since I've read about this, but it seems that the way the charges against Burrell were worded had to do with his taking the property to deprive the rightful owner or something along that line. Therefore, since he hadn't sold the property -- he had it all stored -- and he had told The Queen that he was storing some property, then the charge went away. Of course, we all know that The Queen's remembrance was quite convenient, spurred probably by the fear that Prince Charles might be asked to testify. :lol:

Anyway, the executors of Diana's estate did not carry out her wishes regarding her godchildren and that was discussed at length in the media. So, her mother and sisters played a bit loose with her wishes.

I've also read that Diana's wishes for her godchildren were not honored. II hope that William and Harry have made it right.

You are probably right about the way the charges were worded but I am pretty sure that you need more than the approval of a former family member in order to take items from an estate.

The defense may have wanted to divert attention and call Charles, (a lot of things came out during that trial that had nothing to do with the case) but I can't think of anything that he would have to say that was relevant to the actual charges. Their divorce would have negated any information he had about Diana's wishes and they weren't close enough after the divorce that he would know what type of property she still had.

Burrell did hold on to some items inappropriately. Didn't Settelin have to sue in order to get Burrell to return the tapes to him?
 
He had to sue someone--either Burrell or the Spencers. He says on the tapes that's one reason why he made the agreement with NBC to show them; he had to recover his legal costs. I don't remember who had them before Settelen got them back.

Burrell did hold on to some items inappropriately. Didn't Settelin have to sue in order to get Burrell to return the tapes to him?
 
It occurs to me that those people who think that the Queen manufactured the conversation think that Burrell was guilty. My understanding is that if he never spoke with the Queen, then he never told anyone that he took the items. He hadn't disposed of them at the time of the arrest, but who knows what he was planning to do.

Didn't Burrell himself say that he had told the Queen? If that is the case, why would the defense call Prince Charles but not the Queen? It doesn't make any sense unless the Queen is being honest. She didn't realize that what she had to say was important because she didn't understand the nature of the charges.
 
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.

Didn't Burrell himself say that he had told the Queen? If that is the case, why would the defense call Prince Charles but not the Queen? It doesn't make any sense unless the Queen is being honest. She didn't realize that what she had to say was important because she didn't understand the nature of the charges.
 
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.

Albert Edward also Testified in a Divorce Case as well I believe


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.

Thanks for the information, but that wouldn't explain why the defense or the prosecution wouldn't have just asked her if it was important to the case. If nothing else, the defense could have used the media to pester the palace about it.

Okay, the defense could call Charles, but I still can't think of anything he could have added to the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom