The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-30-2014, 02:41 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lapalisse, France
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-30-2014, 04:16 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,361
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-13-2014, 08:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,554
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-09-2014, 08:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,554
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-09-2014, 09:32 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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?
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-09-2014, 09:44 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,361
You are right! Ugh, definitely the Devil or the Deep Blue Sea!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-09-2014, 09:53 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:00 PM
Duchess of Durham's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham View Post
Why would the Queen by the legal guardian of William and Harry instead of their father?
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:25 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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?
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-09-2014, 10:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-09-2014, 11:29 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
She does have some control, doesn't she have to give her permission for a child who's an HRH to leave the country?
Yes, I believe that's the case for any members of the BRF.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-09-2014, 11:49 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-10-2014, 02:47 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-10-2014, 03:04 AM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-10-2014, 03:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lapalisse, France
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
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.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-10-2014, 09:23 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-10-2014, 09:51 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 48
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-10-2014, 09:56 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
class system, diana princess of wales, princess diana, staff


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Haakon and Mette-Marit's staff hrhcp Crown Prince Haakon & Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 15 02-04-2014 02:08 PM
Bagshot Park, Social Life and Lifestyle msleiman The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Family 51 07-30-2013 06:03 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]