"The Way We Were: Remembering Diana" by Paul Burrell (2006)

[Zonk]

I don't mean to be a crank here but...
In cases like this wouldn't it be best to ignore and not discuss the "revelations" of someone who is obviously trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame with fantastic tales??? Particularly when the subject of these tales can't defend herself. I say bravo to her boys who won't dignify such lurid accusations. I'm off my soap box now...

Pinklady1991..you are correct. But its better to talk it amongst ourselves than to buy his book. Hopefullly then publishers will get the hint. And perhaps its better for William and Harry to ignore anything he says or writes. Really....by commenting on it they are just giving him free publicity.

I went shopping at BJ's today..picked it up to look at the pics to see if there was something new. Put it right back on the table. I won't be buying this!

And thanks Duchess!

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I remember seeing the first Burrell book heavily discounted at our local Tower Books not all that long after it came out, and one of the salespeople said it hadn't sold very well. Perhaps this one will have the same experience.

 

[bluebess]

Okay, so I walked into my local bookstore to peruse the selection and I spy the new book by Mr Burrell (I hadn't seen this thread yet so was unaware that he was at it AGAIN), sappily titled "The Way We Were" and I nearly gagged. That man needs some help and he needs to get a life and move on. How does he keep getting book deals? He is a delusional creep.
There, I said it! Now maybe I can move on and get a life!!!!!

 

[HRH Kerry]

It all boils down to money. Burrell is a greedy monster and is doing Diana a serious diservice in death. How long did it take for him to come up with these lies? She wanted to be First Lady of the US but he won't name any names even though there has been speculation in the past? Wow, how convenient for Burrell. Will this ever end? What will he think up next?

 

[charlottestreasures]

I as well picked up the book and scanned through it. Not worth the price, would like it for my collection but will wait until it comes on sale.

I know there is alot of criticism and I agree but on the other hand maybe he is trying to perserve her memory. Of course the money he gets makes me sick, should be donated to Diana's charities.

I have been reading some of it online and as one person said it it nice to have preserved photographs of her things and rooms as she lived, as it was all stripped away. Prince Charles had The Queen Mother's rooms photographed by a magazine and Princess Margaret's apt has been preserved to some extent for visitors.

 

[Zonk]

I as well picked up the book and scanned through it. Not worth the price, would like it for my collection but will wait until it comes on sale.

I know there is alot of criticism and I agree but on the other hand maybe he is trying to perserve her memory. Of course the money he gets makes me sick, should be donated to Diana's charities.

I have been reading some of it online and as one person said it it nice to have preserved photographs of her things and rooms as she lived, as it was all stripped away. Prince Charles had The Queen Mother's rooms photographed by a magazine and Princess Margaret's apt has been preserved to some extent for visitors.

In regards to the perserving of the rooms....and the lack of saving things as they are. First, I wouldn't believe Paul Burrell if he was trying to sell me a piece of gum and secondly, the decision to save or not save her any of her possessions is really none of his business. While I don't agree with how her possessions were removed and discarded by her mother and siblings...it was their decision. She made them the executor of her estate. They made sure her children received some of the items and that should have been the end of it. Who the heck made him the curator of Diana's memory. If you ask me..and I know you didn't..he is doing a poor job of "saving" her memory.

 

[charlottestreasures]

I know this is a hot topic, but I will stick my neck out again. Mr. Burrell had not said anything about the Princess of Wales until after he was put through a trial which the Royal Family should have not let happen, when they did come to their senses they spoke up and the case was dropped. I am sure he was put through a living hell to be blunt.
They had trusted him , because they sent him to Paris when she died and he was one of only two that were not family at her burial.
After the trial he just decided he was not going to keep anything private anymore.
I still feel that he should have been donating at least a portion of the profits to charity.

Anyway a much better buy for your money is Sarah Bradford's well balanced biography of Diana.

 

[Skydragon]

Nobody can say for sure, of course, but can you imagine it would be kept 'quiet' all this time, if that was true? It would probably be on the front page of every single newspaper in the United Kingdom the very next day!
And to tell the truth, I regard any information, provided by Mr. Burrell with a great deal of distrust. He had run out of his 'sensational' revelations and had probably decided a corpse in the back yard would do the trick, imo. That's what I call heartless, playing with other people's feelings.

Many of the gardeners would have left royal service by now and human nature being what it is, someone would have tried to make a fast buck, besides Burrell. A story like that, with the location would earn them £50,000 at least.
Many people have buried their loved ones on their estates, gardens in the UK are a totally different matter. If the owner was not asked and did not give written consent for the council to check, then it would not have happened.

Can you imagine anyone, in their grief as Burrell was supposed to be, taking photographs and items that he could use in the book he was probably already planning. If you had just lost someone you truly loved and admired, is that the first thing you would think of doing? Even his story that he was given Dianas' jewellery at the hospital is unlikely to be true, No one in their right mind would hand anything undocumented over to a servant, unless the laws are different in France.
Burrell is a sad and sorry individual and anyone who buys his book, is IMO, also betraying Diana and her sons.

 

[sassie]

Can you imagine anyone, in their grief as Burrell was supposed to be, taking photographs and items that he could use in the book he was probably already planning. If you had just lost someone you truly loved and admired, is that the first thing you would think of doing? Even his story that he was given Dianas' jewellry at the hospital is unlikely to be true, No one in their right mind would hand anything undocumented over to a servant, unless the laws are different in France.
Burrell is a sad and sorry individual and anyone who buys his book, is IMO, also betraying Diana and her sons.

Interestingly enough, no one at the hospital remembers handing him jewelry. And, I agree, they just wouldn't do that-especially knowing Diana's sisters were due to arrive. They'd give the jewelry to them, if there was any.

With those pictures, Burrell completely shoots down his former claim that he never intended to write a book about the Princess. Especially the ones of the closeups of her jewelry. Very, very strange.

I don't intend to buy this book. I admit, it's interesting to see a glimpse of Diana's home, but not at the cost of lining Burrell's pockets.

 

[ysbel]

So Burrell is at it again?

This is a really disturbing trend of employees betraying their Royal employers. If I were the Royal family I'd be paranoid about my servants.

First Paul Burrell, then Diana's detective wrote a book which got the Police Department up in arms because it compromised the security of the Royal Family, then Prince Charles' press agent and secretary steal his diary and sell it to the press.

I notice that the Daily Mail is outraged at Burrell but defended Charles' diaries being published as being important for the public to know. These tabloids talk out of both sides of their mouth sometimes.

It's all disgusting.

 

[Madame Royale]

Unfortunately, the invasion of someones privacy will always sell and not even death can stop that.

 

[Duchess]

But the Moncktons are no celebrities - who would want to spoil their moment of grief on visiting their private grave on a cemetery? No one is interested in them enough to do something like that. While with KP gardens they had to rely on Diana's permission to reach the spot. They would include Diana in their grief anytime they wanted to visit - that's too much for any friendship. I mean: would you bury your stillborn child in your friend's garden? And why should they have done that? I don't see so many reasons against it , but not one good motive for it. There is something absolutely fishy in the whole story if this burial really took place.

you're right, the Moncktons aren't celebrities and they could've buried their child in their own garden if they wanted. i went back to look at the article and couldn't find it, but somehwere i read that diana gave them a key so they could come and visit any time. i don't know why it upsets people now and it didn't when it was first mentioned - probably because of the source this time - but if the offer was made i just think it was meant as a friendly gesture on diana's part but was probably declined by the Moncktons. at any rate i'm starting to feel as though he's made this up. now that diana is gone the child would have to be moved and speaking from experience i know how hard something like this can be - moving the remains of a deceased loved one - as i'm sure anyone living in KP now would be uncomfortable with a situation like this.

 

[Duchess]

So Burrell is at it again?

This is a really disturbing trend of employees betraying their Royal employers. If I were the Royal family I'd be paranoid about my servants.

First Paul Burrell, then Diana's detective wrote a book which got the Police Department up in arms because it compromised the security of the Royal Family, then Prince Charles' press agent and secretary steal his diary and sell it to the press.

I notice that the Daily Mail is outraged at Burrell but defended Charles' diaries being published as being important for the public to know. These tabloids talk out of both sides of their mouth sometimes.

It's all disgusting.

you're so right ysbel. it certainly makes you wonder if the RF could ever find someone to work closely with them that is trustworthy.

 

[Duchess]

With those pictures, Burrell completely shoots down his former claim that he never intended to write a book about the Princess. Especially the ones of the closeups of her jewelry. Very, very strange.

really intersting point sassy, i'd never thought of that but your right on the mark.

 

[Zonk]

really intersting point sassy, i'd never thought of that but your right on the mark.

Actually the closeups of the jewelry is not strange IMO. I am sure they have tons of pics of all the jewelery that the RF (heck even the extremely wealthy) for insurance purposes. Which makes you wonder...how did he get it?

 

[charlottestreasures]

It was reported before, nothing new, that Rosa Monckton buried her baby there.
A newspaper article just had news about a reporter asking her about it and she commented that she was shocked he had included that in his book, but it is old news anyway.
Ingrid Seward editor of Majesty commented that it was true but very strange and odd but not surprising when it came to Princess Diana !!

 

[sassie]

Actually the closeups of the jewelry is not strange IMO. I am sure they have tons of pics of all the jewelery that the RF (heck even the extremely wealthy) for insurance purposes. Which makes you wonder...how did he get it?

No, these were pictures that Burrell admits HE took of the jewelry after Diana died-not for insurance purposes, but for his "own collection" (i.e. for future use in a book he was already planning, imo).

 

[Warren]

I think what Burrell is trying to achieve is to cement himself in the public mind as the central figure in the last years of Diana's life. He would like us to think it was the "Diana and Paul" show. It must be very galling to those who were true confidantes of the late Princess, but their loyalty and discretion create the vaccuum which allows Burrell to strut the stage.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

you're so right ysbel. it certainly makes you wonder if the RF could ever find someone to work closely with them that is trustworthy.

So far the queen has had quite a good hand in it, obviously. It's interesting that the people who betray them have motives that are born out of their personal greed, their taking on their own self-importance or the wish to share their employer's limelight. Burrell, that PR guy, the police officer (though I liked his book), that secretary come to mind. Or that terrible "Lady Colin" Campell (she's divorced now, but I don't know her real name) - they all strike me as negative characters. But that should be something you can learn to recognize before you entrust them with your secrets, no?

As for the Royals: you can either do it like the Swedish RF - simply "be boring" (the answer of king Carl XVI. Gustaf in a TV interview when asked why there are no reports about scandals: "Because we are boring, so very boring."). Or select the people you trust more carefully. Maybe Charles should let Camilla select their confidentes and staff: she obviously knows how to do that!

 

[Duchess]

It was reported before, nothing new, that Rosa Monckton buried her baby there.
A newspaper article just had news about a reporter asking her about it and she commented that she was shocked he had included that in his book, but it is old news anyway.
Ingrid Seward editor of Majesty commented that it was true but very strange and odd but not surprising when it came to Princess Diana !!

thanks charlottestreasures...i knew it had been reported somewhere before.

 

[Duchess]

mr. burrell's overblown sense of self importance just makes me wonder:
1) if he was in love with Diana (the whole falling asleep in her closet is proof enough for me)
2) seriously lacks any sanity
3) considered all along that he would one day write a book about his experiences with the RF

all of his actions seem to point to the above at least IMO.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

mr. burrell's overblown sense of self importance just makes me wonder:
1) if he was in love with Diana (the whole falling asleep in her closet is proof enough for me)
2) seriously lacks any sanity
3) considered all along that he would one day write a book about his experiences with the RF

all of his actions seem to point to the above at least IMO.

At least he cannot now "remember" that they had conducted a love affair when alone in her flat at KP - I mean, I wouldn't put that past a guy who writes a book called: "The way WE were - remembering Diana", but still he would be a laughingstock. Or wouldn't he?

 

[Skydragon]

A newspaper article just had news about a reporter asking her about it and she commented that she was shocked he had included that in his book, but it is old news anyway.
Ingrid Seward editor of Majesty commented that it was true but very strange and odd but not surprising when it came to Princess Diana !!

Which newspaper would that be, surely not the Mirror, Sun or NoTW? If it was true it would have made headline news here and it didn't, which is why I doubt the authenticity of his claim.

I hadn't realised that Ms Seward was such a close friend of Diana or Rosa.

 

[Skydragon]

At least he cannot now "remember" that they had conducted a love affair when alone in her flat at KP - I mean, I wouldn't put that past a guy who writes a book called: "The way WE were - remembering Diana", but still he would be a laughingstock. Or wouldn't he?

You are so right, there are many who would believe that! Apart from the fact that she is doing well, living off the proceeds, You can't help but feel sorry for his wife!

 

[Skydragon]

Interestingly enough, no one at the hospital remembers handing him jewelry. And, I agree, they just wouldn't do that-especially knowing Diana's sisters were due to arrive. They'd give the jewelry to them, if there was any.

With those pictures, Burrell completely shoots down his former claim that he never intended to write a book about the Princess. Especially the ones of the closeups of her jewelry. Very, very strange.

I don't intend to buy this book. I admit, it's interesting to see a glimpse of Diana's home, but not at the cost of lining Burrell's pockets.

Good for you sassie!

 

[Duchess]

At least he cannot now "remember" that they had conducted a love affair when alone in her flat at KP - I mean, I wouldn't put that past a guy who writes a book called: "The way WE were - remembering Diana", but still he would be a laughingstock. Or wouldn't he?

can you imagine if he said that?!

 

[bluebess]

He is such an attention seeker that you can bet these won't be the last of his "revelations" on Diana and his supposed importance in her life. He is exploiting her just like everyone else who has cashed in on her fame and legend and he obviously has a serious need to seem important. I can almost feel sorry for him but for the fact that he is hurting the two most important people in Diana's life, her sons. If he were such a great and glorious support and confidant to her, he would know how she must be spinning in her grave over what her kids have to go through because of his tell all trashy books. That alone makes me question the veracity of his claims and also his true intentions for all those years. I think he is unethical and unkind.

 

[sassie]

can you imagine if he said that?!

Given his somewhat ambiguous romantic past, he'd be laughed out of England, I think.

 

[charlottestreasures]

Which newspaper would that be, surely not the Mirror, Sun or NoTW? If it was true it would have made headline news here and it didn't, which is why I doubt the authenticity of his claim.

I hadn't realised that Ms Seward was such a close friend of Diana or Rosa.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/08/1038950275645.html

December 9 2002
London



Princess Diana, allowed a friend to bury her stillborn baby in the Kensington Palace grounds, a paper reported on the weekend.
Rosa Monckton lost the baby girl after a six-month pregnancy in 1994, the Daily Mail said.
The baby, Natalia, was buried in a small grave at the palace in West London, it reported.
Diana, Ms Monckton, and her husband, London Sunday Telegraph editor Dominic Lawson, gathered round the grave as Catholic priest Father Alexander Sherbrooke, who had consecrated the ground, said prayers, according to the paper.
The grave was dug by royal butlers Paul Burrell and Harold Brown, who both had theft cases against them dropped.

You can read the rest of the article in the link added above.

This is one of the places that it has been reported.


@media print {.nopr {display:none}}

 

[bmbutler]

Personally, I think the guy is pathetic! If you read any of what he has written or heard him on news shows, the guy is like a lost puppy. I can't believe his wife is still married to him! He worships Diana, but I really wonder how much longer she would have kept him around.