"The Way We Were: Remembering Diana" - Paul Burrell

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by sassie

No, I just looked, it wasn't in Shadows of a Princess.

Simmons also spoke of it in a few interviews, and there was some little mention in the press of the story being in her book-and then it faded away. I imagine not even the tabloid press really wanted to delve into the details of the whole thing. Possibly, you might have read it in one of the second hand stories?

I've never read Simmons' books, but I know that story was in one of them, because she answered questions about it.

thanks for the info sassie. at any rate i don't see anything wrong with this type of burial. if it is true then it was a very touching thing for diana to have done, inspite of being short sighted. people have different ways of laying loved ones to rest - scattering ashes or burial at sea - even diana isn't buried in a churchyard or cemetary. i just think it's something he didn't have to bring up again as it's no doubt a very painful memory for the Moncktons.

[Zonk]

Regardless if did happen, its a personal event and its not his place to talk about it. I would imagine the death of a child to be a highly personal thing...and not his to share.

[libra65]

This guy has got to stop this. He is trying to tell the "truth" about Diana yet again. Yeah yeah yeah we get it-you need the money. But does he have to keep putting her boys thru this. Supposedly this is his last book (I think I heard that quoted on ABC). Yeah, it is the last book until his bank account runs dry.

[Zonk]

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I am pretty certain that someone, besides Burrell would have mentioned before now, if Rosa had buried her child at BP or KP. If she had buried her child at either of those places it would have been in a paper somewhere, as with everything else in the UK, formal notification has to be given and that means making it all public, so that people can object, if they want.

I really don't see Queen Elizabeth giving her permission for something so distasteful, apart from anything else it would set a precedent. There are cemetarys for stillborns, unbaptised babies (children and adults) and I would have thought Rosa would have picked somewhere she could visit.

All true. What I meant was that we have no way of knowing that it didn't happen. The fact that Rosa is not denying it might mean that it did. If it did, we also have no way of knowing that she didn't acquire the proper permissions needed, and that a mortuary wasn't involved. There could be many people who know about it-but choose to keep silent.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Zonk

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

When "A Royal Duty" was published, William and Harry issued a statement that said:

"We cannot believe that Paul, who was entrusted with so much, could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal. It is not only deeply painful for the two of us, but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today. And, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul. We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end."


Paul Burrell's response was to tell them to "grow up". (It's okay if they criticise other people's writings-when it comes to his, it's apparently immature of them to do so.)

What more are they supposed to say now? They say something, he attacks them publicly. They don't say something-and he still attacks them publicly. Perhaps they've simply chose to rise above Paul Burrell and his ilk-in which case, I say, good for them.

[Oppie]

This message is for those who are digusted by the articles.

I see that there are a few newspapers that are printing extracts, Just rememeber this if you go to the website the newspaper gets advertising revenue, which means that they will continue to buy extracts of the book from him, it is as bad as buying it. If you want to stop this don't go to the websites (better yet e-mail the company and tell them that you won't be going to the website) don't buy the newspapers either.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

All true. What I meant was that we have no way of knowing that it didn't happen. The fact that Rosa is not denying it might mean that it did. If it did, we also have no way of knowing that she didn't acquire the proper permissions needed, and that a mortuary wasn't involved. There could be many people who know about it-but choose to keep silent.

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

[hibou]

Originally Posted by sassie

When "A Royal Duty" was published, William and Harry issued a statement that said:

"We cannot believe that Paul, who was entrusted with so much, could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal. It is not only deeply painful for the two of us, but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today. And, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul. We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end."


Paul Burrell's response was to tell them to "grow up". (It's okay if they criticise other people's writings-when it comes to his, it's apparently immature of them to do so.)

What more are they supposed to say now? They say something, he attacks them publicly. They don't say something-and he still attacks them publicly. Perhaps they've simply chose to rise above Paul Burrell and his ilk-in which case, I say, good for them.

The best thing to do is to not by the book, when it doesn't sell he will be silenced and needless to say talk shows won't be asking him to come on their shows either.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

I agree with you Skydragon. I simply can't imagine Rosa asking anyone to do that or Diana agreeing. It's really heartless. Though perhaps not as heartless as what Mr. Burrel is doing.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I agree with you Skydragon. I simply can't imagine Rosa asking anyone to do that or Diana agreeing. It's really heartless. Though perhaps not as heartless as what Mr. Burrel is doing.

while i respect your opinion, i don't understand why it's considered so heartless. laying one's loved one to rest is a highly personal matter. taking into consideration that the Monckton's might want to visit the grave and have privacy, it was a very touching thing to do, if it's true. as i mentioned earlier, diana is laid to rest on the property of her family estate (not in a formal family burial plot or mausoleum) and no one seems to object to that. many people choose not to be buried in cemetaries or churchyards. while we'll probably never know if it's true or not i don't see it as being a heartless gesture. while it may not be to everyone's taste, i'm sure if the offer was made, and accepted by the Monckton's then it was done with compassion and love. i do, however, agree that it was not Burrell's (nor the person that had previously made it public) place to talk about it.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Zonk

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

Zonk, i love your avatar!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Duchess

while i respect your opinion, i don't understand why it's considered so heartless. laying one's loved one to rest is a highly personal matter. taking into consideration that the Monckton's might want to visit the grave and have privacy, it was a very touching thing to do, if it's true.

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.

[BeatrixFan]

I quote from the Daily Mail;

"Diana wasn't as loved up with Mr Burrell as he'd like you to believe. She once said to the Duchess of York, "That f***ing Burrell is getting on my nerves. He's like a leech". And that wasn't the only criticism of "her rock". She threatened to sack Burrell when she caught him going through her letters. Storming into lunch with Princess Margaret, she declared, "He'll have to go!". But did Princess Di ever call Burrell her rock? According to a member of the Royal Family* she did but regretted it, "I called him my rock once when he was crying about something but I honestly can't stand him". It's quite evident that the more stories Mr Burrell leaks, the more other people leak their own tales and they don't show the butler in the most positive light."

*There's other quotes from the person who is just called, "a member of the Royal Family" and it's believed to have been from an interview The Duchess of Kent gave.

[Skydragon]

Most women would I believe, wish to spend time at the graveside and with Dianas' schedule that would have been almost impossible. There are many places that they could have chosen to apply to bury the child (if there was one). I just can't imagine why they would want to bury their baby in someone elses backyard, their own perhaps, as many people have done, long before Diana was buried at Althorpe (to stop her 'fans' from gaining easy access). I also can't imagine Burrell managing to dig a 2 metre hole, place a child or coffin in it and recover it, so that nobody would notice. The settlement of the ground would require constant visits to refill it, something he fails to mention.

Why do I think it could only be done by someone heartless, if you have ever been to a young childs funeral or that of a baby, you would know that it is distressing for any but the heartless for days, if not weeks afterwards!

[sara1981]

i would get that books and i cant believe him and he betrayal of Prince William and Harry about their mother's memory and yesterday i watch news about him and he really piece of rats!

im hope William and Harry will makes another statesment to stop publish of books about mother

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

I agree with you that it likely didn't happen. But, again, my point is we don't know for sure. Yes, you can't dig such a hole without the gardeners knowing-but we can't say that they didn't unless all of them actually come forward and say, "We didn't notice it." And we haven't seen the deeds to know whether such a thing was properly registered or not.

Still, it's not our business, and Burrell should be ashamed of himself. Having to bury a child is such a highly traumatic and personal thing. The man is a ghoul. And if he is making it up, then he should be doubly ashamed.