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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by bbb

good for fergie hope the next time she see's him she socks him in the mouth. i'd buy a book about that :)

Likewise!

[melissajames]

It is the most upsetting the way this guy is using the late Diana as his free ATM machine.

Oh I need to repair the roof....I know I will sell a story about Di!

[melissajames]

Is it almost unpresedented the way this royal servant have betrayed his former employer?

Anyone remember/know of any worse?

[foiegrass]

this is just a personal opinon, but i think that the first book he wrote, was a very very touching tribute towards his late boss, the princess of wales. we'll just have to read the new book before we can say anything i guess

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by foiegrass

this is just a personal opinon, but i think that the first book he wrote, was a very very touching tribute towards his late boss, the princess of wales. we'll just have to read the new book before we can say anything i guess

One hopes that he was able to write something touching and positive because otherwise even the most stupid person on earth would realize that the subservience he showed Diana was just for show. No, I don't think it was just that but IMHO he wasn't just being content to be her paid servant but he felt part of her life, even her family or part of the "Palace". Not only valuable but valued. At some point in his history with Diana though he must have started to overstep his boundaries - or does one really think that Diana entrusted him with reading all her correspondence? I mean I have a housekeeper, too, and when I'm away she of course has a key to my house and comes there doing her job. Can she read my letters? Of course. Does she do it? I trust her not to do it. But if she does it I'm rather helpless if I don't want to start locking all my private possessions away and feeling a foreigner in my own house.

Beatrixfan told about a Royal who remarked that Diana was angry because she found that Burrell had started to read her letters without permission. But probably she still believed him to be incapable to finally betray her. Maybe she trusted her charisma. But I'm not so convinced that Burrell did not plan for the "time after Diana". He couldn't know of course that she would die. But I don't believe either that he was convinced that they were going to grew old together.

The queen or prince Charles have means to reward or recompense (depends on your point of view!) loyal servants. So the job includes possibilities to even become eligible to marry higher up into the aristocracy (Robert Fellowes comes to mind) and go about a political career if you're from the right background. Or stay a trusted servant till you retire and be created a knight. Surely there are honourable people around who deserve these honours and get them. But Burrell was not one of them - Diana could give him nothing beside her presence. And once she tired of him he had to know that that was it. So he was at her mercy while serving her and I believe he realised that the moment would come when their paths would lead into different directions.

So in my view he was a "bomb" all along.

[Incas]

It's interesting to read the posts on Burrell's latest book. As with a lot of screaming headlines from papers not given the serialization, much of the negative opinions were what would have been expected. IMO, the man devoted a huge part of his life to Diana. In a way, especially after her separation, she did treat him as any wife would. She felt nothing about calling him during his family vacation time, or in the middle of the night, because she knew he would do whatever she wanted him to do. No doubt, on some level, Burrell's personal devotion factored into his willingness to ignore his family and go on silly errands to make Diana happy. (IMO, going to a bar to look for an errand lover is silly.) I don't believe he should be condemned for crossing the line, when Diana herself blurred it, such as letting him listening in on the phone while she was having an argument with her mother.

However, no one seems to view her actions as a form of abuse. Diana is the employer, if Burrell wanted to keep his job, he had to do whatever she wanted. If he refused and got sacked, he would have a tough time getting another job, or at least work in the royal or aristocratic circle again. By his own account, working for the BRF is all he's ever done with his life, all he ever wanted. In many abusive relationships, victims often felt powerless to leave the abuse.

The recent story about the Austrian girl held hostage for many years made me think perhaps Burrell had a touch of Stockholm Syndrom from his association with Diana. Someone wrote before that he copied Diana's mannerism. He certainly seems to identify strongly as the last person to have held on her true memory. I don't think he should be criticized for writing about his years working for Diana. Perhaps in his own way, he is trying to get her out of his system so to speak. I wonder if he has sort any professional help. Clearly the man grieved deeply at her death. However, that grief has never been acknowledge by much of the public as they still see him as just another servant, with no right to feel any grief.

[Skydragon]

The man appears to have been obsessed by the power he enjoyed whilst working for Diana. Did he drop everything to do anything Diana asked, we don't know, we only have his word that this was what happened.

I know this may upset some people, but most of the time because he was a servant, he would have been invisible, a non person. I can remember my father telling me off because I had thanked one of the waiters who had mopped up after I spilt my wine! That is the environment Burrell worked in and I believe he took advantage of it. He could easily have asked for a transfer, I'm sure any one of the other 'camps' would have seen it as a coup.

He was in the secondary limelight for a while and that is what he misses. To have photographed her jewellery after she died, to tell the world her secrets (if indeed they were her secrets) to lecture her children about missing her, makes him the lowest of the low. If he cared one jot about her, he would never have opened his mouth, let alone made money out of what should have remained private memories.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I can remember my father telling me off because I had thanked one of the waiters who had mopped up after I spilt my wine!

What do you today think about these rules? Which ones concerning servants are important for you and which ones do you think are old-fashioned?

[Yennie]

I´ve read Wendy Barrys book and in the beginning it says something like "this book was banned in Britain as no one working for the royal family are allowed to write about his or her experience"...

Is this nothing that Paul Burrel has to follow?
Or was it just a trick to sell more books perhaps?

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Yennie

I´ve read Wendy Barrys book and in the beginning it says something like "this book was banned in Britain as no one working for the royal family are allowed to write about his or her experience"...

Is this nothing that Paul Burrel has to follow?
Or was it just a trick to sell more books perhaps?

Chances are Burrell did, in fact, sign a confidentiality agreement at some point-but who would take him to court over it? The Queen and Prince Charles may disapprove when a staff member publishes such a book, but I've never heard of them, or the royal lawyers, ever actually taking anyone to court. The only other person he might have had a confidentiality agreement, and who could sue him for breaching it, would have been Diana.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

What do you today think about these rules? Which ones concerning servants are important for you and which ones do you think are old-fashioned?

I am probably the wrong one to ask. I always found it hard to be so bad mannered as not to say thank you. Experience has shown me, always be aware that people will repeat what they think they have heard and as a result, the rule of pretending they are not there, does not exist for me. As you can perhaps imagine, the belief that they are human and have feelings made life very hard at times. I am not exactly a black sheep, just a grey one, someone who could not or would not conform.
I still lock my personal papers away, when I am going to be away, I ask Royal Mail to withold the post. I do not lend out my jewellery or clothes, nor do I discuss 'personal' matters with staff or within their hearing. I would not expect anyone to just walk into the room I am in, I would expect them to wait for a reply, after a knock on the door. It's hard to think of 'rules', these things are just the way it is.

I suppose if I had to sum it up, although a lot of the old rules have been discarded, neither they nor I would blur the line into actual friendship.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Incas

It's interesting to read the posts on Burrell's latest book. As with a lot of screaming headlines from papers not given the serialization, much of the negative opinions were what would have been expected. IMO, the man devoted a huge part of his life to Diana. In a way, especially after her separation, she did treat him as any wife would. She felt nothing about calling him during his family vacation time, or in the middle of the night, because she knew he would do whatever she wanted him to do. No doubt, on some level, Burrell's personal devotion factored into his willingness to ignore his family and go on silly errands to make Diana happy. (IMO, going to a bar to look for an errand lover is silly.) I don't believe he should be condemned for crossing the line, when Diana herself blurred it, such as letting him listening in on the phone while she was having an argument with her mother.

However, no one seems to view her actions as a form of abuse. Diana is the employer, if Burrell wanted to keep his job, he had to do whatever she wanted. If he refused and got sacked, he would have a tough time getting another job, or at least work in the royal or aristocratic circle again. By his own account, working for the BRF is all he's ever done with his life, all he ever wanted. In many abusive relationships, victims often felt powerless to leave the abuse.

The recent story about the Austrian girl held hostage for many years made me think perhaps Burrell had a touch of Stockholm Syndrom from his association with Diana. Someone wrote before that he copied Diana's mannerism. He certainly seems to identify strongly as the last person to have held on her true memory. I don't think he should be criticized for writing about his years working for Diana. Perhaps in his own way, he is trying to get her out of his system so to speak. I wonder if he has sort any professional help. Clearly the man grieved deeply at her death. However, that grief has never been acknowledge by much of the public as they still see him as just another servant, with no right to feel any grief.

I agree with you-he shouldn't be criticised for writing about his years working for Diana. What he should be, and is being, criticised for is exchanging those writings for money after vowing publicly that he would never betray her trust. Writing it all down to get it out of his system and work through his grief is not a bad thing-the betrayal comes with the publication without permission.

The photographing of Diana's home and jewelry suggests that publication is something Burrell had in mind all along. Writing a book about a former employer is something many have done, but that in itself doesn't make it any less unprincipled.

As for their relationship, how Diana treated him, and whether the lines of employer/employee were actually blurred-well, we have only Burrell's word regarding those dynamics. The label of Stockholm Syndrome might be right, but impossible to verify without hearing both sides of the story-which we never can.

As for defending her memory or trying to set the record straight regarding Dodi and the ring, etc.-well, he could have done that without putting it in a book and accepting money for it. In fact, it's rather appalling that he calls himself a true "friend" of the Princess and, yet, only publicly defends her memory when there are dollar signs involved.

[Incas]

Originally Posted by sassie

I agree with you-he shouldn't be criticised for writing about his years working for Diana. What he should be, and is being, criticised for is exchanging those writings for money after vowing publicly that he would never betray her trust....As for defending her memory or trying to set the record straight regarding Dodi and the ring, etc.-well, he could have done that without putting it in a book and accepting money for it.

I'm not sure people would be nicer to him if he only wrote down the same words but not getting paid for it. After all the newspapers that would publish the "free" writings would benefit financially. So will the television, internet, or whatever medium that transmit the information, would benefit financially. Yet, apart from a few, majority of people who posted would have to have visited the websites, or purchased the newspapers in order to know what was written. It just seems to me strange that somehow, Burrell himself cannot benefit financially from his experience.

For all the hue and cry, while many people express reluctance to purchase the book itself, they seems to object to the price of the book more than the content itself. As if had the content been given away for free, it somehow soothes the conscience of those who read the information. The fact remains that he has written something that attracts a wide interest. Without that widespread interest in the subject herself, Burrell wouldn't have the incentive to write any of his books. I believe he has a right to be compensated for that information.

[HRH Kerry]

I'm asking this because I just don't know. What about a non-disclosure document? Are there any type of contracts that forbid employees from "telling"? Or is that only when they're actually employed?

[Duchess]

while i appreciate those of you that spoke about the Stocholm Syndrome. i'm not so sure that it would be a good defence. working for the royals could, i'm sure be likened to any job in the sense that we do a lot things that aren't in our job description but you do them for fear of losing your job. we all know that diana could have dismissed him at any time for any reason no matter how slight and given a seemingly viable reason for it. and, of course, when you work for someone that lives in a fishbowl - asking them to do things like find a missing boyfriend - is realisitc for them. these sorts of positions require total devotion to your employer even at the expense of your family. you're at their disposal 24/7 and if you don't want to be then you don't last. i agree that diana blurred the lines between employer/employee but i think paul ate it up and, like the photos he took, tucked it all away for future use in the book(s) he planned to write.

[ysbel]

I think the relationship between Diana and Paul Burrell was not right and as with any relationship like that, the two probably they took turns taking advantage of one another. I've heard too many times that Diana monopolized her friends and servants to believe that Burrell is making that part up.

If Diana did blur the lines between employee and confidante, then I think it was unfair towards an employee who was in a subservient position who couldn't easily say no. And like any employee being taken advantage of, Burrell probably got even with her in many small ways while she was alive and now by selling her secrets now that she's dead.

Its why I always tried to treat people working in my house with respect, you need to be able to trust someone that has the keys to your front door and its chancy having to trust someone that you're taking advantage of. And then if they don't deserve respect even when I'm being considerate, then I don't want them in my house. Its a matter of trust.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think the relationship between Diana and Paul Burrell was not right and as with any relationship like that, the two probably they took turns taking advantage of one another. I've heard too many times that Diana monopolized her friends and servants to believe that Burrell is making that part up.

If Diana did blur the lines between employee and confidante, then I think it was unfair towards an employee who was in a subservient position who couldn't easily say no. And like any employee being taken advantage of, Burrell probably got even with her in many small ways while she was alive and now by selling her secrets now that she's dead.

Its why I always tried to treat people working in my house with respect, you need to be able to trust someone that has the keys to your front door and its chancy having to trust someone that you're taking advantage of. And then if they don't deserve respect even when I'm being considerate, then I don't want them in my house. Its a matter of trust.

you're definitely right about both taking advantage of the other and that you have to trust people in those positions. i also agree with your statement about respect...very very important. i guess what i have a problem with is the fact that when he began working for the royals and diana he knew he'd be in a position of strict confidentiality, as is anyone working for the royals. as in any job if you feel you're being taken advantage of you always have the right to leave. having said that, i realize that if you do you run the risk of having to settle for a far less illustrious (for lack of a better word) job but respect works both ways...diana took advantage because she could...he allowed her to do it whether it was because he thought he could tuck it way for future reference or not. in doing so, he took advantage in the same way. i strongly believe he knew one day he would write a book and took advantage of every opportunity to ensure that he would have lots to tell.

[ysbel]

Oh believe me, Duchess, I'm not excusing Paul Burrell in the least. But by the same token, I don't think Diana was totally ignorant of Paul's character when she was alive either. And yet she kept him in her employ even though he was taking advantage of her. I don't for one minute think that Paul just started taking advantage of her when she died. It probably started before then and she was probably aware of it.

Remember, he was the only staff member to accompany her on one of the last extended overseas missions she took after the divorce (I think it was Africa or India) Its very hard to hide one's true character in a situation like that. She had to have known something was up and its hard for me to believe that she wasn't aware that he was virtually abandoning his wife and children to spend time with her.

So in short, I think it was a sick relationship and both were guilty of taking advantage and letting themselves be taken advantage of. But I'm not so judgmental about the situation as it first appears:

I think for people that are used to abusive situations, the weird dynamics of their relationship would have felt entirely normal. I think Paul Burrell probably let Diana take advantage of him for the same reasons that Diana let Paul take advantage of her-it felt normal. I was in an abusive work situation and it felt entirely normal till I quit the job for unrelated reasons and found a position where the atmosphere was a lot saner.

Diana's own insecurities and willingness to stay in abusive situations is easier to recognize because we know more of her traumatic childhood- first being torn between her parents during their nasty divorce and the nasty games the kids including Diana would sneak and play on their stepmother like putting pins in her chair. Then when they were adults, Diana had a dysfunctional relationship with her brothers and sisters as well as a distant relationship with her mother. Diana had problems with healthy relationships.

We don't know too much about Paul's past but if he's like anyone else in this situation he probably has his own history too.

It always amazes me how long these situations last and what bothers me most about Diana is that she kept getting into these messes. James Hewitt was another one who took advantage. If she had gotten fooled one time, I could see where it would have been an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone but the number of times she associated with and got burned by people who were just sleazy makes you wonder how healthy her relations with others generally were.

[Incas]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Remember, he was the only staff member to accompany her on one of the last extended overseas missions she took after the divorce (I think it was Africa or India).

It was a trip to Bosnia in August of 1997, squeezed in between her vacations with the Fayeds.

After watching a video of Burrell's intereview on with ABC/Good Morning America, I do find him more sympathetic than what the media has made him out to be. As with a lot of abusive relationships, one has to be away from it for some time before recognizing how damaging that relationship was. Nine years may be long for most people, but it is obviously still fresh in his mind's eye.

Of all the people involved, I feel sorry for his two sons the most. I always wonder why Maria Burrell never took the children and left him, given how upset she was with his devotion to Diana. He even wrote about her reactions in his earlier book.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by ysbel

It always amazes me how long these situations last and what bothers me most about Diana is that she kept getting into these messes. James Hewitt was another one who took advantage. If she had gotten fooled one time, I could see where it would have been an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone but the number of times she associated with and got burned by people who were just sleazy makes you wonder how healthy her relations with others generally were.

Okay, but to be fair, how often did she actually get burned? Yes, she should have learned from James Hewitt-but how many others sold her out during her lifetime? Simone Simmons, Paul Burrell, Ken Wharfe, Patrick Jephson-their revelations came AFTER her death. Oliver Hoare, Hasnat Khan, James Gilbey, Christopher Whalley, Teddy Forstmann, even Will Carling-all supposed lovers who have never spoken to the press, before her death or since. And there were any number of trusted employees who have never done so, either. Even Andrew Morton didn't confirm that Diana aided him with his book until after her passing.

The selling out of Diana, really, came after her death.