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

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by 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.

so well put yzbel and i totally agree. sometimes people in abusive relationships feed off each other...i hope i don't insult or hurt anyone by saying that but i think you know what i mean. both benefited in one way or another from each other.

[sirhon11234]

I read a majority of your opinions and i respect them but I think Paul Burrell and Princess Diana had a strange but loving relationship. Diana I believe entrusted Paul with too much of her secrets, and Paul put Diana before his family way too many times. But still I think Paul loved Diana very much. After she died he was the one that dressed Diana's body for her last journey to England. I don't find him as a bad person but as a strange man.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

After she died he was the one that dressed Diana's body for her last journey to England. I don't find him as a bad person but as a strange man.

I find it a little hard to believe that Burrell was allowed to dress Dianas' body for the journey home, that would have been done by mortuary attendants, a ladies maid or a female of some sort, not a butler!

That would have been totally beyond the bounds of propriety, IMO.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I find it a little hard to believe that Burrell was allowed to dress Dianas' body for the journey home, that would have been done by mortuary attendants, a ladies maid or a female of some sort, not a butler!

That would have been totally beyond the bounds of propriety, IMO.

He never said that he dressed her body-just that he picked out a dress for her to wear. Everyone there that day has said that, yes, she was dressed by mortuary attendants, who also did her hair and makeup, and moved her to the casket. I agree, I can't imagine that the hospital staff would have allowed anyone but the morticians to do that job. The hospital did, after all, have legal responsbility until Diana left, and would have been held liable for anything untoward, so they would have adhered strictly to the rules for such things.

[iowabelle]

I think they were both needy people who needed each other, and sometimes that's just not healthy. His family certainly paid the price during the time he worked for Diana, and then later during his legal troubles.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

He never said that he dressed her body-just that he picked out a dress for her to wear. Everyone there that day has said that, yes, she was dressed by mortuary attendants, who also did her hair and makeup, and moved her to the casket. I agree, I can't imagine that the hospital staff would have allowed anyone but the morticians to do that job. The hospital did, after all, have legal responsbility until Diana left, and would have been held liable for anything untoward, so they would have adhered strictly to the rules for such things.

Thank you for the clarification. I was replying to sirhon11234 who said "After she died he was the one that dressed Diana's body for her last journey to England".
I never read Burrells book and I try not to watch the ghastly little oik on the tv (unless they have set him up in some way), so I wouldn't know if this was a claim he made or not. I wouldn't put anything past him!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

the ghastly little oik

Good descriptive!!

[BeatrixFan]

As I said in my podcast, don't buy the book. There's no reason for him writing this other than to build a nice new conservatory. This man obviously doesn't care about Diana, he's just using what he saw to make a quick buck. If you don't buy the book, it gets pulped and he wont write another one.

[Duchess]

guess people aren't as interested as he thought they'd be:

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_f...ent-24610.html

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Duchess

guess people aren't as interested as he thought they'd be:

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_f...ent-24610.html

Our local bookstore said the first one didn't sell as well as expected; apparently even with the more lurid revelations he still can't get people to bite. I hope Sarah Bradford's book is doing a lot better than this one.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Our local bookstore said the first one didn't sell as well as expected; apparently even with the more lurid revelations he still can't get people to bite. I hope Sarah Bradford's book is doing a lot better than this one.

Personally, I think people are getting a bit tired of the "lurid revelations". A glimpse behind the scenes is always interesting-but I think the glut of such revelations about Diana since her death is starting to offend even the most cynical person's sense of fair play and privacy.

Perhaps Sarah Bradford's book is selling better because it is more balanced, and puts more focus on Diana as a flawed but remarkable person, rather than relying on tittle tattle and gossip.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by sassie

Perhaps Sarah Bradford's book is selling better because it is more balanced, and puts more focus on Diana as a flawed but remarkable person, rather than relying on tittle tattle and gossip.

I found this review of the Bradford-book and found its critizism worth thinking about:

http://www.nysun.com/article/41294.

The critic states that eg
"To maintain a view of Diana in charge, Ms. Bradford describes a princess who could be brutal with her staff and with others devious, manipulative, and suspicious. Call Ms. Bradford's effort an overcorrection. Seeking to avoid the sentimentality, the wallowing in victimhood, and the crass psychologizing of earlier biographies, the biographer chooses to create a proactive Diana.
But Ms. Bradford seems almost willful in disregarding evidence that weakens her brief. For example, she attributes much of the talk of Diana's mental illness to her enemies at court."

She has other valuable points of critizism, so I believe the article is worth reading.

[selrahc4]

Thank you, Jo, for that link. I found it a very interesting read.

[Lady Marmalade]

I think he is a sad and sick individual who is just another pathetic human trying to cash in on his royal ties.

[Madame Royale]

I read Paul Burrell's book last night (I read his first so thought I may as well read his second), and I have to say that I didn't really get much out of it. I didn't buy it, rather a colleague at work had recently finished and offered it for a read.

I found him really repetative and being someone who isn't all that fond of repetition, I thought that unfortunate and a real flaw of the book.

I dont know him so cannot take shots at his character or morals but to cash in one someones memory (whoever it may be), is something I think to be so sad. As an employee, its 'probably' not uncommon to devulge intimate stories about your employers if you have been privy to them, but as a 'friend', his duty was to honour those conversations and her trust.

I was also taken aback by Paul's admissions that he had infact told a couple of white lies in his first book as it wasn't the appropriate time to state the truth. When you write a book and if you want to be taken with some credability, you have to be honest without hesitation.

On the last page, Paul says this is the final book he shall write about Diana, Princess of Wales and that he did so in the first place for the 10 year anniversary of her passing. I hope his telling the truth this time!

[foiegrass]

Well, it was an interesting read for some parts. Like how Diana handled fanmail! and the pictures of her dressing table. Very nice.