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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by charlottestreasures

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]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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]

Originally Posted by sassie

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]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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]

Originally Posted by Duchess

can you imagine if he said that?!

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

[charlottestreasures]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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/20...950275645.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.

[Trudie]

For all his pathetic excuses Burrell was not a friend he was a servant. The reality must have really been hard to accept so after waiting a respectable amount of time and his trial being the perfect excuse he writes a book. Lo and behold he needs money and pictures o her home taken in the immediate aftermath of her death by his camera by some miracle appear in a second book. Just goes to show he was going to write a book the whole time. Burrell go back under your rock or as in a America crawl under your trailer.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by charlottestreasures

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...950275645.html

The Mail, how reliable!

These are just some of the regulations you must adhere to, that's without the extra bylaws in Kensington.

If you do not own the land you must get the landowner's permission.
All of the burial must be at least 3 feet (0.91 metres) beneath the surface.
You must dig the grave safely. This will probably involve supporting the sides as you dig.
You should contact the Environment Agency to be sure that you will not pollute a watercourse.
You must be careful to avoid gas, water or electrical services.
You should tell the Environmental Health section of your local authority.
You will need a certificate for burial from a Coroner or Registrar. You should fill in the tear-off section and return it.
You must keep a record of any burials, and a plan to show where the graves are.
You should tell the police.
You should check that there is no covenant on the land which would prevent a burial.

Without doing any of these things, an offence was commited and the Monktons, as far as I know have always been law abiding. As I am sure you know, information is available from the Coroner and the Registrar and if a certificate had been issued, the Mail would have produced it, especially as it involved the editor of a rival newspaper. One other thing - If the child was unbaptised, then the church does not allow burial in consecrated ground, (they are considered to be 'in Limbo'), as far as I can remember and to consecrate the ground requires a ceremony performed by the Bishop or his delegate. The elaborate ceremony consists of prayers and chants, during which the ground is sprinkled with holy water, sanctifying it as a fitting resting place for the bodies of the faithful.

I do feel however that by continuing to argue over an unproven act, we are all guilty of giving Burrell publicity for his latest money making exercise and IMV further damaging, to some, Dianas' reputation. You don't see anything wrong with what she is alleged to have done, to many it was an appalling thing to have been involved in.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by sassie

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

you're probably right about that. at any rate i'm looking forward to reading this book and seeing what other incredible revelations he has to share with the rest of the world.

[bbb]

thanks for the facts skydragon and the link charlottestreasures
this whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. as i've said before if this is true it's one of the strangest things i could imagine doing. and why in the world would the editor of a paper be invited was he a friend or just a morbid bystander writing a story. my gawd!!!
the fact he is hurting her precious sons is calling down some really bad karma from above imo. u may be right skydragon this is the last i'll say, if there's the remotest chance this conversation could be to his benefit $
don't buy the book, steal it (just kidding) or get it at the cut rate book store next year for a $1.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Duchess

you're probably right about that. at any rate i'm looking forward to reading this book and seeing what other incredible revelations he has to share with the rest of the world.

I haven't read it, and don't plan to, but an editor friend in New York tells me that it's mostly a rehash of "A Royal Duty"-about the only things "new" in it are the tidbits already being hashed out in the newspapers and the KP pictures. Very disappointing, she says, and apparently, even more so in the publishing world-it was supposed to be Wm. Morrow's "surprise" book of the year, and it's turning out to be a dud.

It might be better (and more fun) to spend the $20 on a manicure or something really frivolous.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by sassie

I haven't read it, and don't plan to, but an editor friend in New York tells me that it's mostly a rehash of "A Royal Duty"-about the only things "new" in it are the tidbits already being hashed out in the newspapers and the KP pictures. Very disappointing, she says, and apparently, even more so in the publishing world-it was supposed to be Wm. Morrow's "surprise" book of the year, and it's turning out to be a dud.

It might be better (and more fun) to spend the $20 on a manicure or something really frivolous.

well i'd love a manicure that's for sure. i'll have a look through it before i buy. as one member said above... next year you'll probably be able to buy it for a buck in a discount book store.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by bbb

thanks for the facts skydragon and the link charlottestreasures
this whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. u may be right skydragon this is the last i'll say, if there's the remotest chance this conversation could be to his benefit $ don't buy the book, steal it (just kidding) or get it at the cut rate book store next year for a $1.

My pleasure bbb.