"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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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 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 sassie

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.

You are right, even Charles took the paper publishing his diaries to court, not the little b**** who sold them to them. She is planning to publish in the US. At the moment British confidentiality agreements are not upheld in the US.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by Sammy

I must say I'm surprised at the outcry regarding this story.
Not because of the pure tackiness of it, but because as one who has collected on Diana for 25 years, I've heard this story before! It was old news as far as I knew. I wish I could remember where I read it, but it seems to me it was Rosa herself who originally told the story.

I had heard it too, but like you, I've read so much stuff I can't remember where I heard it before.

I did pick up the book when I was at Barnes and Noble this week, and briefly browsed through it. But I just can't bring myself to buy it and give this man any more money.

I was appalled that he had obviously been preparing to write this book for a very long time. I came to this conclusion because he had been photographing the family quarters. He claims it was just to keep his memories fresh -- but I have never known anyone to do such a thing (even me, a sentimentalist).

I am so very disappointed in Burrell.

[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.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by sassie

The only other person he might have had a confidentiality agreement, and who could sue him for breaching it, would have been Diana.

These rights are normally inheritable, so her sons as her heirs would be able to do something if Diana in fact had such an agreement. But that would only lead to more bad press as the media would describe it as an action against the freedom of the media.