"The Way We Were: Remembering Diana" by Paul Burrell (2006)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Skydragon

Imperial Majesty
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
10,910
City
London and Highlands
Country
United Kingdom
Ex-royal butler planning more Diana disclosures
spacer.gif


LONDON: Paul Burrell, the former royal butler, is planning to disclose fresh details about Diana.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.aspx?cu_no=2&item_no=104771&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20
 
Skydragon said:
Ex-royal butler planning more Diana disclosures
spacer.gif


LONDON: Paul Burrell, the former royal butler, is planning to disclose fresh details about Diana.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.aspx?cu_no=2&item_no=104771&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20

What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.
 
Elspeth said:
What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.

And guess what? If he wants to publish a book that comes out exactly on the 31 st August 2007, he must get a contract now. If he doesn't have one already. For me this guy is definately a jerk, too. Somehow I wonder about the people Diana confided in....
 
Elspeth said:
What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.
I agree...his "for Diana's sake" and "letting the truth be known" angles are just nonsense. He didn't reveal anything of substance in his book that wasn't already known about Diana-the only "new" parts were merely titillating snippets of gossip that Diana, in all likelihood, would have preferred to have been kept private.

If Paul Burrell is about anything, it's self-aggrandizement.
 
Paul Burrell's "secrets"

[FONT=verdana, arial]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403351&in_page_id=1770
'Phew!' a relieved Diana sighed. Dodi had given her a ring but hadn't asked her to marry him
The Butler's Last Secret, by Paul Burrell
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403364&in_page_id=1770
'I could have saved Diana,' wept Hasnat
Diana only went on holiday with Dodi to make a point to her true love - a gifted heart surgeon left distraught by her death, Paul Burrell reveals
[/FONT]
 
selrahc4 said:
Paul Burrell's "secrets"

[FONT=verdana, arial]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403351&in_page_id=1770
'Phew!' a relieved Diana sighed. Dodi had given her a ring but hadn't asked her to marry him
The Butler's Last Secret, by Paul Burrell
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial]
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403364&in_page_id=1770
'I could have saved Diana,' wept Hasnat
Diana only went on holiday with Dodi to make a point to her true love - a gifted heart surgeon left distraught by her death, Paul Burrell reveals
[/FONT]

Is there anything in there we haven't heard before? IMHO it's just Burrell wanting to make more money out of Diana - with his own inventions, if necessary. After all these years he can be pretty sure that Hasnat Khan won't stand up and go against him or even tell his side to the story in public. So it's a safe way to earn more money. Sad, that.
 
Poor old Burrell. The book just isn't selling is it?
 
Oh another final secret! That's the 3rd one isn't it?
 
I saw Burrell this morning on the ABC news show. What could he possibly have to say that's new or revelatory, that he hasn't already said?

And he claimed that he is the only one interested in protecting the Princess's memory and reputation, not her former husband or her children. I thought that was a pretty outrageous statement as far as the young princes go.

Although I'm a voracious reader about Diana, I'm going to give this book a pass. I'm so disappointed in Mr. Burrell.
 
Princess Diana wanted to be America's First Lady, claims butler

London, Sept 13: Her divorce from the heir to the British throne Prince Charles may have ended her hopes of one day being the UK’s queen, but it seems that Princess Diana also had hopes of becoming America’s First Lady

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=20856

Diana Wanted to Become America's First Lady, Butler Says

NEW YORK, Sept. 12, 2006 — In his new blockbuster book, "The Way We Were," Paul Burrell says that Princess Diana had ambitions to become the first lady of the United States

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2423394&page=1
 
Last edited:
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.
 
Skydragon said:
Princess Diana wanted to be America's First Lady, claims butler

London, Sept 13: Her divorce from the heir to the British throne Prince Charles may have ended her hopes of one day being the UK’s queen, but it seems that Princess Diana also had hopes of becoming America’s First Lady

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=20856


That's not true, is it? That is "preserving the memory"? Alleging that Diana had such rather childish dreams of "visiting Britain on a state visit as First lady of the US" and of "redecorating" the White House? That's imbecile beyond belief. And to consider marrying a man she did not love because of a chance to become "First lady"? How does that fit in with the stories of Diana who had married Charles out of love and was so disappointed hwen he couldn't love her in return? This Diana as presented by Burrell would have married Charles because of the position he offered, apperently. I'm not convinced that she, if she thought about that, really was serious. But somehow it fits in with the character studies of Diana which have emerged after her death and have been supported by quite believable witnesses.

Still, I don't understand why Burrell decided to tell these stories, even if they were true. He must realize that he paints Diana in a very unfortunate light and that these claims are going to stick, even if it is only bits and pieces and the rest of the book is referential and positive. So why does he it? I mean, this is clearly material Charles and Camilla would have loved to have while the media war raged around the divorce.

Burrell surely was clever enough to realize very soon after Diana's death that he had no place in the way Diana's estate and a memorial fund would be dealt with. So he used the trust of the princes and Diana's family in letting him taking care unobservedly of her home to not only take things "for safekeeping" but taking pictures - material for the upcoming sale of his "memoirs". It's disgusting. I'm sure if he had a chance to photograph the dead princess in her burial finery he did it and will sell the pictures one day.

What are his motives? One point I already wrote about is surely revenge on the princes. But there must be more to it. Maybe the message conveyed by Diana's friends and family after Burrell's first book hit their target: a lot of people have claimed in their dismay over the book that Burell was over-valueing his place in Diana's life, that he was a mere instrument for her to lead a comfortable life and certainly not one of the most important persons in her life.

I can imagine that he really believed himself to be in a kind of real relationship with Diana. When he figured that this wasn't the truth or that she conveniently forgot about him in her will, he felt betrayed by the late princess and now wants to destroy her memory in order to "punish" her posthumely through killing the positive image she still possesses in the public.

On using his "insider knowledge" to ridicule people like duchess Sarah who have managed to still move within the Royal circles, he showed himself as her superior, as the one who can hurt her public image. Or is it a coincidence that he "remembers" the story about how Sarah allegedly used princess Eugenie to get back into Diana's good graces when there has a public discussion about if Sarah uses her daughters to further her own aims? One could say both are doing the same but Sarah is much better in acheiving this aim, while Burrell failed with the princes. So it's probably jealousy there which makes me mistrusting the whole story or the way it's presented.

So for me his motives are clear. Thinking about how less knowledge of human nature Diana obviously possessed when it came to her "men" (There is not one I would want to spent an evening with, apart from The Prince of Wales, that is) and how she was deceived by Burrells subservient behaviour, I don't wonder it came to such a terrible end for her.

If it's true what Burrell wrote about the princess giving hints to the paparazzi about Paris in order to make Hasnat Khan jealous, then it's anothere proof of the old saying that mistakes and errors of judgment sometimes add up. And then it only takes such a little additional mistake as to trust a drunken driver and the security of a luxurous limousine and not using the safety belt that lead to such a bitter end.
 
Last edited:
Warren said:
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.

darn good question Warren. i also wonder who bestowed on him the awesome responsibility to defend diana's memory? did she ask him to do it? i think the only people that are defending her memory are the ones that haven't cashed in on it.
 
Duchess said:
darn good question Warren. i also wonder who bestowed on him the awesome responsibility to defend diana's memory? did she ask him to do it? i think the only people that are defending her memory are the ones that haven't cashed in on it.

Well said.
 
Warren said:
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.

No, he hasn't. And it WAS a very lame excuse. Because, when all is said and done, those items belonged to Diana's sons-and where better to 'safekeep' them than storage at a royal residence? Perhaps it is lucky that the police confiscated those videotapes, or they might have been published along with this new book. Just to 'set the record straight', of course.

Today, Burrell's reason for the second book is to bring a halt to conspiracy theories that the Princess was murdered, yadda yadda. I'm not quite sure how publishing pictures of her rooms at KP and sharing details of the burial of Rosa Monckton's daughter is going to bring a halt to conspiracy theories...but, then, I haven't read the new book.
 
good points sassi. burrell will one day run out of "secrets" to reveal and what will he do then? i hope he's saving all that money he's making off diana.
 
thanks for sharing all your knowledge on these confusing (to me) connections jo of palentine, i always enjoy your input.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/International/story?id=2422021&page=1
this article is a repeat of most of the posts but the alarming story was the burial of a child in a garden!!!!
*quote from article "Diana asked him to help her by burying the stillborn child of a friend, Rosa Monckton, on the grounds of Kensington Palace"
*"It was then that she told him, according to the book, "The only problem … is that people will find this baby one day and say it was mine."
am i the only one appalled that people would bury their child like this in an unmarked grave!!!!!!! i just can't believe it
as far as i'm concerned they need to get the old chopping block out of the museum and be done with his head.
 
bbb said:
but the alarming story was the burial of a child in a garden!!!!
*quote from article "Diana asked him to help her by burying the stillborn child of a friend, Rosa Monckton, on the grounds of Kensington Palace"
.

Has he offered any proof at all that they buried this supposed still born baby, did no one notice that Rosa had been pregnant and now was not, after all she was regularly part of the society scene?

Still, I think it was probably Rosa, that reminded him that he was not Diana's lover - just a servant and not a very good one at that.
 
Skydragon said:
Has he offered any proof at all that they buried this supposed still born baby, did no one notice that Rosa had been pregnant and now was not, after all she was regularly part of the society scene?

Still, I think it was probably Rosa, that reminded him that he was not Diana's lover - just a servant and not a very good one at that.

That's the only reason I can imagine why someone would do such an infamous thing as to tell such stories about a friend of Diana. I mean, what can anyone do about it? Noone believes for a moment that the queen is going to let search the gardens of Kensington Palace for a baby skeleton and that they are doing DNA-test to find out whose baby it was. So it's a story that is now out in the public and can neither be verified nor proofable be rejected. The only thing one can do is not think about it.

But it's an interesting view into the media scene - how they all give a platform to Burrell for his people bashing and how only rarely someone actually says sonething against it.
 
she isn't denying it, so it must be true. sick sick sick the buried pets in my garden at least each have a brick to mark their spot as a memorial. i'm sorry this is just weirdest thing to me. i know my part of Texas you can't bury people on your property. my grandfather wanted to be buried on family land (not in town in the country)and it wasn't no it was H*** NO. some people thought we'll do it anyway then found out it was up to 18 YEARS of jail for it.
 
I personally wish that Burrell would take his ill-gotten gains and shut the :mad: :mad: :mad: up. :bang: I know Diana was far from perfect but I hate seeing her being used and exploited like this from beyond the grave. Burrell has shown to be nothing more than a mercenary pretending to be a "friend" when he is obviously nothing of the sort. Rubbish!
 
that sound you heard jackswife was a collective yell of "you go girl" a commentator was quoted as saying, looks like he was her rock and she is his pension. shame on him SHAME perhaps a write in campaign to bring back the block for certain deserving people. where does he live? i'm surprised some really far out diana fan hasn't tried to find him if you know what i mean
 
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.
 
Sammy said:
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.

sammy i'm with you....i'd heard this story before but also can't remember which book i'd read it in. something tells me it was morton's but i could be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom