Diana: The Paul Burrell brother-in-law sex claims, June 2008

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Incas

...[snipped]
In most employer-employee relationships, it's implied that if the employee does not meet employer's demand, his/her position is threaten. It's not necessary for an employer to expressly threaten dismissal. Just watch Michael Douglas-Demi Moore movie "Disclosure". Any physical relationship can be construed as harrassment because of the inheritant inequity of power. Sexual harrassment isn't about the physical relationship, it's an excercise of power. In a case of a Princess of Wales, possible future Queen, the balance of power over a butler is completely one sided.

Well... I am not sure about the standards for sexual harassment in Canada. In the USA, a situation is assessed by applying "a reasonable person" standard. It is also required to determine (1) whether sexual conduct was unwelcome, and (2) whether the work environment rises to the level of actionable hostile environment, which unreasonably interferes with a work performance of a reasonable employee. My personal favourite is the Court decision in the matter of Jones v. Clinton (1998) that reads, "Even blatant sexual harassment does not always constitute illegal sexual harassment". Thus, even if the late Princess Diana harassed Mr. Burrel in some ways, it might not have constituted the illegal sexual harassment.
I have got serious doubts about a recent portion of revelations about the late Princess Diana's personal life. It is impossible to determine what prompted the brother-in-law to make these ludicrous claims. Overall, I agree with georgiea noting that the late Princess Diana was "very busy with all her other men friends through the years" (see post #81) to have any relationships of a personal nature with a butler. She should be allowed to rest in peace.

[Mermaid1962]

I can't imagine Diana involved sexually with a man as effeminate and "fussy" as Paul Burrell. She seemed to go for a much more masculine type.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by pinkie40

Wasn't because it was brought up in a conversation in a car either going to or from some sort of service including HMTQ, Prince Charles and Prince Philip?

burrell claims that things found in home were either gifted to him and his wife and family or given to him for safe keeping and that he claimed that he told HM this prior to everything happening. apparently HM remembered this conversation and this is why the trial ended the way it did.

[Warren]

My thinking is that Burrell probably advised HM he had "some" things of Diana's. She most likely assumed he meant minor mementos and therefore would not have asked him for a detailed inventory or questioned him further. It would not have occurred to her that he might have taken bags and bags of Diana's personal possessions. On the basis that he had kept some knick-knacks she may well have replied "that's OK Paul" without any idea of the vast extent of his "safekeeping" stockpile.

Once she recalled the conversation and how she had [possibly] been misled by Burrell she had no option but to confirm that she and Burrell had previously spoken about the matter. I wouldn't be surprised if he had betrayed the Queen's trust in his conversation with her. If he had said "Ma'am, I have spirited a veritable treasure trove of Diana's and William's personal effects out of Kensington Palace" I can't imagine HM waving it off with "no problem".

[Mermaid1962]

What you say makes a lot of sense to me, Warren. Given the "oily" character that Mr. Burrell has shown, it's become hard to believe that he's been entirely truthful with anyone--including the Queen.

Originally Posted by Warren

My thinking is that Burrell probably advised HM he had "some" things of Diana's. She most likely assumed he meant minor mementos and therefore would not have asked him for a detailed inventory or questioned him further. It would not have occurred to her that he might have taken bags and bags of Diana's personal possessions. On the basis that he had kept some knick-knacks she may well have replied "that's OK Paul" without any idea of the vast extent of his "safekeeping" stockpile.

Once she recalled the conversation and how she had [possibly] been misled by Burrell she had no option but to confirm that she and Burrell had previously spoken about the matter. I wouldn't be surprised if he had betrayed the Queen's trust in his conversation with her. If he had said "Ma'am, I have spirited a veritable treasure trove of Diana's and William's personal effects out of Kensington Palace" I can't imagine HM waving it off with "no problem".

[georgiea]

Paul Burrell complains to PCC over Diana 'sex' story


Paul Burrell complains to PCC over Diana 'sex' story - Press Gazette

[Monika_]

Your theory makes perfect sense.

[Monika_]

Thanks for the link. I hate to see Diana's name dragged through the mud because of this little man, but is he really surprised that his mouth is catching up with him. He has been his own worst enemy!

[TheTruth]

Well it's not him who did the claim and even if I don't really appreciate him and what he did of Diana's memory, I don't wish to anyone the discomfort and pain this can cause ; not to mention the one it creates toward his wife and children. Yes her name was dragged in the mud but his too by the same occasion and I really doubt he has a masochist behavior so, to me, they are two to be victim of the headlines.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Warren

My thinking is that Burrell probably advised HM he had "some" things of Diana's. She most likely assumed he meant minor mementos and therefore would not have asked him for a detailed inventory or questioned him further. It would not have occurred to her that he might have taken bags and bags of Diana's personal possessions. On the basis that he had kept some knick-knacks she may well have replied "that's OK Paul" without any idea of the vast extent of his "safekeeping" stockpile.

Once she recalled the conversation and how she had [possibly] been misled by Burrell she had no option but to confirm that she and Burrell had previously spoken about the matter. I wouldn't be surprised if he had betrayed the Queen's trust in his conversation with her. If he had said "Ma'am, I have spirited a veritable treasure trove of Diana's and William's personal effects out of Kensington Palace" I can't imagine HM waving it off with "no problem".

I would imagine HM was very distracted at the time of this meeting. She had just lost an ex daughter in law, mother to her beloved grandchildren, had to contend with howling animals outside her gates, spiteful and intrusive demands from the media. At a time like this, I am sure HM wasn't thinking straight and who would ever think a supposed loyal and trusted servant is going to help himself to things he shouldn't.

[sirhon11234]

I don't think it's fair to call the mourners "howling animals" but yes she was quite distracted.
It's disgraceful IMO that Burrell would trick his employer and soverign of many years. I wish he could just crawl back into his hole and dissapear from the public eye.

[Warren]

We should try to keep this thread to the topic of the allegations made by Paul Burrell's brother-in-law.
Discussion of the events immediately following Diana's death can be discussed in The Queen and Diana's Death thread and posts have been moved there.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I would imagine HM was very distracted at the time of this meeting. She had just lost an ex daughter in law, mother to her beloved grandchildren, had to contend with howling animals outside her gates, spiteful and intrusive demands from the media. At a time like this, I am sure HM wasn't thinking straight and who would ever think a supposed loyal and trusted servant is going to help himself to things he shouldn't.

I still wonder what he did with the stuff he took after her death. His former bodyguard, at the time of the Inquest, told Burrell had burned notes, letters and other personal writings. I've always asked myself what it could have been.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I still wonder what he did with the stuff he took after her death. His former bodyguard, at the time of the Inquest, told Burrell had burned notes, letters and other personal writings. I've always asked myself what it could have been.

Just keep watching ebay! There are very many people about who would be willing to enter into private negotiations to 'own' something of Diana's and they are not too worried about where or how it was obtained. The paperwork could be anything from love letters to and from various men friends, Diana's plans, journals, perhaps it is better if we never know.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by love_cc

Anyway with her uprbringing, it was really hard to imagine that Diana would have bedded her bulter whatever the circumstances.

Given that she had it off with at least one of her bodyguards, I'd say you're pretty wide of the mark.

it is deeply sad that his relationship with Prince William and Prince Harry suffered...which is beyond sad, imo. I still hope for some sort of olive branch on the Princes' part because Paul was/is all for them.

If he really were 'all for them', one would imagine that he wouldn't have spent the last ten years dragging their mother's name through the mud.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Just keep watching ebay! There are very many people about who would be willing to enter into private negotiations to 'own' something of Diana's and they are not too worried about where or how it was obtained. The paperwork could be anything from love letters to and from various men friends, Diana's plans, journals, perhaps it is better if we never know.

Curiosity may certainly be the most terrible vice of people but even if it wouldn't change much today, it would be interesting to know what these letters were about. I can't see the point of burning personal things except if they are disturbing to some persons.

[Mermaid1962]

That allegation has not been proved. She seemed to depend on him for emotional support, but there are only rumours about an actual sexual affair.

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Given that she had it off with at least one of her bodyguards, I'd say you're pretty wide of the mark.

This I totally agree with!

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

If he really were 'all for them', one would imagine that he wouldn't have spent the last ten years dragging their mother's name through the mud.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Curiosity may certainly be the most terrible vice of people but even if it wouldn't change much today, it would be interesting to know what these letters were about. I can't see the point of burning personal things except if they are disturbing to some persons.

They were probably secrets that could do a lot of damage, and the trouble is that someone invariably gets hurt.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

They were probably secrets that could do a lot of damage, and the trouble is that someone invariably gets hurt.

Which always makes me wonder. Wasn't it said that Princess Beatrice burnt many of QV letters?

[Mermaid1962]

Princess Beatrice was supposed to have "edited" her mother's diaries. Yes, it does make one wonder.

Originally Posted by Russophile

Which always makes me wonder. Wasn't it said that Princess Beatrice burnt many of QV letters?