Paul Burrell, Diana's Former Butler

[Rayal]

He is one of the few people that was around her that I disliked. I found him to be narcissistic and guided all issues toward himself regarding Princess Diana as if he was her closest and best friend. Many of the self absorbed remarks he made was after her death, and I believed if she had lived he would have been forced to tell the truth or had simply kept quiet.

 

[Denville]

He is one of the few people that was around her that I disliked. I found him to be narcissistic and guided all issues toward himself regarding Princess Diana as if he was her closest and best friend. Many of the self absorbed remarks he made was after her death, and I believed if she had lived he would have been forced to tell the truth or had simply kept quiet.

He was not the only person who worked for Diana who made use of her memory when she had died. there are other staff who have written about her, including a few like Ken Wharfe who had better options than a butler had of making a living doing other thigns but they chose to use their memories of Diana. Having said that, yes he is a selfish silly man who is still living off his memories of her. He IS self absorbed but he did genuinely care for her and hasn't been critical of her in the way that others like Pat Jephson have done.

 

[Elan]

He is one of the few people that was around her that I disliked. I found him to be narcissistic and guided all issues toward himself regarding Princess Diana as if he was her closest and best friend.

Yes, but is it fair to blame him if in fact he approached the standard of a 'best' friend at various times in her life. True he must have felt considerable pride knowing she not only relied upon, but had an affection that transcended the rest of her staff.. Did he exaggerate his importance stretching the truth, or is it a reflection of her regard for him? His memories of Diana, reinforce (to him) that she valued him to an extraordinary degree and formed a close bond. The confusion stems from why it needs to be cast in a negative light, if in fact he was held in high esteem ?

 

[Denville]

Yes, but is it fair to blame him if he in fact he approached the standard of a 'best' friend at various times in her life. And he must have felt considerable pride knowing she not only relied upon, but had an affection that transcended the rest of her staff.. Did he exaggerate his importance stretching the truth, or is it a reflection of her regard for him? His memories of Diana, reinforce (to him) that she valued him to an extraordinary degree and formed a close bond. The confusion stems from why with time it needs to be cast in a negative light, if he was held in high esteem ?

He was not a best friend, except in his own estimation. Diana may have been fond of him but she basically saw him as a servant and she was, it seems irritated by him at times because of his obsessive fussing and snooping. A best freind does not make a living out of talking about someone who has been famous, or stealing their property after their death.

 

[Elan]

He was not a best friend, except in his own estimation. Diana may have been fond of him but she basically saw him as a servant and she was, it seems irritated by him at times because of his obsessive fussing and snooping. A best freind does not make a living out of talking about someone who has been famous, or stealing their property after their death.

Notice also, a stark contrast of his reflections of his time spent working for the Queen vs: Diana. If he was that much disposed to exaggerating his role, why not do the same sort of thing with Elizabeth ?

 

[Denville]

Notice also, a stark contrast of his reflections, of his time spent working for the Queen vs: Diana. If he was that much disposed to exaggerating his role, why not do the same sort of thing with Elizabeth ?

Because Diana was more popular in the US for example than the queen. and Diana was dead and could not enforce any NDAs or pressure him to shut up. He could take DI's things, and say what he liked about Diana, she was not there to contradict him and the boys while they disliked what he was doing, were not going to argue in the press with a former servant.
And his market is largely In the US, where there are a lot of people who are Diana adorers and think she was wonderful, and they believe implicitly in everything that Burrell says
And Burrell has also exaggerated about the queen, in a smaller way. He's made claims that she and he had these conversations about Diana which are probably greatly influenced by his own imagination.

 

[Elan]

Because Diana was more popular in the US for example than the queen. and Diana was dead and could not enforce any NDAs or pressure him to shut up. He could take DI's things, and say what he liked about Diana, she was not there to contradict him and the boys while they disliked what he was doing, were not going to argue in the press with a former servant..

The mention of taking her things.. do you honestly believe that he had some ulterior motive, an interest in their monetary value, selling, or the like ? The assertion completely glosses over his emotional state at the time.. one of the most grief stricken people in the world. Shock and sorrow felt upon her death brought him much despair, though many mocked and derided him for it, not only at the time, up to the present day.

 

[JR76]

The mention of taking her things.. do you honestly believe that he had some ulterior motive, an interest in their monetary value, selling, or the like ?

Yes, I'm certain that Paul took Diana's things to profit from them in the future. In the same way that he's been flogging her memory to all and sundry since the day she died.

The assertion completely glosses over his emotional state at the time as one of the most grief stricken people in the world.

I've heard many takes on Paul Burrel, but calling him one of the most grief stricken people in the world is a new one...

 

[Elan]

Yes, I'm certain that Paul took Diana's things to profit from them in the future. In the same way that he's been flogging her memory to all and sundry since the day she died. I've heard many takes on Paul Burrel, but calling him one of the most grief stricken people in the world is a new one...

Clearly he was grief stricken, which very few people seem to bring up or mention about him.

It would be very interesting to hear how a process would work to one day profit from her wardrobe in any way shape or form.. not in a million years.

 

[Curryong]

I believe that Burrell was grief-stricken. Why? Because he was obsessed by his former employer to a very unhealthy degree.

PB may have sold some of Diana’s things privately to discreet people who have never revealed the purchases. And there are other ways of profiting by Diana’s death than selling possessions.

Besides the countless newspaper interviews and partaking in documentaries he has written three books in reference to Diana.
.
In the Royal Manner: Butler to Diana (1999)
A Royal Duty (2003)
The Way We Were: Remembering Diana (2007)

A Royal Duty especially was an international bestseller.

 

[Denville]

He was grief stricken, certainly, in his weird way. But people may take a few keepsakes if they are grief stricken, they dont load up iwth a large store of very expensive stuff, which DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. It pretty certain that Burrell took the stuff with the intention of selling it, probalby later in life for a pension fund. He may have done some discreet selling of some of the items before he was forced to give them back.

 

[Denville]

Clearly he was grief stricken, which very few people seem to bring up or mention about him.

It would be very interesting to hear how a process would work to one day profit from her wardrobe in any way shape or form.. not in a million years.

Are you kidding? Diana's things were valualbe in themselves and in what they coudl fetch from collectors.

 

[FigTree]

It was a business opportunity. Let’s not pretend it was about anything but making money. And quite frankly who really cares.

 

[Denville]

It was a business opportunity. Let’s not pretend it was about anything but making money. And quite frankly who really cares.

Who cares? He stole a LOT Of valuables from Diana's heirs. THat is soemthing that most people would care about. He did probalby have an element of wnating to hold onto some of Diana's things, but if that was the main motive, he could have settled for a couple of rings or something. CLearly he wanted to make money. And stealing from a dead woman's heirs to make money is wrong.

 

[FigTree]

Who cares? He stole a LOT Of valuables from Diana's heirs. THat is soemthing that most people would care about. He did probalby have an element of wnating to hold onto some of Diana's things, but if that was the main motive, he could have settled for a couple of rings or something. CLearly he wanted to make money. And stealing from a dead woman's heirs to make money is wrong.

Course it is. Abhorrent. But that is for those affected to feel anger about. It’s nothing to do with me.

 

[Denville]

Course it is. Abhorrent. But that is for those affected to feel anger about. It’s nothing to do with me.

SO only those directly affected by a crime or wrong doing should feel angry about it?

 

[FigTree]

SO only those directly affected by a crime or wrong doing should feel angry about it?

People can feel how they want about anything but it is the business of those directly affected.

 

[JR76]

Clearly he was grief stricken, which very few people seem to bring up or mention about him.

It would be very interesting to hear how a process would work to one day profit from her wardrobe in any way shape or form.. not in a million years.

I didnt say that he wasn't grief stricken, I'm sure he was. I reacted to your hyperbole about him being one of the most grief stricken people in the world.

 

[Denville]

I didnt say that he wasn't grief stricken, I'm sure he was. I reacted to your hyperbole about him being one of the most grief stricken people in the world.

Agree. He was grief stricken but his attachment to Diana was in many ways self serving (she was beautiful and famous and as her staff member he got a lot of attention he would not have had), and unhealthy. When Di fell out iwht his wife who had worked for her, he took her side rather than his wife's side. Even now tht he's married to a man, he is still acting as if Diana were the love of his life.
but a lot of it is also his hyping up his grief for the American market, so that he can go on selling his story about her.

 

[Elan]

He was grief stricken, certainly, in his weird way. But people may take a few keepsakes if they are grief stricken, they dont load up iwth a large store of very expensive stuff, which DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. It pretty certain that Burrell took the stuff with the intention of selling it, probalby later in life for a pension fund. He may have done some discreet selling of some of the items before he was forced to give them back.

Pension funds are one thing, but can you point to a specific item, verified example, of him attempting to sell something or even a thank you note from Diana ? The collector market indicates she apparently sent many such notes to people all over the world, and are up for sale today. A whole other world would be offering Diana's dresswear discreetly out to private collectors and you have to ask how someone in a devastated condition would be able to consider such a thing, or make it happen.

 

[Denville]

Pension funds are one thing, but can you point to an item, verified example, of him attempting to sell something or even a thank you note from Diana ? The collector market indicates she apparently sent many such notes to people all over the world, and are up for sale today. A whole other world would be offering Diana's dresswear discreetly out to private collectors and you have to ask how someone in a devastated condition would be able to consider such a thing, or make it happen.

what are you saying??? Diana's things that were taken by Burrell were STOLEN. Diana was not selling them. If he sold some, do you think the buyers and he are going to write notes about it, it would be an illegal transaction. It would all be done secretly. and Paul was not in a devastated condition if that is who you mean. He was upset at Dis' death but he had his eye to the main chance and was able to salt away her possessions which were NOT HIS.

 

[Elan]

what are you saying??? Diana's things that were taken by Burrell were STOLEN. Diana was not selling them. If he sold some, do you think they are going to write notes about it, it would be an illegal transaction. and Paul was not in a devastated condition if that is who you mean. He was upset at Dis' death but he had his eye to the main chance and was able to salt away her possessions which were NOT HIS.

It's clear that he wasn't making the best sound decisions, but the idea that he was charting a 'main chance' for transactions with private collectors is out of a Stephen King novel.

 

[Denville]

So why did he take Thousands of pounds worth of valuables? the police investigated and found his house had loads of stuff stashed away. MOst people who were fond of Diana felt some grief when she died, they were none of htem weeping messes who could not cope with life afterwards or pursue their usual occupations so why should her butler be any different?
He clearly was keeping the things until he needed to sell some stuff, adn the stuff DID NOT BELONG to him but to Diana's heirs Will and Harry.
He had no right to take these things or to sell them. He knew that. If he'd taken a few small items as keepsakes it could have been forgiven but he so obviously grabbed at a lot of property and has been for over 20 years selling his story about Diana

 

[Elan]

So why did he take Thousands of pounds worth of valuables? the police investigated and found his house had loads of stuff stashed away. MOst people who were fond of Diana felt some grief when she died, they were none of htem weeping messes who could not cope with life afterwards or pursue their usual occupations so why should her butler be any different?

I have to agree it certainly wasn't a 'good look' with the number of items found in
the home, but when the Queen intervened on his behalf, does that not tell you that mitigating factors were in fact, involved at the time ?

 

[Denville]

I have to agree it certainly wasn't a 'good look' with the number of items seen in
his home, but when the Queen intervened on his behalf, does that not tell you that mitigating factors were in fact, involved at the time ?

wasnt a good look? YOu mean there was evidence of criminal behaviour and massive theft. THe queen intervened because she knew how unstable he was and did not wnat him to go to the witness box and blab about the private life of Charles and Diana, which would upset the boys. There were no mitigating factors, just that given the nature of the man, if cornered in the witness stand, he would probalby say a lot of embarrassing things.

 

[Elan]

wasnt a good look? YOu mean there was evidence of criminal behaviour and massive theft. THe queen intervened because she knew how unstable he was and did not wnat him to go to the witness box and blab about the private life of Charles and Diana, which would upset the boys. There were no mitigating factors, just that given the nature of the man, if cornered in the witness stand, he would probalby say a lot of embarrassing things.

And certainly not because she had once known him, the kind of person she felt him to be, and simply got involved for private and family reasons ?

 

[Denville]

And certainly not because she had once known him, the kind of person she felt him to be, and simply got involved for private and family reasons ?

who? the queen. Certainly not. the queen didn't want him coming up with a lot of anecdotes about Diana's and Charles' sex lives, with each oher and outside the marriage. She didn't want her grandsons upset by the trial going on.

 

[Curryong]

The Queen intervened for all the reasons Denville has stated above, and moreover it was not a good look for BP and KP that a very longtime royal servant had turned out to be a purloiner of a massive amount of possessions owned by his former employer. So she had a sudden remembrance, which certainly caused quite a bit of controversy in the Press at the time, and one wonders why there wasn’t an intervention from her to the DPP before the trial got underway.

This article from Melbourne newspaper The Age casts some light on the outrage by the Press afterwards.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/ridicule-follows-royal-intervention-20021104-gdur6o.html

 

[Elan]

The Queen intervened for all the reasons Denville has stated above, and moreover it was not a good look for BP and KP that a very longtime royal servant had turned out to be a purloiner of a massive amount of possessions owned by his former employer...

Whether she did on the theory above is an assumption being made. We can hazard a guess why the Queen intervened to save him, but none of us can say with full confidence why she did. The truth > could be, that she did not find the charges credible or convincing, and saw others trying to 'put his head on a spike' as he had said.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Whether she did on the theory above is an assumption being made. We can hazard a guess why the Queen intervened to save him, but none of us can say with full confidence why she did. The truth > could be, that she did not find the charges credible or convincing, and saw others trying to 'put his head on a spike' as he had said.

Not a chance. The late Queen knew if Burrell was on the stand, more damaging revelations into Charles and Diana's marriage would unsurface. At that time, Prince Charles was still very incredibly unpopular and the late Queen did it as purely perserving the Crown, her son and grandsons.

Burrell knew after her act, he had to toe the line. Because there was no other reason for the late Queen to interfere with the judicial process of a case so unconnected to her