The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 08-06-2018, 08:45 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
Good grief. He really can't leave well enough alone, can he? He's supposed to have moved on by getting married and running his flower shop, yet he still clings to what were his glory days of being butler/personal assistant to the late Diana Princess of Wales. Showing up and trying to get too close to the wedding of the son of a former employer is simply odd. This wasn't a typical wedding in a run-of-the-mill place of worship. IMO he wasn't simply looking to get a glimpse of the bride and groom and the rest of the Royal Family. He was going to a place where there would be cameras and microphones and he would be noticed. Remembering his Princess in quiet reflection isn't enough for him. He wanted the media attention, and he got it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 08-07-2018, 01:45 AM
Elan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kalispell, United States
Posts: 170
Of course, if what he desired was publicity for it's own sake, he could have had his ceremony after Harry's event, and done so in this Cathedral...

(Maurice André..tpt) [youtube]
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
I doubt if anyone would indulge his whims for publicity in this way. he was in te wrong, he was in the wrong to take Dianas things, he was in the wrong to write repeatedly about her and to try and garner publicity for himself on her son's big day...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
'Uninvited guests standing at the back of a Chapel' :
(weddingbee.com)
______

"It's not weird or rude or strange – its a generational thing. It used to be an expected thing to do – hence why showers used to commonly be thrown by 'church ladies' or mom's friends. Wedding announcements would be posted in the local paper, and who ever wanted to would and could show up for the church ceremony."

"If you find it rude or it would make you uncomfortable then you should have your ceremony in a private venue where you can control admission. Churches, state parks, and places like that are open to all, and you should at least consider that strangers or uninvited distant friends /relatives might wander by."


as has been pointed out, it was a private venue, and admission was controlled, because of security reasons. Paul's going was making himelf a nuisance, because the police and security people had the job of ensuring that the wedding passed off without any frightening incidents and they had to waste time getting rid of someone who knew very well that they had no right ot be there...
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 08-07-2018, 07:49 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
It seems to be somewhat of an obsession with him. Definitely unhealthy, in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
as has been pointed out, it was a private venue, and admission was controlled, because of security reasons. Paul's going was making himelf a nuisance, because the police and security people had the job of ensuring that the wedding passed off without any frightening incidents and they had to waste time getting rid of someone who knew very well that they had no right ot be there...
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 08-08-2018, 12:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
It seems to be somewhat of an obsession with him. Definitely unhealthy, in any case.
I do fee a liltte sorry for him as I think to an extent he can't help himself. But when he betrayed Diana's trust, exaggerated their relationship and took her things its hard to feel much sympathy. However, others who worked for her also wrote books and made commetns about her, so he's not the only one who deserves crticisim.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:47 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,305
Yes, I know what you mean. Perhaps his obsession also leads to some kind of compulsion to show up at these events. I certainly don't think that he's entirely "well", and a person has to have some sympathy for that. The others who've written about Diana don't seem to share Paul's particular type of attachment to her memory. The others, such as Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, although they wrote books and show up for interviews and write articles seem to have a more objective view of Diana as a person. Jephson's book was bitter, but he seems to have mellowed in time. Wharfe's book seemed to be rather matter-of-fact.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:07 AM
Elan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kalispell, United States
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I have no doubt that he FELT like he was Diana's sibling (which is definitely not the same as actually being her brother) and that he helped with things like smuggling her lovers into KP under her neighbours' noses. I am sure Diana would have loved a devoted member of staff living at KP and attending to her everyday needs 24/7.

But did her sisters speak about him visiting their homes with Diana, was Paul included on dinner and party invitations with her, did people in the US and in Europe automatically include him when Diana went to stay with them? Did she introduce Paul to people as 'My very Best friend, and my adopted brother!'? I would say 'No!' in all instances.
While that's true, it also falls in the category of compartmentalizing the circle of friends from different walks of life, and a comfort level of enjoying them separately, as she was known to do.

When the public came to learn he resided at Kensington it would have made for some fodder in the press. Maybe it could have worked initially, but a job like his would prove difficult in such proximity and not to mention a great many eyebrows would have been raised.

This is just one of those things that (if true) made Diana a warm and creative spirit.

Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
Did she invite Paul to "lve with her at KP? ior was that his own self aggrandising imagineation? She didn't IMO. she was fond of Paul and friendly to him, but it was a mistake. she clearly gave him ideas that it meant they were close friends, and they weren't... She mainly saw him as a servant...
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:10 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
At some point it ought to be said that there is nothing that stirs more resentment of him than this "rock stuff", and I get that. Otoh, to be abhorred by that notion is reflective of a very defensive posture toward him, to say the least. In other words, people are projecting and reading more into it....as if there goes Paul claiming to be of importance in her life when..

HE WAS OF NO IMPORTANCE !

HE MEANT NOTHING TO HER !




Lets put all of this to one side for now. Do you actually believe that Paul's behaviour since 1997 displays loyalty to either Diana or her beloved sons?
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
'
"If you find it rude or it would make you uncomfortable then you should have your ceremony in a private venue where you can control admission. Churches, state parks, and places like that are open to all, and you should at least consider that strangers or uninvited distant friends /relatives might wander by."

Those rules apply to most churches but not to the 'royal peculiars' where the Queen controls what services take place, who can marry and even who can enter. St George's is one such church - along with Westminster Abbey.

That is why when a royal marries in one of these places no one can just wander in and watch.

In the case of a chapel in the grounds of Windsor Castle - access to the Castle grounds can be limited at times such as royal weddings and the Garter Ceremony. Invitation only into the grounds of the castle for those events and very tight security along with the invitation.

Without such an invitation no one would be allowed into the grounds of the Castle on the day - same as for Garter Day - all those people in the grounds are there with the appropriate paperwork (you can apply for such a ticket - grounds ticket - inside the chapel is limited even further).
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 08-10-2018, 05:30 AM
Elan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kalispell, United States
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Do you actually believe that Paul's behaviour since 1997 displays loyalty to either Diana or her beloved sons?
Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue. I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty. Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.

It just snowballs further from there.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 08-10-2018, 07:20 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue....... It just snowballs further from there.
I have had about 20 years to watch Burrell in action publicly, and I, along with most people who have read about him, have formed an opinion on the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty.
IMO, it has nothing to do with protocol. It is about discretion, and decency. It is about divulging, for commercial reasons, information he may or may not have gleaned whilst employed in the royal household, in direct contravention of a confidentiality obligation (both legal and moral) he had. It is especially the case when the said member of the royal family is no longer alive, and therefore, in a position to check him or respond accordingly. In my book, that certainly "disqualifies him as a symbol for loyalty" of any kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.
Here again, you are right. From a public perspective, it is very difficult to look past this lack of loyalty to look for "decency and honesty".

Lets also be clear, it is not that there has been a one-off error of judgement. This man has spent 20 years repeatedly and ruthlessly exploiting his relationship with Diana for commercial gain, quite often in a way that is directly hurtful to the Princes.

If you have a different perspective to this, I will be happy to hear your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 08-10-2018, 03:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elan View Post
Loyalty is a fair question. The way it's asked however suggests you have long since made up your mind on the issue. I understand, as was the case with Crawfie, that by virtue of protocol his writing 'disqualifies' him as a symbol for loyalty. Removing that quality from him, whatever decency and honesty there is to the guy is negated and reinterpreted as obsessive, that he can't let go.

It just snowballs further from there.
what decency and honesty is there in someone who could take Diana's possessions, write and talk about her incessantly, revealing things she didn't want revealed.. and embarrass her son by his silly insistence on appearing at his wedding- to which he was not invvted...
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 08-10-2018, 03:56 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I somehow missed this...or forgot...he went to William's wedding and tried to get in without an invite???


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 08-10-2018, 04:02 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,132
Nope, the wedding he tried to crash was Harry's back in May.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 08-10-2018, 04:31 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
SMH...unreal.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 08-11-2018, 01:46 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
SMH...unreal.


LaRae
For the uninformed, what might SMH stand for?
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 08-11-2018, 02:23 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
For the uninformed, what might SMH stand for?
Yes Im cuirious too.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 08-11-2018, 02:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,009
Shaking My Head.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 08-11-2018, 02:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Yes, I know what you mean. Perhaps his obsession also leads to some kind of compulsion to show up at these events. I certainly don't think that he's entirely "well", and a person has to have some sympathy for that. The others who've written about Diana don't seem to share Paul's particular type of attachment to her memory. The others, such as Ken Wharfe and Patrick Jephson, although they wrote books and show up for interviews and write articles seem to have a more objective view of Diana as a person. Jephson's book was bitter, but he seems to have mellowed in time. Wharfe's book seemed to be rather matter-of-fact.
Jephson and Wharfe didn't care for Diana. In his weird way, I think Paul did and does. So I ptity him a little. IMO the 2 of them are more to be criticised for their writing books and being "Diana commentators". They both esp Jephson are men of more education and had good career prospects after they stopped working for her. Paul wasn't as lucky. He was given a job on the Diana Foundation but wasn't really suited to it. But the 2 of them could have made a living easily without resorting to writing about Diana for money. So I disapprove of thtem more, because I think neiter of them particularly cared for her and boht had an element of spite in their writing books, because she had parted with both of them..
and I think that yes he is very wrong in his behaviour but some of it IS due to the fact that he has an obsession with her and can't let go...
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, paul burrell, princess diana, tabloid press


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
King Paul I (1901-1964) and Queen Frederika (1917-1981) Josefine Greek Royal History 328 04-01-2021 06:14 PM
Diana: The Paul Burrell brother-in-law sex claims, June 2008 Warren Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 132 07-16-2010 01:27 AM
"The Way We Were: Remembering Diana" by Paul Burrell (2006) Skydragon Royal Library 141 10-21-2006 06:38 AM
"A Royal Duty" by Paul Burrell (2003) Yennie Royal Library 31 07-15-2006 05:49 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen carolin chinese countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf history hochberg house of windsor imperial household interesting intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal balls royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wedding gown welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×