Paul Burrell, Diana's Former Butler

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Shaking My Head.

Oh! thanks...but Paul is the way he is. I don't think he's ever going to change now.. but if people didn't read the articles etc, he would not be writing or being interviewed... He has nothing new to say, so I don't know why people do.. He is an idiot and has behaved badly but I think in his twisted stupid way he genuinely cared for her..

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Denville

He is an idiot and has behaved badly but I think in his twisted stupid way he genuinely cared for her..

I guess he may have served her well when she was alive, but to me, his behaviour since her death is not one of someone who 'genuinely cared for her", just that of somebody ruthless, shamelessly and repeatedly exploiting her and her beloved boys for personal gain.

Originally Posted by Curryong

Shaking My Head.

Many thanks!

[Denville]

Originally Posted by muriel

I guess he may have served her well when she was alive, but to me, his behaviour since her death is not one of someone who 'genuinely cared for her", just that of somebody ruthless, shamelessly and repeatedly exploiting her and her beloved boys for personal gain.

I don't think it is as "ruthless" as you see it. I think he did love her in a twisted weird way.. and even now 20 years later, he still cares, still thinks about her.. and he doesn't say anyting bad about her.. Of course he says embarrassing STUPID things.
The other 2 were crtitcial of her. THey had parted on bad terms, and while they mostly wrote their books for money, I think there was also a revenge element in writing critical books.
But Paul is a dimwitted guy, who still clings to his glory days when he was working for this beautiful and famous woman, and was at least treated with fondness by her.. and he can't let go of it.. AND he is alsos selifish and egotitiscal and has become addicted to being interviewed and getting his face in the papers at times as someone who knew her, and he can't let go of that either..

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Denville

I don't think it is as "ruthless" as you see it. I think he did love her in a twisted weird way.. and even now 20 years later, he still cares, still thinks about her.. and he doesn't say anyting bad about her.. Of course he says embarrassing STUPID things.
The other 2 were crtitcial of her. THey had parted on bad terms, and while they mostly wrote their books for money, I think there was also a revenge element in writing critical books.
But Paul is a dimwitted guy, who still clings to his glory days when he was working for this beautiful and famous woman, and was at least treated with fondness by her.. and he can't let go of it.. AND he is alsos selifish and egotitiscal and has become addicted to being interviewed and getting his face in the papers at times as someone who knew her, and he can't let go of that either..

Let's just agree to disagree.

Not doubting that he may have "loved " her, but he pits himself before her boys, and that's not great in my book.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by muriel

Let's just agree to disagree.

Not doubting that he may have "loved " her, but he pits himself before her boys, and that's not great in my book.

of course. I certainly don't approve of him but he is not the only ex employee to write about Diana and to still be commentating about her many years later. IIRC Ken Wharfe was chatting on about Di last year and criticising William, whom he probably hasn't seen for literally a decade or more..
Im sure the boys are inured ot the fact that some of Diana's staff will continue to use their former relationship with her to talk about her.. and they just ignore it or try to.

[Elan]

Originally Posted by muriel

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.

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.

On the subject of St. George's Chapel, if no one's offended..Paul speaking a few hours before the wedding. Maybe he was offered a stipend for his opinion, but at 1:10 he visibly quenches back tears which don't seem contrived. Display of genuine warmth to Meghan and Harry. That he was there on the idea to keep prospects going, would portray the complete opposite.

When someone is crying heartfelt tears of joy on a day widely touted as a wonderful occasion, then with a burst of emotion attempts to stand at the rear of a Chapel, but instead finds himself treated like a pariah or outcast of some kind.. This is the right outcome ?

[youtube]

[Mermaid1962]

Paul didn't have an invitation to the wedding. Surely he would know enough about royal protocol and security to realize that his place was with the regular onlookers who showed up to watch Meghan and Harry's carriage procession after the wedding. He should have known that he wasn't in a position to get closer to the Chapel than any other uninvited guest.

[Denville]

Yes it is the right outcome. He was not invited to the wedding. Harry and Megahn did not want him to be there. he knew quite well tht he was just making himself conspicuous, by trying to put himself forward at their wedding