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

[Duchess]

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.

what really gets me is that he keeps saying how he's "waving the flag for her" and now that william and harry haven't patted him on the back he's taking jabs at them. he's just can't get it thru his head that there's no need for anyone to wave the flag for her. if he calls cashing in on her memory "waving the flag" i'd hate to see what he'd do if she'd sacked him and he was
calling these books what they really are...his cash cow!

 

[Skydragon]

she isn't denying it, so it must be true.

This was her response and to me it speaks of someone who is absolutely horrified that Burrell would make up something so vile, added to which Diana, Rosa and Burrell would have been subject to prosecution for the illegal disposal of a body, failure to notify the authorities of a birth, failure to obtain or register a death, the list goes on and on.

"Her first reaction was, "I'm utterly appalled." Monckton went on to call Burrell "unbelievable" and added, "I'm so angry."
She would not comment on the reported secret palace ceremony itself and fell silent for several seconds. Then Monckton said that if she said anything else, "I will just burst into tears," adding that "I do not want to speak about this further."

 

[sassie]

This was her response and to me it speaks of someone who is absolutely horrified that Burrell would make up something so vile, added to which Diana, Rosa and Burrell would have been subject to prosecution for the illegal disposal of a body, failure to notify the authorities of a birth, failure to obtain or register a death, the list goes on and on.

It's not illegal-says quite clearly in the article that:
"The Rev. Allen Morris, secretary to the Department of Christian Life and Worship at the Catholic Bishops Conference in London, said, "It is perfectly legal to take place in private grounds."
He added that since Father Sherbrooke presided over the funeral, it would have been with the Catholic church's permission.
Jeremy Smith, owner of London's Abbey Funeral Directors, told ABC News, "You can bury someone anywhere, with consent of the landowner and environment officers for the borough — because of the water table — and so long as it is recorded on deeds for the property." Smith added, "It must not be consecrated ground, though, and if it is, one needs a faculty from the C. of E. [Church of England]."

It wasn't Rosa who first told the story, it was Simone Simmons in one of her books. Rosa Monckton has never deneid it.

It's simply particularly distasteful, especially to Rosa, that Burrell saw the need to relate the story yet again in his new book.

 

[Duchess]

i know i didn't read it in simone simmons book as i've never read hers...darn i wish i could remember where it was. it might have been shadows of a princess?

 

[Skydragon]

It's not illegal-says quite clearly in the article that:
.

1. You have to, by law register a birth - if the baby was delivered at home, there would have to have been an autopsy before a death certificate was issued, to ensure the child was not murdered or died through medical neglect.
2. You have to, by law register a death if anyone but the hospital is going to dispose of a 'stillborn' baby.
3. You have to, by law have permission from the Environmental Agency
4. You have to have the permission of the landowner and the relevent council
Before you can bury anyone, on private ground or otherwise you have to have a death certificate.

Does anyone seriously believe that none of them were seen, that anyone in their right mind would do that to the body of a dead child? My goodness you do have a low opinion of Diana to believe that!

 

[sassie]

1. You have to, by law register a birth - if the baby was delivered at home, there would have to have been an autopsy before a death certificate was issued, to ensure the child was not murdered or died through medical neglect.
2. You have to, by law register a death if anyone but the hospital is going to dispose of a 'stillborn' baby.
3. You have to, by law have permission from the Environmental Agency
4. You have to have the permission of the landowner and the relevent council
Before you can bury anyone, on private ground or otherwise you have to have a death certificate.

Does anyone seriously believe that none of them were seen, that anyone in their right mind would do that to the body of a dead child? My goodness you do have a low opinion of Diana to believe that!

Do you know, for a fact, that Rosa didn't do anything of those things required by law?

And, no, I don't have a low opinion of Diana, or Rosa. None of us know what the circumstances were, where the alleged grave is located, what permissions Rosa obtained legally, who saw what or where or when. Unless Rosa Monckton offers her side of the issue, we'll never know-and that's just the way it should be, since it really isn't anyone else's business how or when or where she buried her child. That's a highly personal thing, and it's sleazy of Paul Burrell to relate the story, true or not.

 

[sassie]

i know i didn't read it in simone simmons book as i've never read hers...darn i wish i could remember where it was. it might have been shadows of a princess?

No, I just looked, it wasn't in Shadows of a Princess.

Simmons also spoke of it in a few interviews, and there was some little mention in the press of the story being in her book-and then it faded away. I imagine not even the tabloid press really wanted to delve into the details of the whole thing. Possibly, you might have read it in one of the second hand stories?

I've never read Simmons' books, but I know that story was in one of them, because she answered questions about it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Does anyone seriously believe that none of them were seen, that anyone in their right mind would do that to the body of a dead child? My goodness you do have a low opinion of Diana to believe that!

Interesting - I didn't know that these legal requirements existed but it makes totally sense to me that it is that way. I mean - abortion is legal in in the UK but only if certain requirements are met. Apart from illegal abortions normally stillbirthes only happen in a medical environment where the burial is taken care of. At least that's what I imagine. So where did that body come from? And if it was a stillbirth, why was it not buried the normal way in a graveyard? Or anywhere else besides Kensington Palace Gardens? Without Her Majesty's permission as landowner? What kind or weird story is this?

The next thing we will learn is that Diana was not buried on that island but in the church of the village next of Althorp... I'm sure Burrell is even able to supply pics if paid enough...

One wonders if he didn't read all kind of gruesome stories readily available on the net about Diana and built stories around them as he lacked material for another book....

 

[Skydragon]

Do you know, for a fact, that Rosa didn't do anything of those things required by law?

I am pretty certain that someone, besides Burrell would have mentioned before now, if Rosa had buried her child at BP or KP. If she had buried her child at either of those places it would have been in a paper somewhere, as with everything else in the UK, formal notification has to be given and that means making it all public, so that people can object, if they want.

I really don't see Queen Elizabeth giving her permission for something so distasteful, apart from anything else it would set a precedent. There are cemetarys for stillborns, unbaptised babies (children and adults) and I would have thought Rosa would have picked somewhere she could visit.

 

[Skydragon]

Interesting - I didn't know that these legal requirements existed but it makes totally sense to me that it is that way. I mean - abortion is legal in in the UK but only if certain requirements are met. Apart from illegal abortions normally stillbirthes only happen in a medical environment where the burial is taken care of. At least that's what I imagine. So where did that body come from? And if it was a stillbirth, why was it not buried the normal way in a graveyard? Or anywhere else besides Kensington Palace Gardens? Without Her Majesty's permission as landowner? What kind or weird story is this?

If the stillbirth happened in hospital, then the hospital will offer to 'dispose' of the body, if the parents ask to take the body, they have to have a certificate to allow the funeral director to take it. You cannot, under any circumstance that I can think of take a body home with you.

If the child was stillborn at home, then an autopsy is required by law and the body is then released to the funeral director.

The distress of burying a child, in a tiny coffin would have stopped anyone with half a heart from a diy job!

 

[Duchess]

No, I just looked, it wasn't in Shadows of a Princess.

Simmons also spoke of it in a few interviews, and there was some little mention in the press of the story being in her book-and then it faded away. I imagine not even the tabloid press really wanted to delve into the details of the whole thing. Possibly, you might have read it in one of the second hand stories?

I've never read Simmons' books, but I know that story was in one of them, because she answered questions about it.

thanks for the info sassie. at any rate i don't see anything wrong with this type of burial. if it is true then it was a very touching thing for diana to have done, inspite of being short sighted. people have different ways of laying loved ones to rest - scattering ashes or burial at sea - even diana isn't buried in a churchyard or cemetary. i just think it's something he didn't have to bring up again as it's no doubt a very painful memory for the Moncktons.

 

[Zonk]

Regardless if did happen, its a personal event and its not his place to talk about it. I would imagine the death of a child to be a highly personal thing...and not his to share.

 

[libra65]

This guy has got to stop this. He is trying to tell the "truth" about Diana yet again. Yeah yeah yeah we get it-you need the money. But does he have to keep putting her boys thru this. Supposedly this is his last book (I think I heard that quoted on ABC). Yeah, it is the last book until his bank account runs dry.

 

[Zonk]

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

 

[sassie]

I am pretty certain that someone, besides Burrell would have mentioned before now, if Rosa had buried her child at BP or KP. If she had buried her child at either of those places it would have been in a paper somewhere, as with everything else in the UK, formal notification has to be given and that means making it all public, so that people can object, if they want.

I really don't see Queen Elizabeth giving her permission for something so distasteful, apart from anything else it would set a precedent. There are cemetarys for stillborns, unbaptised babies (children and adults) and I would have thought Rosa would have picked somewhere she could visit.

All true. What I meant was that we have no way of knowing that it didn't happen. The fact that Rosa is not denying it might mean that it did. If it did, we also have no way of knowing that she didn't acquire the proper permissions needed, and that a mortuary wasn't involved. There could be many people who know about it-but choose to keep silent.

 

[sassie]

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

When "A Royal Duty" was published, William and Harry issued a statement that said:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "We cannot believe that Paul, who was entrusted with so much, could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal. It is not only deeply painful for the two of us, but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today. And, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul. We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end."


[/FONT]Paul Burrell's response was to tell them to "grow up". (It's okay if they criticise other people's writings-when it comes to his, it's apparently immature of them to do so.)

What more are they supposed to say now? They say something, he attacks them publicly. They don't say something-and he still attacks them publicly. Perhaps they've simply chose to rise above Paul Burrell and his ilk-in which case, I say, good for them.

 

[Oppie]

This message is for those who are digusted by the articles.

I see that there are a few newspapers that are printing extracts, Just rememeber this if you go to the website the newspaper gets advertising revenue, which means that they will continue to buy extracts of the book from him, it is as bad as buying it. If you want to stop this don't go to the websites (better yet e-mail the company and tell them that you won't be going to the website) don't buy the newspapers either.

 

[Skydragon]

All true. What I meant was that we have no way of knowing that it didn't happen. The fact that Rosa is not denying it might mean that it did. If it did, we also have no way of knowing that she didn't acquire the proper permissions needed, and that a mortuary wasn't involved. There could be many people who know about it-but choose to keep silent.

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

 

[hibou]

When "A Royal Duty" was published, William and Harry issued a statement that said:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "We cannot believe that Paul, who was entrusted with so much, could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal. It is not only deeply painful for the two of us, but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today. And, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul. We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end."


[/FONT]Paul Burrell's response was to tell them to "grow up". (It's okay if they criticise other people's writings-when it comes to his, it's apparently immature of them to do so.)

What more are they supposed to say now? They say something, he attacks them publicly. They don't say something-and he still attacks them publicly. Perhaps they've simply chose to rise above Paul Burrell and his ilk-in which case, I say, good for them.

The best thing to do is to not by the book, when it doesn't sell he will be silenced and needless to say talk shows won't be asking him to come on their shows either.

 

[Avalon]

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

I agree with you Skydragon. I simply can't imagine Rosa asking anyone to do that or Diana agreeing. It's really heartless. Though perhaps not as heartless as what Mr. Burrel is doing.

 

[Duchess]

I agree with you Skydragon. I simply can't imagine Rosa asking anyone to do that or Diana agreeing. It's really heartless. Though perhaps not as heartless as what Mr. Burrel is doing.

while i respect your opinion, i don't understand why it's considered so heartless. laying one's loved one to rest is a highly personal matter. taking into consideration that the Monckton's might want to visit the grave and have privacy, it was a very touching thing to do, if it's true. as i mentioned earlier, diana is laid to rest on the property of her family estate (not in a formal family burial plot or mausoleum) and no one seems to object to that. many people choose not to be buried in cemetaries or churchyards. while we'll probably never know if it's true or not i don't see it as being a heartless gesture. while it may not be to everyone's taste, i'm sure if the offer was made, and accepted by the Monckton's then it was done with compassion and love. i do, however, agree that it was not Burrell's (nor the person that had previously made it public) place to talk about it.

 

[Duchess]

And how dare he say that they are not protecting her memory. She was their mother...what does he want them to do. IF people like him didn't feel the need to REVEAL everything (yet again) about Diana...they wouldn't have to protect her memory. Let the woman rest in peace!

Zonk, i love your avatar!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

while i respect your opinion, i don't understand why it's considered so heartless. laying one's loved one to rest is a highly personal matter. taking into consideration that the Monckton's might want to visit the grave and have privacy, it was a very touching thing to do, if it's true.

But the Moncktons are no celebrities - who would want to spoil their moment of grief on visiting their private grave on a cemetery? No one is interested in them enough to do something like that. While with KP gardens they had to rely on Diana's permission to reach the spot. They would include Diana in their grief anytime they wanted to visit - that's too much for any friendship. I mean: would you bury your stillborn child in your friend's garden? And why should they have done that? I don't see so many reasons against it , but not one good motive for it. There is something absolutely fishy in the whole story if this burial really took place.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I quote from the Daily Mail;

"Diana wasn't as loved up with Mr Burrell as he'd like you to believe. She once said to the Duchess of York, "That f***ing Burrell is getting on my nerves. He's like a leech". And that wasn't the only criticism of "her rock". She threatened to sack Burrell when she caught him going through her letters. Storming into lunch with Princess Margaret, she declared, "He'll have to go!". But did Princess Di ever call Burrell her rock? According to a member of the Royal Family* she did but regretted it, "I called him my rock once when he was crying about something but I honestly can't stand him". It's quite evident that the more stories Mr Burrell leaks, the more other people leak their own tales and they don't show the butler in the most positive light."

*There's other quotes from the person who is just called, "a member of the Royal Family" and it's believed to have been from an interview The Duchess of Kent gave.

 

[Skydragon]

Most women would I believe, wish to spend time at the graveside and with Dianas' schedule that would have been almost impossible. There are many places that they could have chosen to apply to bury the child (if there was one). I just can't imagine why they would want to bury their baby in someone elses backyard, their own perhaps, as many people have done, long before Diana was buried at Althorpe (to stop her 'fans' from gaining easy access). I also can't imagine Burrell managing to dig a 2 metre hole, place a child or coffin in it and recover it, so that nobody would notice. The settlement of the ground would require constant visits to refill it, something he fails to mention.

Why do I think it could only be done by someone heartless, if you have ever been to a young childs funeral or that of a baby, you would know that it is distressing for any but the heartless for days, if not weeks afterwards!

 

[sara1981]

i would get that books and i cant believe him and he betrayal of Prince William and Harry about their mother's memory and yesterday i watch news about him and he really piece of rats!

im hope William and Harry will makes another statesment to stop publish of books about mother

 

[sassie]

Sadly they would have had to declare it, in case anyone dug up the spot used, it has to be registered on the deeds otherwise it is illegal. It is far easier to bury a dog on your own land, than it is a baby! I know it is sordid to consider, but I don't see Burrell, Diana or Rosa being able to dig a 6ft hole without anyone (not least the gardeners) noticing.

If she did lose a child, it is bad enough and I think anyone of us would react with horror at the suggestion that we had disposed of the body in such a way.

I stick to my view that a person would have to be heartless to be involved in such a thing and I don't believe Diana or Rosa were or are that.

I agree with you that it likely didn't happen. But, again, my point is we don't know for sure. Yes, you can't dig such a hole without the gardeners knowing-but we can't say that they didn't unless all of them actually come forward and say, "We didn't notice it." And we haven't seen the deeds to know whether such a thing was properly registered or not.

Still, it's not our business, and Burrell should be ashamed of himself. Having to bury a child is such a highly traumatic and personal thing. The man is a ghoul. And if he is making it up, then he should be doubly ashamed.

 

[sassie]

while i respect your opinion, i don't understand why it's considered so heartless. laying one's loved one to rest is a highly personal matter. taking into consideration that the Monckton's might want to visit the grave and have privacy, it was a very touching thing to do, if it's true. as i mentioned earlier, diana is laid to rest on the property of her family estate (not in a formal family burial plot or mausoleum) and no one seems to object to that. many people choose not to be buried in cemetaries or churchyards. while we'll probably never know if it's true or not i don't see it as being a heartless gesture. while it may not be to everyone's taste, i'm sure if the offer was made, and accepted by the Monckton's then it was done with compassion and love. i do, however, agree that it was not Burrell's (nor the person that had previously made it public) place to talk about it.

Good point. Diana is, in fact, laid to rest in her family's "garden". It's just a bigger garden.

 

[Avalon]

Nobody can say for sure, of course, but can you imagine it would be kept 'quiet' all this time, if that was true? It would probably be on the front page of every single newspaper in the United Kingdom the very next day!
And to tell the truth, I regard any information, provided by Mr. Burrell with a great deal of distrust. He had run out of his 'sensational' revelations and had probably decided a corpse in the back yard would do the trick, imo. That's what I call heartless, playing with other people's feelings.

 

[pinklady1991]

I don't mean to be a crank here but...
In cases like this wouldn't it be best to ignore and not discuss the "revelations" of someone who is obviously trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame with fantastic tales??? Particularly when the subject of these tales can't defend herself. I say bravo to her boys who won't dignify such lurid accusations. I'm off my soap box now...