 |
|
08-28-2006, 09:27 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
|
|
|
"The Way We Were: Remembering Diana" by Paul Burrell (2006)
Ex-royal butler planning more Diana disclosures
LONDON: Paul Burrell, the former royal butler, is planning to disclose fresh details about Diana.
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topic...8&parent_id=20
__________________
|
08-31-2006, 10:53 AM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skydragon
|
What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.
__________________
|
08-31-2006, 11:34 AM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elspeth
What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.
|
And guess what? If he wants to publish a book that comes out exactly on the 31 st August 2007, he must get a contract now. If he doesn't have one already. For me this guy is definately a jerk, too. Somehow I wonder about the people Diana confided in....
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
|
08-31-2006, 12:10 PM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 338
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elspeth
What a jerk. I wonder if he honestly believes that anyone is buying his story of only doing this stuff for Diana's sake. We didn't see him donating the proceeds of his last book to charity, did we? So I think we can safely assume that he's doing it for Paul Burrell's sake.
|
I agree...his "for Diana's sake" and "letting the truth be known" angles are just nonsense. He didn't reveal anything of substance in his book that wasn't already known about Diana-the only "new" parts were merely titillating snippets of gossip that Diana, in all likelihood, would have preferred to have been kept private.
If Paul Burrell is about anything, it's self-aggrandizement.
|
09-03-2006, 04:09 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by selrahc4
|
Is there anything in there we haven't heard before? IMHO it's just Burrell wanting to make more money out of Diana - with his own inventions, if necessary. After all these years he can be pretty sure that Hasnat Khan won't stand up and go against him or even tell his side to the story in public. So it's a safe way to earn more money. Sad, that.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
|
09-03-2006, 11:57 AM
|
 |
Serene Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: *******, Brazil
Posts: 1,325
|
|
|
__________________
If you find someone you love in your life, then hang on to that love. - Diana, Princess of Wales
|
09-03-2006, 04:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
|
|
|
Poor old Burrell. The book just isn't selling is it?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
|
09-04-2006, 05:05 AM
|
 |
Aristocracy
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 170
|
|
|
|
09-04-2006, 09:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
|
|
|
Oh another final secret! That's the 3rd one isn't it?
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
|
09-04-2006, 03:57 PM
|
 |
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StoneCold
|
burrel is a rat!
he only want money, this day are hard for william and harry, 9 year without they mother and now this book again. 
I dont know if the princes can do something (somthing with the law) about this, may be we have a official notice as 4 year before when a royal duty was out.
william in the official notice was fury
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
|
09-10-2006, 06:17 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,404
|
|
|
I saw Burrell this morning on the ABC news show. What could he possibly have to say that's new or revelatory, that he hasn't already said?
And he claimed that he is the only one interested in protecting the Princess's memory and reputation, not her former husband or her children. I thought that was a pretty outrageous statement as far as the young princes go.
Although I'm a voracious reader about Diana, I'm going to give this book a pass. I'm so disappointed in Mr. Burrell.
|
09-13-2006, 06:19 AM
|
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
|
|
Princess Diana wanted to be America's First Lady, claims butler
London, Sept 13: Her divorce from the heir to the British throne Prince Charles may have ended her hopes of one day being the UK’s queen, but it seems that Princess Diana also had hopes of becoming America’s First Lady
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?a...lnews&id=20856
Diana Wanted to Become America's First Lady, Butler Says
NEW YORK, Sept. 12, 2006 — In his new blockbuster book, "The Way We Were," Paul Burrell says that Princess Diana had ambitions to become the first lady of the United States
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2423394&page=1
|
09-13-2006, 06:40 AM
|
 |
Administrator in Memoriam
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
|
|
|
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
|
09-13-2006, 07:13 AM
|
|
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skydragon
Princess Diana wanted to be America's First Lady, claims butler
London, Sept 13: Her divorce from the heir to the British throne Prince Charles may have ended her hopes of one day being the UK’s queen, but it seems that Princess Diana also had hopes of becoming America’s First Lady
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?a...lnews&id=20856
|
That's not true, is it? That is "preserving the memory"? Alleging that Diana had such rather childish dreams of "visiting Britain on a state visit as First lady of the US" and of "redecorating" the White House? That's imbecile beyond belief. And to consider marrying a man she did not love because of a chance to become "First lady"? How does that fit in with the stories of Diana who had married Charles out of love and was so disappointed hwen he couldn't love her in return? This Diana as presented by Burrell would have married Charles because of the position he offered, apperently. I'm not convinced that she, if she thought about that, really was serious. But somehow it fits in with the character studies of Diana which have emerged after her death and have been supported by quite believable witnesses.
Still, I don't understand why Burrell decided to tell these stories, even if they were true. He must realize that he paints Diana in a very unfortunate light and that these claims are going to stick, even if it is only bits and pieces and the rest of the book is referential and positive. So why does he it? I mean, this is clearly material Charles and Camilla would have loved to have while the media war raged around the divorce.
Burrell surely was clever enough to realize very soon after Diana's death that he had no place in the way Diana's estate and a memorial fund would be dealt with. So he used the trust of the princes and Diana's family in letting him taking care unobservedly of her home to not only take things "for safekeeping" but taking pictures - material for the upcoming sale of his "memoirs". It's disgusting. I'm sure if he had a chance to photograph the dead princess in her burial finery he did it and will sell the pictures one day.
What are his motives? One point I already wrote about is surely revenge on the princes. But there must be more to it. Maybe the message conveyed by Diana's friends and family after Burrell's first book hit their target: a lot of people have claimed in their dismay over the book that Burell was over-valueing his place in Diana's life, that he was a mere instrument for her to lead a comfortable life and certainly not one of the most important persons in her life.
I can imagine that he really believed himself to be in a kind of real relationship with Diana. When he figured that this wasn't the truth or that she conveniently forgot about him in her will, he felt betrayed by the late princess and now wants to destroy her memory in order to "punish" her posthumely through killing the positive image she still possesses in the public.
On using his "insider knowledge" to ridicule people like duchess Sarah who have managed to still move within the Royal circles, he showed himself as her superior, as the one who can hurt her public image. Or is it a coincidence that he "remembers" the story about how Sarah allegedly used princess Eugenie to get back into Diana's good graces when there has a public discussion about if Sarah uses her daughters to further her own aims? One could say both are doing the same but Sarah is much better in acheiving this aim, while Burrell failed with the princes. So it's probably jealousy there which makes me mistrusting the whole story or the way it's presented.
So for me his motives are clear. Thinking about how less knowledge of human nature Diana obviously possessed when it came to her "men" (There is not one I would want to spent an evening with, apart from The Prince of Wales, that is) and how she was deceived by Burrells subservient behaviour, I don't wonder it came to such a terrible end for her.
If it's true what Burrell wrote about the princess giving hints to the paparazzi about Paris in order to make Hasnat Khan jealous, then it's anothere proof of the old saying that mistakes and errors of judgment sometimes add up. And then it only takes such a little additional mistake as to trust a drunken driver and the security of a luxurous limousine and not using the safety belt that lead to such a bitter end.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
|
09-13-2006, 07:40 AM
|
 |
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,649
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warren
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.
|
darn good question Warren. i also wonder who bestowed on him the awesome responsibility to defend diana's memory? did she ask him to do it? i think the only people that are defending her memory are the ones that haven't cashed in on it.
__________________
Duchess
|
09-13-2006, 08:53 AM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 338
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duchess
darn good question Warren. i also wonder who bestowed on him the awesome responsibility to defend diana's memory? did she ask him to do it? i think the only people that are defending her memory are the ones that haven't cashed in on it.
|
Well said.
|
09-13-2006, 09:47 AM
|
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Charleston, SC, United States
Posts: 338
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warren
I know it's probably better not to comment on any of this, but... what gave Burrell the right to bestow the Princess's private possessions as gifts to others after she had died?
And has he ever given a satisfactory explanation as to why he kept so many of those possessions in his home? Apart from that laughable excuse of "safekeeping", that is.
|
No, he hasn't. And it WAS a very lame excuse. Because, when all is said and done, those items belonged to Diana's sons-and where better to 'safekeep' them than storage at a royal residence? Perhaps it is lucky that the police confiscated those videotapes, or they might have been published along with this new book. Just to 'set the record straight', of course.
Today, Burrell's reason for the second book is to bring a halt to conspiracy theories that the Princess was murdered, yadda yadda. I'm not quite sure how publishing pictures of her rooms at KP and sharing details of the burial of Rosa Monckton's daughter is going to bring a halt to conspiracy theories...but, then, I haven't read the new book.
__________________
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
