Butler's secrets 'could bring down monarchy'

[rooboy]

<snip>

Prince Charles is also reported to be "devastated", and the revelations have prompted renewed calls for Charles' relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, whom Diana blamed for the breakdown of their marriage, to be clarified.

Burrell's book is said to have a "cliffhanger" finish, suggesting he may be planning a sequel with revelations rumoured to involve homosexuality at court and an "incident" between a senior royal and a servant that could severely damage the monarchy and even bring it down.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Burrell said the letters he had already made public were the "tip of the iceberg" and that if "dark forces" - an apparent allusion to the security services - threatened him or his family he might release more documents.

The interview provided insight into Burrell's bitterness at the way he has been treated by the royals.

His trial last year on charges of stealing some 300 items from Diana's estate and from Charles and their sons left the former butler angry after a two-year ordeal.

</snip>

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103271208.html

[Maccagirl]

1. It does appear they messed with the wrong guy this time

If he has proof of his allegations, go for it and let the heavens fall.

[Prodemsouth]

2. Oh ratscroft, I thought you were talking about the monarcy over here.

n/t

[glarius]

3. I find this guy (Burrell) to be completely sleezy and self-serving!

I would not be inclined to believe anything he says...Aside from whether one has any regard for the royal family, Burrell has taken his position of trust (and privilege) with them and betrayed not only Diana (whom he professes to love) but her children. Remember how he declared he "would never do anything to hurt her or betray her trust in him?" (approx. words.) He disgusts me!!! Uugghhh! :puke:

[jrthin]

4. That maybe so.

But even self-rightous, sleezy people tell the truth, sometimes. We shouldn't confurse the message with the messenger. Forget the messenger here, let's look at the message.

[glarius]

5. The thing is I don't believe the message (look at the messenger!) n/t

[Ratty]

9. I'm not so sure

I saw his statement responding to Diana's sons. He said his book would be a memorial to her and that nobody has read it yet. Not that I necessarily believe him but he does make a point that nobody has actually read it. It might be quite sensitive about Diana. It might not reveal any personal secrets she confided in him. But it might very well tear the Royal Family a new one, and I hope it does. Looking at what she was up against during her marriage would probably make the public far more sympathetic towards her.

[glarius]

11. For heaven's sake he published her PRIVATE letters! That's betrayal

in my books! As far as the royal family is concerned....It boils down to a failed marriage, in my opinion....It's ridiculous making Prince Charles into some sort of ogre or vilifying Diana for that matter....They each must have good qualities or they wouldn't have raised their sons to be such nice young men....All the books written by many people (for the purpose of making money!) do not prove anything about who these two really are!....I judge them by what I see they have done....Diana much good re abolishing land mines, etc... and Charles is involved in different charities (can't name them without research, but I've heard of them in the past)...and he obviously has a warm and loving relationship with his two sons....:)

edit---The English people have chosen to keep the monarchy so why not respect their choice...

[Beaker]

29. You can't betray a dead person.

They no longer exist.

[glarius]

31. Of course you can...Especially since Burell said he told Diana he would

never do anything to hurt her or her sons!....He's scum!

[Beaker]

33. No. you can't.

Dead people NO LONGER EXIST.
You can't "betray" something that doesn't exist.
Nothing he does can hurt her, because she no longer exists.

[T_i_B]

44. Her family still exists

and I can't imagine anyone related to Diana being too happy with Burrell for this shit. I was never a fan of the woman but for goodness sake can she be left to rest in peace? I for one have zero interest in hearing any more about the woman.

[sushi]

6. I'm thinking of what the late King Farouk

of Egypt has said, that in the end there will be only five kings left, the king of Spades, the king of Hearts, the King of Diamonds, the King of Clubs, and the King of England. The British monarchy will survive this latest crisis, but I'm not sure if they'll like a queen called Camilla.

[Johnyawl]

12. There'll be no Queen Camilla...

...because Charles will never be King. The whole thing with Diana and Camilla was so botched up, that Elizabeth will never let Charles be King. There's two reasons for that, the first is that his mother will punish him for disobeying her orders to give up the woman he loved when she ordered him to years ago. The second reason he'll be passed over in favor of his son, is that's how they'll save the monarchy. Diana's legend continues to grow in popularity; they'll use that to save their dynasty by making HER son king.

The whole thing is pretty sad really. Charles should never have married Diana; he always loved Camilla. He just didn't have the spine to stand up to his mother. He would have been a much happier person if he'd followed his great-uncle's example, married the woman he loved, and to hell with being King. As it is, he never got to marry the woman he loved, and he's still never going to be King.

And I have to agree with glarius. It's too bad so many on DU seem compelled to vilify Charles over all this; he's as much a victum of his mother's efforts to control every aspect of his life as Diana was. There is much about Charles that is commendable.


But, what the hell does my opinion matter. I'm an American of Scots ancestry, it's all the same to me if they pitch the Hanoverians out, or keep them.

[colorado_ufo]

22. The problem was, at the time, the woman he loved was married.

Camilla has sinced divorced. It is a pity, though, that this could not have been worked through. Charles is highly intelligent and charitable, as well as hard working. He would have made a fine king - a much better ruler than his cold hearted mother and domineering father; it is a shame that his mother wanted her Golden Jubilee more than she wanted the welfare of England. By waiting past many of Charles' most productive years, and with no relinquishing of the throne in site, she has robbed her country of an excellent king, the job for which he had prepared so sincerely for his entire life.

Camilla did not have to be made queen.

The shame falls on her majesty's head, and possibly her mother's head, as well.

I agree that it is unlikely Charles will ever assume the throne, and that his son will be elevated above him, in a political and public relations move. They are becoming more pressured every day, as the monarchy is barely holding together.

This is both a family tragedy and national tragedy for their country.

[PartyPooper]

27. Au Contraire! Camilla gave up on Charles and she married the other guy!

Early on, Charles decided he didn't want to get married to Camilla. So, she naturally married someone else (whom she later cuckolded). Camillia's marriage was dissolved only after her long-running affair with HRH became public knowledge...and, an embarrassment for her husband!

So, Charles was less than genuine when he proposed to Lady Diana. He never really professed love for her. And, she adored him! What a pity and a shame. And, the children suffered along with the wife and mother.

I don't really care if Charles succeeds his mother or not...but, I hope someday William will accede to the throne...he is a class act just like his mother...and, he will do the British people (and his Mum) very proud.

:-)

www.royal.gov.uk

[shimmergal]

46. Actually, I've heard two versions of why Charles didn't marry Camilla.

This is pre-Diana, when Charles & Camilla were already close.
One is that Camilla said no because she didn't want to be a queen. (Presumably she wanted to have some degree of a private life.) The other is that she wasn't a virgin, and so wasn't eligible to marry the heir to the throne, under the ancient law that's still in effect.

It's true that by "abdicating" in advance, Charles could have avoided both of these objections. But we don't know whether the two even seriously considered getting married at that time.

The whole story is a tragedy for all involved.

[PartyPooper]

47. The 'not being a virgin' is a more plausible reason.

And, I believe Charles couldn't...or, wouldn't put her through that ancient ritualistic ordeal.

But, SHE did love him at the time...and, she would have married HRH *if* he had proposed...and, *if* she had been found "suitable" by 'the powers that be'.

Just my opinion, of course.

:eyes:

[cliss]

7. well, in my opinion

anybody who throws his clothes on the floor at age 56 (?) and has people scrambling to pick them up, or has an aide stand alongside him to squeeze toothpaste on his toothbrush, deserves to be in trouble.

What's the deal with an entire clan that doesn't work for its living, anyway? And I understand that family has $4 billion in real estate and assets.

What a fossilized family. No wonder they're always in the Daily Mirror and the Equirer all the time.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. who gives a damn about these inbred aristocrats anyway?

I agree, why don't they have jobs? Didn't we have a revolution to get rid of these freaks?

[Rowdyboy]

8. It appears Mr Burrell is locking horns with

Prince Philip, who has frequently been a bit of a turd. I wish him the best in exposing this bastard but am sorry his grandsons will be hurt in the process.

As for Charles, he should rot in hell for the misery he has caused.

[Unknown Known]

10. I always hoped that Diana would bring down the monarchy

and I guess she will through Burrell. Good for him and I hope he makes a gazillion euros off his book(s).

I despise the Windsors - they have leeched off the backs of the people long enough and they killed Diana.

[Pert_UK]

40. It's the bizarre Diana Cult that brings me down.....and probably them too.

P.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. After I read today's article, I clicked on

"Diana: the Revelations" and read something new (to me):

"In a letter to the Princess in 1996, Earl Spencer, her brother, dismissed the bulimia from which she was suffering as "mental problems", and refused her permission to move to the Althorp estate. He reportedly demanded she return the tiara she wore at her wedding."


Remember Earl Spencer's eulogy at Diana's funeral? The loving brother, right? I guess she won in the end, since he buried her at Althorp. If it's true he wrote the letter described, I hope he feels guilty. But he charges admission to see her grave, so. . .

[glarius]

14. In one of the letters from her brother Burrell published the brother says

to her something about her refusing to get the help she needs for her mental problems....He also refused to allow her to move in to Althorp when she asked him...She was looking for some peace following her breakup from Charles....

[Unknown Known]

15. Yes, Diana begged her brother for help

and he shunned her. He also had the same problem with his wife (forget her name), who also suffered from anorexia and IIRC, there were stories of abuse in that family. She had been a model at one time.

Diana's brother is a real shit. He has made all kinds of money off that place where she is supposedly buried. I don't believe she is actually buried there because it's much too boggy. There is quite a number of rumors about that as well.

[glarius]

18. I agree he is a "real shit"...I just don't see demonizing Charles and the

royal family...Read my post #11 and you'll see what I mean...Charles and Diana married...they both tried but the marriage failed...it happens...Why make either of them a demon?....When they were married they were often in Canada on royal trips and I have a different perspective on this, I suppose.

[Beaker]

30. Charles is a f**king freak.

he demonizes himself.

take off the monarchy-issued blinders sometime.

[glarius]

32. That's your opinion....

Unless you have some inside track unknown to the rest of us, you have no more knowledge of the truth than we do....Your crack on "monarch-issued blinders" is really S-I-L-L-Y!!!!

[Beaker]

34. anybody that wishes he were horseface bowles tampon-

is a fucking freak.

and the blinders 'crack' is based on your S-I-L-L-Y posts in this thread...

[glarius]

35. Go have a soothing drink

You're taking this all waayy too seriously!!!

[aquart]

41. Oh, please. The private, intimate speech of lovers?

No one could survive having such conversations published.

[andy12]

23. the spencers and the windsors

The Reality of the situation is the Spencer, Sidney/Sydney families have more claim to the throne of England than this carpetbagging group from Germany. Even Philip of Greece, Charle's father family was hired by the Greeks as they needed some new royal blood.

These are a sad bunch who have about as much to offer as what elizabeth carries around in her purse...time to feed the corgis...later kids

[corarose]

16. I hope he has armed guards around him

Welcome to America Mr. Burrell!

[fla nocount]

17. King? Queen? Prince/Princess?

In this day and age? How quaint, sorta like a fairy tale. If this man can bring England into the 18th century more power to him. They're a burden on the country and will soon name a son George if they're not stopped.

[DS1]

19. Prince "I wanna be your tampon" Charles, LOL

Kick em all out, every last fucking one of them.

/ex-pat

[Nottingham]

20. Well if her letters are authenticated then this could well bring the

monarchy down!

and I say Good Riddance :bounce:

KARMA is a Bitch!

[Rowdyboy]

21. The Brits will NEVER get rid of their monarchy

If for no other reason than tourism. How dreary would Britian be without the foibles of their euro-trash royal family.

I also look forward to seeing how William and Harry mature-their mom was a class act and they both show potential.

[Unknown Known]

24. Let's get real! The Diana/Charles marriage was an arranged marriage

Read your history! Diana was a Stewart (or Stuart from the Frenchified version - those damn surrender monkeys!!)

The Stewarts are the true bloodline. The Windsors (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Hanover) were German FOREIGNERS who usurped the throne from the Stewarts by the Act of of Settlement of 1701 which declared no Catholic could sit on the throne.

A son born to Diana & Charles would conjoin the German Hanovers with the true bloodline of Stewarts.

[realityboy]

25. Ridiculous

George III? Henry VIII? Edward VIII? Charles I? No the 1000 year old monarchy's downfall will be brought about by Paul Burrell, a freaking butler, a non-entity cashing in on on his relationship with Diana. Lets get some prespective here.

There are principled monarchists and republicans, who hold their views on the monarchy quite seperate from the individuals and personalities who currently make up the Royal family. But the vast majority of the tabloid buying public lapping up scandal like this have little or no knowladge of the historial or constitutional nature of the monarchy. For them the Royal family is just another soap opera or reality TV show. Lets be honest, a large part of why Diana was/is loved and Charles & Camilla are despised was simply because of looks and PR management. Di was recently voted one of the top 10 Britons of all time on a BBC TV show. WHAT THE HELL FOR? Basically for looking good in Versace and dying young. There is no reason why people should even consider Charles being bypassed for the throne other than the modern cult of celebrity which fetishises youth, looks and "personality".

Diana was at the end of the day a reckless, self-absorbed, self centered publicity junkie. Yeh, she loved her kids and did nice things for charity, but wouldnt you expect that of anyone who became Princess of Wales? No matter what you believe about how she was treated by the Royals, it hardly changes the fact that she conducted herself with with no regard to loyalty, duty or the dignity of herself and the family and instititution she married into.

The point is is that Royalty simply cannot function in the same way that "ordinary" celebrity does. Diana did and the net result was disaster. Quite frankly if you feel you need to go on TV and moan about your personal life, make puppy eyes to the camera, saying "love me, pity me" like a Hollywood diva, dont marry into the Royal family. Simple as that. Such a person is unsuited to carry out the constitutional duties being a member of the Royal family entails. Diana, especially after her divorce, wanted the status and attention that Royalty brought without any of the responsibility and obligation that goes with it.

Sooner or later Diana and the tawdry scandals that she dragged into the palace will run their course. The monarchy will go on, quieter, more stable and less dysfunctional.

[Matilda]

28. Well said, you've made some excellent points.

I'm sure there were faults on both sides though - I don't think the
Royals are very good at being sympathetic and considerate, because
they're not brought up to be. Everybody panders to their every
whim, so don't look there for a shoulder to cry on. I think Charles
is intelligent and thoughtful, and has the best intentions, but in
an intellectual way; I don't think he was equipped to deal with a
girl as neurotic as Diana. And with her background - darling daddy
was a bad-tempered, bullying shit - it's hardly surprising that she
was emotionally fragile. She was thrown in at the deep end with no
real training in how royalty behaves, but she was really expected to
do no more than walk behind Charles and murmur polite banalities
every now and then. Good for her for refusing the subservient role,
but her great mistake was to believe in her own publicity - I'm sure
she really came to believe that she was one step off sainthood, a
fatal error of judgment. And her judgment was way off with her
involvement with the Fayed family - they really were a sleazy lot,
and not people her sons should have been involved with, even if she
had no qualms about herself. Not meaning to sound snobby, but she
chose to marry into the royal family, and the mother of the future
king should have had higher standards.

But just a bit of a kick in the pants for Camilla - I have no
sympathy for her - she missed the boat with Charles, and should have
bowed out of the picture and stayed out. She had a husband and
children of her own, and clearly she is as selfish as any of the
other players in this sorry saga. Certainly she's not fit to be
lording it over other people as their queen.

[Pert_UK]

39. Oooohh! You're going to hell for that one!

Didn't you know that Diana was a saint??? How dare you sully her memory!

Etc. etc. etc.

Good points, well made and very entertaining. Welcome to DU, and please keep up the good work, even if the Diana fanclub tries to crucify you.

P.

[tlb]

43. Bravo

One of the most sensible posts I've seen in weeks.

[The White Rose]

26. Inbred to idiocy. Good riddance.

The very idea that Britons should pay and respect these leeches just because one of their distant ancestors was the most efficiently brutal murderer of his day is simply disgusting. And why so many Americans find royalty fascinating, even to the point of emulation (the Kennedys, the Bushes, the cult of celebrity etc), is completely beyond me.

[loudsue]

37. Boy! The royal family has even gotten their slimey tentacles

onto DU!! Fuggetit!!

Di's family IS royalty. Charles' family are the usurpers. Di behaved as royalty. Charles family behaved like the bushes they're related to...

When people like Diana again rule the world, we'll be rid of the bush family evil empire, as well. I hope this time, they can kill off the ugly blood lines....the morphed, dyed-blue blood lines of the assholes that shouldn't be allowed to roam the earth, much less, RULE it!!

:kick:

[Djinn]

38. Up against the wall for all of them

Speaking as a Scot born and now Australian resident I for one am sick of paying for this antiquated freakshow.

why anyone cares what happens to a bunch of tax dodging rich inbreds is completely beyond me.

None of them are deserving of sympathy - unlike poverty/war/disease the monarchy IS something you can walk away from. Hundreds of years ago their ancestors (and even THAT is questionable) were the biggest and badddest robber barons around and they made up some crap about Divine Rule which allowed their descendents to rule and leech off hard working people for ever like the vile parasites they have always been - for f&*k sake it's 2003! Can't wait for the General Dostum royal line to emerge in Afghanistan over the next few hundred years.

Dianna was a spoilt little rich brat who agreed to marry someone she barely knew - what on earth did she expect from a royal marriage to someone with whom she had ZERO in common. As for her supposed charity work - any guesses as to how much cash Di left to charities/the poor in her will ABSOLUTELY NOTHING she left ALL her cash and property to two even more spoilt little upper class shits who were already stinking rich and would never have to spend any of that cash on stuff like bills/taxes/houses etc etc

I'm amazed that anyone, let alone so many, in the US give a flying about this lot??? why????

[AP]

45. It will be a great day for liberal democracy when the royals lose their...

...public subsidy.

You know how many hospitals you could build for what the family steals from the economy?

[emad]

42. The butler is a crook who has upped his walk-on part in this

Greek tragedy to get attention and make money.

He has said he knows 'which line not to cross' and is playing his trump card by pushing at the press gag which surrounds the entire Diana fiasco: it's called a D Notice and it allows the security service to censor the entire appalling Windsor story.

Anyone who knew Diana and her family from childhood knows what depths of manipulation went into concocting the sham marriage and subsequent aftermath of the divorce. The blame for this lies squarely in the hands of Margaret Thatcher who was instrumental in building this particular wing of the house of cards for her own party political advantages.

To do this she had to construct a massive cover up of cold war atrocities perpetrated by WW2 criminals. Her accomplice in this was George H Bush, both as CIA Director, VP and later President. Anyone who has reached any level of seniority in security or military intelligence careers can testify to to shambolic mess that this has created, not to mention the true financial costs of perpetuating a cover story that has benefitted various Nazis and fascists in general financially and helped them evade custodial sentences for crimes involving drug running, money laundering, jury and witness tampering, assasinations, fraud, corporate theft on a massive scale - and the related crimes of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The so-called Princes William and Harry are both now adults and know that Burrell stands to make a vast fortune by putting into the public domain the cover up about their own existence. I guess they think they are good enough poker players who can rely on Tony Blair to carry on the Thatcher bluff that keeps this particularly disgusting merrygoround spinning.

And Joe Public laps it up, happily defending the indefensible and parroting their own acute personal insights into a tawdry criminal saga of deceit and dishonour.