Is it now our royal duty to give Paul Burrell a good slapping? Anton Buxley is one-sided.
And so the investigation into the untimely death of Diana Princess of Conspiracy Theories (did I say conspiracy theories? I meant Wales) drags its merry way onward, and surely the public are by now getting more than a little bit bored of it. Leading the fight, one man fate has made indestructible: his name � Paul Burrell, former butler to Diana Princess of Fails-to-come-up-with-any-reasonable-evidence-that-it-wasn�t just-a-car-crash.
I speak with some authority here, because I�ve done a great deal of research into Burrell�s post-Di profiteering (did I say profiteering? I meant work). To be exact, I�ve read the cover of his new book, neutrally entitled A Royal Duty. The front bears a tantalising photograph of the late princess, who might as well be naked given the position of the camera, signed �To Paul, love from Diana�. Some people get all the luck � celebrities with politically charged careers never give me signed naked photographs of themselves. It�s a licence to print money! In fact, what impresses me about Burrell is not so much that he became a Butler with no apparent knowledge of how to construct a sentence (read the first page of the book if you don�t see what I mean) but that having got this delightful windfall he managed to wait six years before cashing it in.
But cash it in he has. The back cover manages in a few short sentences the apparently impossible task of being more annoying than the front. �You are the captain of my ship � I am safe with you at the helm�, croons Diana Princess of Tales herself. Apparently. Just below that, Her Majesty the Queen declares that �No-one has been closer to my family than you have�. To me, this second sounds much more like a threat than something you�d put on the back of a libellous book you�d just written about your former confidential employers, whereas the first simply raises questions such as �Don�t you feel a bit bad about her horrific death then?� What this cover, with its carefully chosen words, its really suggesting is that Burrell was in fact an inadequate person in whom to place these very trusts. He may well have been captain of her ship, but since that ship went on to suffer a horrific wreck in a French tunnel, that�s scarcely something to be proud of, or indeed, to put on the back of a libellous book you�d just written about your former confidential employers.
Despite my cynicism regarding all political figures and methods of government I must confess that I do have a bit of a soft spot for Diana and that against some fairly hefty evidence it is still my belief that she was at base an extremely nice person. However, this just makes the premise of the book even more abhorrent to me. The story is that the British Public (note those capitals) have a RIGHT to know the TRUTH, however disconcerting that truth may be. And Burrell is the man to tell us. This is his gift. This is his� curse.
Convincing though this patter would be if Burrell hadn�t recently been narrowly acquitted of stealing all his mistresses� possessions, I must confess I find it very difficult to believe that the last wish of the people�s princess was that Burrell reveal all her personal secrets � not in the form of a legal declaration or press release but in a sensationalist biography attractively priced at �8.99 - so that no member of her family be allowed to mourn her death in peace or, indeed, without a full public inquiry.
The book and the inquiry are not directly related, of course; not even Burrell, �The People�s Butler�, has that much clout. But one obviously has a rather significant bearing on the other. �Princess Di was my JFK!�, says a reviewer on Barnes and Noble�s website. Well, they were very similar public figures (ie. People liked them, at least after they were dead), but I can�t say I recall JBK selling the famous rifle on eBay or the Queen prosecuting the deceased�s trusted manservant. But then, my knowledge on this subject comes almost exclusively from the cover of A Sniper�s Duty, so who can say?
Coroner Mr. Michael Burgess, presiding over the new Diana inquiry, has already made it fairly clear that he�ll be very surprised if any evidence of a conspiracy if brought to light when the inquest resumes in 2005. But, not wishing to dismiss a good enough piece of paranoia without introducing something to fill the hole, I have a theory for you � what if it was Burrell all along? It�s always the Butler what done these things! He has motive (�x million and whatever he can make by looting her stuff) and opportunity (captain of ship, remember). And he�s the last person you�d suspect. According to recognised crime psychologist Agatha Christie, this is as good as proof!
In theory, my passionate belief in the freedom of speech requires that Burrell be allowed to break all his promises for some fast cash from the Diana-hungry public (whose appetite has not been dulled by six years of fairly convincing proof that she died in a regular accident). But let us not forget that �Freedom of Speech� and �Freedom to be a real Dickweed� are not the same thing. I think Burrell�s actions are a betrayal of a very important confidence, at best a poorly written over-sentimental piece of claptrap, and at worst a cynical effort at both profiteering and self-exoneration. Whichever way I look at it, I can see only bad things. But I do tend to be cynical about these things. That is my gift. My� curse.
Did I say curse? I meant� duty.
Sarah �Holier than Thou� Montague has a go at Burrell in this article, which you may find of interest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3217107.stm
Home*List of contributors