Share this story!            

LETTER FROM LONDON: The butler didn’t do it

Irfan Husain

The royal intervention has raised more questions than it has answered: why did the Queen wait for so long before stepping in? Was she motivated by fears of the damaging testimony Burrell might have given had he stepped into the witness box?

For the last few weeks, much of Britain has been preoccupied with the trial of Paul Burrell, the late Princess Diana’s butler, for the alleged theft of many of her personal effects and papers. On the evidence, it seemed an open-and-shut case: days after Princess Di’s tragic death, Burrell was seen loading his car with articles from her apartment at Kensington Palace by the policeman on duty. When asked what he was doing, he replied he was removing papers for safekeeping. Nothing much was made of the incident at the time as he was a familiar figure around the Palace.

After days of examining witnesses, the standing jury was suddenly dismissed by the judge for undisclosed reasons and the trial was commence anew. This naturally added spice to an already sensational case. As the trial was approaching an end, all charges were dropped at the Queen’s intervention: it seemed that she had suddenly recalled a conversation in which Burrell is supposed to have informed her that he had some of Princess Diana’s belongings for “safekeeping”.

The royal intervention has raised more questions than it has answered: why did the Queen wait for so long before stepping in? Was she motivated by fears of the damaging testimony Burrell might have given had he stepped into the witness box? Why did not the prosecution follow up on an earlier claim made by Burrell that he had informed the Queen of his action?

The media is full of speculation about the trial and what is the subject of the possible cover-up. Some people are even hinting that the relationship between Di and Burrell might have been more than the relationship between a princess and her loyal butler, and the Queen acted to scotch any hint of further scandal concerning her controversial late daughter-in-law. In fact, the Labour MP Paul Flynn said: “The most likely reason is that when Paul Burrell came up to give evidence he was going to provide information which would be damaging to the royal family”.

In short, the whole episode has all the elements of the kind of juicy scandal the Brits love, and will probably dominate the media for some time to come. Despite the republican views so many Brits express, their fascination with royalty remains unabated. The comings and goings of even minor royal figures sells countless tabloids and glossies, and their participation in public occasions ensures huge interest and media coverage. The Queen’s recent Golden Jubilee attests to her enormous popularity and staying power.

In Burrell’s favour is the fact that none of the items he is alleged to have stolen were actually sold or in any way disposed of. Apparently, he had indeed removed them to protect Diana’s reputation. However, as some of the letters recovered from his house were perfectly innocent missives addressed to her sons, it is not clear on what basis he selected the papers. The idea that he risked a long prison sentence to protect the royal family has been roundly debunked.

The Guardian, in a tough editorial titled “Beaten by the butler”, concluded: “...The collapse of the case stinks of something worse than incompetence. Whether Mr Burrell walked free because the palace, desperate to protect the post-Diana rehabilitation of the Prince of Wales on which the monarchy depends, blinked first in a high-stakes poker game over the evidence the former butler would have given in court, is something we will probably never know. But there was surely something more to yesterday than meets the eye. Let justice be done, but when the crown is involved, there often seems something bigger at stake.”

But whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, one thing is certain: what with a book sure of best-seller status plus serialisation rights in the newspapers, Paul Burrell will become a rich man in the near future. However, the unanswered question that hangs over the whole affair like a bad smell is who or what is the Queen protecting. The fact remains that she will never be cross-questioned in court.

The writer is a freelance columnist

Home | Editorial

Share this story!