The Cause Of ROYAL Tell-ALL Books? 

Blurred boundaries were a common theme in Diana’s life. A more disturbing example than Paul Burrell, was her lack of boundaries with William, treating him like her confidant and her therapist, instead of her child.

Diana barely considered her own son's suffering, and embarrassment because of her public affairs. Haardly surprisingly that she showed little consideration for Paul Burrell having his own private family time 😌

I find the lack of boundaries in Diana's behavior appalling. It doesn't surprise me, however, she was insecure, unstable....However to work without set hours I find it very wrong.The man had a family for God's sake 😢😢

This speaks to me of entitlement and lack of consideration. Diana knew that he had a family. It's a side of royalty (and lower nobility) that I really dislike. I sure hope that the Prince and Princess of Wales manage to keep doing it differently. I'll respect them even more for it.

Yes, many years ago I was left bewildered by 'blurred boundaries.' I was in the army. Where I worked there was a Lt Col who, to say the least, did not approve of women in uniform, even if they were only office staff. He was scathing, overly autoritarian and often downright unpleasant to me. Then he wanted a babysitter and guess who was ordered to do it? He was then a totally different man. Collected me from the block, held open the door of his Sunbeam Alpine and was charming and chatty. I however, knew full well that on Monday morning, if I put a foot wrong I'd be bellowed out as if I were on a parade square. It made things very difficult for me. I didn't reciproacate and answered more 'Yes, sir, no sir, three bags full sir.' I wish he had stuck to his bellicose persona rather than muddied the waters. To add insult to injury, he never once paid me. He just viewed my time at his house as an extra duty while I was left with no social life. Having heard your view of PB, I have to say that I'd never considered this before and will view the man more kindly in future.

This reinforces my belief that Diana had no royal qualities and was never up to the job.

Nevermind hiw Diana would unburden her soul on poor, very young Prince William...who tried as a child to help his mother "cope" with her assorted breakdowns and broken hearts after failed love affairs.

I’m not surprised to hear this at all. On one hand, Diana was desperate for love and companionship (because of her broken marriage and also the family she came from) on the other hand, I think, she was highly emotional and hence would make decisions based on her feelings and not necessarily on the basis of a strong mind. We’ve seen how many married lovers she went on to have. I’m not criticizing her, just pointing out that she wasn’t exactly someone who knew how to control herself.

Diana was blurring boundaries left, right and centre. Harry has the same tool kit.

"...inconsiderate approach..." exactly identifies Diana's entire life management. So appreciate your perspectives Shauna!

I was a HUGE Diana fan, and was devastated when she died. However, over the years I have heard so many stories of her inconsideration, her jealousy of other women who she believed were getting more attention than her at any given time, like Fergie, her selfishness and her manipulative character, and that has somehow made me realize she was not the saint we wanted her to be, so that we could look at Charles as the villain in the story. I have a feeling if she had lived, she would have lost a lot of her popularity.

I agree that Paul Burrell was asked to stay past his working hours and watch a movie with Diana, Princess of Wales. He was her "rock" and understood quite well what she was going through and that all she wanted was someone to talk to.. She did not hesitate when her marriage was going south, to seek the companionship (intimate or not) of a number of other men. Not being mean, just stating the facts. Btw, I find it sad that her generosity in leaving many belongings behind (clothes, furniture, art, trinkets) after her divorce, was erroneously interpreted by many as "Paul Burrell was stealing to make money"

I’ve seen a few interviews with Paul. I have always thought he was a decent, honest, kind and unselfish man. He was very loyal to Diana. It was very selfish of Diana to keep him longer when she knew he had a family. I think he has been treated very badly by the press and the royal family.

I believe Princess Diana relied heavily on Paul for advice and support regarding many of Diana’s personal concerns, etc., and I agree with you that it was members of the RF that “blurred the boundaries”. Lastly, Paul was first and foremost a servant, and it’s not unusual for servants to be coldly dismissed when no longer needed or useful. IMO, the loyalty usually comes from the servants, not the other way around. I’m very much enjoying your intriguing book reviews, Shauna. Did anyone ever tell you, you have a very pleasant sounding and melodic voice? Keep the reviews coming!

I agree. Diana was a person full of merrygo-round emotions all over the place like a mad womans s……t. Very needy so she had to get everyone on her side using every womanly trick to either garner sympathy or friendship and desperately wanted people to love her.

How difficult for Paul and his family.

As usual you are spot on Shauna. You are a welcome desert island of common sense and great analysis in a shark filled ocean of knee jerk tribalist and conspiracy theorists ❤

Diana was always 'too familiar' with 'the staff' in the eyes of the royal family and indeed even in the opinion of some of the staff. In the 80's it was very much 'us' and 'them' in those days. I think Diana was just too friendly and later, after the separation I think her friendliness became a loneliness. However, as much as I loved Diana, I also believe much of her 'familiarity' with staff was most likely to do with 'getting the dirt'. She was probably aware that staff talk under stairs and thus knew that by being kind and friendly to her staff meant she might just get some tid bits on Charles and Camilla. Its no secret they both tried to take down the other. Diana had the advantage, whereas Charles was very much a 'them and us' person, Diana was not.

Wisdom here. So true....thank you sooooo much!...I do not have an issue with Paul...I have never had. He was beyond devoted to Diana. Good man who was pilloried left, right and centre. He was one devoted butler who loved the Boss in spades and could never ever say no to her even at the expense of his own family. Throughout her life and even in death he was serving her in the best way he knew how. We owe him a debt of gratitude just for being there with her when she was lonely and needed a sounding board or someone to watch a movie.... I hope William and Harry understand that people like Paul are very, very few. Bless him!

Love this one! Thanks for highlighting all the family and staff related boo boos and blurred boundaries Shauna!!

I’m so glad you presented this! I’ve always felt this way about Paul Burrell. No one is perfect but he has always struck me as a decent man who did his best to do right by Diana’s family.

Great presentation! The guy can't win for losing. Diana was so desperate for someone who would love her, and I actually think she knew Paul did. Unfortunately, she confused their roles and they both suffered for it.

Thank you Shauna for reviewing Paul’s book. Your so compassionate in your assessment it’s truly lovely. 😊

From what we hear about Diana and her men She may well have kept Burrell away from his family hoping to get even more intimate! Now Im not sure whether this would be classed as a blurred boundary for myself but on one occasion I was caught between a rock and a hard place! I worked in a small business and although a member of staff, the owner and his wife were friends to all. We had live in positions and they looked after us young girls. Unfortunately my best friend came to work there too and She and the boss started having a relationship. I was horrified when I was told and asked to keep it from the wife. I didnt like the fact she had told me but she said she had to tell someone! Luckily it didnt go on for too long, the wife found out and my friend was duly sent home. Also luckily, when the lady boss asked why I hadnt said anything (I had to confess I knew as I felt awful) she did understand that I was damned if I did and damned if i didnt. I was only 19 at the time and not very worldly. Both bosses continued to treat me kindly and I worked there for some time after that but it was a horrid position to be in.

Diana “overshared”on a global scale and this was exploited by Martin Bashir, ultimately leading to the loss of EVERYTHING for her. Before Diana, the RF kept a dignified silence and a moat of MYSTERY around their private lives. Diana, in my opinion is the flashpoint for all the narcissism, manipulation and victimhood being attempted by H&M. Poor Harry isn’t cunning enough to play at the same level as his mother. Harry is diligently destroying his mothers memory by reminding us daily of how Diana played the media. Diana was a victim. That was her choice and her downfall. I love your channel.

Exactly and it often is the royal pushing for more from the friend or employee. I think we that’s why very few of Harry’s friends are still friends now. As a group of boys they all grew up as equals in school and as young adults , got into the same scrapes etc, even Harry’s “ older woman “ ( never forget she is younger than Meghan). Then when he dumped them for Meghan it left such a feeling of personal betrayal which I doubt very much that Harry understands. And he dumped them hard choosing her over them in all situations. It’s always the same when boys meet women and fall in love with them , then the group breaks up but often it is just another stage in their friends ship but Harry dumped on his friends as if they were entirely expendable and I think they did /do feel betrayed by him as they have done nothing wrong and are still friends amongst themselves but Harry has left and left behind a bitter taste. I think Royalty is a lonely place to be and it is natural though dangerous to reach out for a friend. I suspect Harry like his mum reached out and blurred the boundaries too much with his friends. Interestingly Williams friends are still his friends and also Catherine’s , freinds with Catherine and Catherine was and is part of Williams friendship group.

I agree with you, however at the same time i feel for the princess having few safe options with relationships 😔.

Maybe his blurred boundaries also stemmed from his own inner turmoil. He is now openly gay, in a long standing relationship, share a home. Who knows what he was going through, that didn't take him home to his family. Plus we don't know what in turn, he confided in Diana, about his life. Maybe there's somethings he didn't want to disclose in the books. Diana might have been doing him a favour, on the pretence of working. Only they know.

that's the problem with treating people as though they are more important than others. after a while they really start to believe it.

Diana really had mental problems! Diana also had liver after over! Charles has been blamed for things he was not guilty of!

Very interesting - and I totally agree. We also saw that blurring with the Queen and Angela Kelly. Very typical of the elderly, as they become frail and find they need to rely on supportive carers and can easily step over the boundaries, give gifts, overshare etc. Angela did a wonderful job in looking after the Queen, but clearly sees herself as the Queen's closest friend, not just staff. In Diana's case - I think she did this habitually - part of her deep, deep need for admiration and attention.

Anyone who’s worked in service or onboard mega yachts knows it’s a tightrope between appropriate and inappropriate situations.. I’ve had my “boss” yelling at me for worrying his wife by leaving “my earrings” in his tennis bag.. they were his mistresses earrings, and everyone knew it!!

Just found you a few weeks ago now trying to go through everything you have put up just love how you tell these stories will get through everything.🐾👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Never ever would I have thought I would feel sorry for Paul Burrell for goodness sake Somehow I do and I now need to buy the book again-realising I read the book but did I really Read it😅😅😅😅

I agree 100%… well maybe 95% but I do agree that Diana was probably both lonely and wanted companionship from people who really had little choice to comply, and she probably wanted to get intel on Charles and other RF members for her book or her divorce. My 5% reservation is that Paul Burrell may not have been that keen to get back to his family. I don’t know what his relationship with his children is like, but he eventually divorced his wife and married a man soon after. I’m not sure if he identifies as bisexual or gay, but perhaps at this point in his marriage, he had already discovered his attraction to men and was finding it difficult being near his wife. Perhaps, even subconsciously, he was accepting Diana’s invitations to chat and watch movies because he was avoiding dealing with his sexuality and how it might be affecting his marriage, and he could just relax and gossip and socialize with Diana as a convenient excuse.

Thank you for covering this book, I’ve tried to remain neutral to Paul Burrell, I can see both sides that he went beyond being an employee to someone who share intimacy knowledge about his employer. Seeing how the issue was likely Diana who blurred those lines, she was tragically a lonely woman who might have had the world’s love, but she wanted someone to share her trust and have some intimate moments with. Naturally as her butler, Paul would see her on a daily basis, so he was likely the closest person she could find to at least interact with someone who she felt cared about her. In many ways, I see Paul as the closest person who can speak on Diana’s behalf, nearly all of those who were close to Diana are in some ways not able to have the capacity to speak on her behalf. Charles is currently king, plus if he opened up anything about Diana that is opening a Pandora’s box that should not be disturbed. William likely cannot give those details both as a future king and the respect he has for her memory. Harry certainly blurred the lines of confusing his attention seeking grifting hustler wife for Diana, yet admitted he doesn’t have memories of her. Charles Spencer and the sisters might have been close to Diana, but she likely revealed a portion of her thoughts to them as she was a royal as she saw them on occasion but not daily. Many of the former aides were cycled through specifically as Diana was going through paranoia of the idea that they could be spying on her for Charles. So really, Paul was the closest confidant maybe next to William that Diana had and it eventually turned to loyalty that could have been seen as obsession. Now Paul has made his mistakes, such as thinking that Diana would have liked Markle in the first place, yet seeing the environment he was a part of, very few involved are going to actually be seen as virtuous. I have a hard time when certain people judge him harshly when he was likely following orders, but I think it says a lot that the late Queen felt it was necessary to step in to stop Burrell from facing accusations of theft and to end it herself.

Excellent post again Shauna👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🥰

I’m especially looking forward to this one. No opinion on Princess Diana but his ‘Revenge dress’ story left me thinking someone needed to remove this man’s influence on a woman who was just finding her feet.

I agree that the person in the superior position likely determines whether or not boundaries get blurred. An underling may attempt it, may make the first move, but I imagine it's always the person in the superior position that determines "yea" or "nay." As long as there have been monarchs in the world, there have likely been many relationships that went beyond the job description: Paul Burrell, Angela Kelly, John Brown! As for the Prince and Princess of Wales dipping a toe into running their branch with more of a company structure regarding staffing, job descriptions, tasks and boundaries, there are likely pros and cons. Specifically, is there less of a chance of the blurring of lines between personal/private and working staff? I'm sure there are thousands of examples of inappropriate lines crossed the world over. But it's a step that they may have decided to take since the "bullying" report for EVERYONE'S protection and improved lives. (I hope!) As we Americans have learned on "Downton Abbey," servants ("staff", per the late queen's insistence) are with their employers and working for their employers from BEFORE they awake (drawing curtains in bedrooms, lighting fires...) to well after the employers go to bed.

Yes, I agree. Diana is so self-absorbed she blurs the boundaries and people get hurt.

Hi Shauna now it’s making a lot of sense is to why Harry is like he is

Yes, it may have started that way - but it got really casual close really fast

If Paul heard things that any family member disclosed to him, how can he 'overstep the mark'? I won't judge him, it's all easy in hindsight. If the employer moves the boundaries I can't see it's easy for an employee. He may have been happy to support, he may have hoped things would settle down. What's he to do? Jack his job in??

I agree that Diana blurred those boundaries. At that time, wasn't she also blurring boundaries with her older son? I have read that she was sharing confidences with William about her love life and other things that seemed inappropriate given his age. She wasn't maliciously intentioned, but she was very needy emotionally. I've always thought how horrible it was that she died when she did. I like to think she would have settled down a bit and gotten her feet under her, so to speak, emotionally, as time went by. She had just emerged from her divorce. The brutal Wars of the Walses were over, but I think she needed time to heal, and sadly she didn't have that time here on Earth.

She had no one else to talk to or confide in to trust no true friends she probably felt isolated and lonely

Every time I hear Paul bring accused, I feel so angry for him. I adore Diana, always will, but...she was absolutely over familiar with him. The games of Diana's vs Prince Charles camps were nuts!!! I'm really happy for him that people like you are standing up for him. He is villafied by most channels on YT. Sad😢

i think that 'modernising/ the household in the way that William is doing is a big mistake. it corporatizes and turns the RF into a financial or commercial enterprise which doesn't bode well for the long term. the problems with the 'tell all's are a recent phenomena and post Diana (which make sense). They would be better off sticking to the tradition (and the modern adaptation -signing them to NDAs) and making sure they have enough staff, not crossing the line with their staff AND payin their staff decent wages and good working conditions because apparently they pay Cr*P for the privilege of working at the RF. Bottom line - pay a decent wage, retain your staff and treat them well and they will be loyal. that doesn't mean buddying up to your staff either. and Yes poor poor Paul. He is a kind man, but I know she has her fans, but she would have been a nightmare to live/work with.

Agree and I thought the story of Billy and The Queen Mother was even more sad. At the end of the day, Diana is very confusing. One of the most revealing vids about Diana is Darren McGrady, her cook, honoring her birthday and commenting that not only was she lonely but she was also very royal. One can see the emotion she stirred in people because by the end of the video he is almost crying.

Blurred boundaries are fine if your in charge, but for the employee, they are a nightmare.

Very good video....Paul Burrell seemed like a good person overall and wanted to do a good job and support Diana as much as he could. I was so shocked at how he was treated so bad in the end with all the court cases and the way her family treated him. The media was bad to him too.

You made things clear that I had not thought about Diana overstepping the boundaries between royalty and staff. But I honestly think Burrell had a big crush on Diana.

Not particularly a fan of Mr. Burrell but what you’re saying makes perfect sense. Diana had more baggage than a fully loaded 737 Jumbo jet when she married Charles. The BRF didn’t do a good job vetting her at all. It sounds like Mr. Burrell paid dearly for allowing her to violate what should have been HIS boundaries.

Downton Abbey's Mr Carson would approve Paul Burrell's skills.

Blurred boundaries do indeed cause so much harm 😢 The person in power is responsible to set them

Isn't that what Meghan was like texting and ringing her staff at five o'clock in the morning. Both unthinking for the needs of others...

I have always trusted Paul Burrell (interviews and articles) and am particularly interested in your findings based on his book. Notification bell is on ! ☺

Blurred boundaries occur with any type of political position...I observed it in the work force. Those employees who "lick boots" or "brown nose" etc.(buy gifts, give complements, go to the bar/out to eat with them, sexual favors, etc) with the person in power (supervisor, boss, etc) are the ones who will be given a promotion, increase in pay. Also, who you know and associate with is far more important than education and experience. I was amazed to watch it happen all the time and of coarse if I was a participant...I was elevated and if I didn't, well I was stagnate in my position.

I hate the way Paul gets demonised, we don't know him, or any Royals. But these people who work in such close quarters, see, hear things, that nobody else does. They probably see more of the people they work with, than their own family members. Now it he worked directly with the Queen, and Diana in her own words, publicly referred to him as her Rock. So who are we to judge him, at least he knows, what he's talking about, from first hand experience. Harry can write books, do interviews, Netflix shows, etc, but Paul can't. I've never heard him say anything negative, apart from about Harry and Meghan, then he's stating facts of their disapproving behaviour. And Diana never did an interview, or had a hand in a book, did she.

I think it also suited Paul for those boundaries to be blurred. He WAS the inner circle, that’s access to book content Gold. It also sounds like he was more a friend trying to stay professional than professional butler. Exhausting routine !

Princess Diana had Borderline Personality Disorder - she is mentioned as an example is some Psychology books.

When I saw (resp. heard) the words "blurred boundaries" I knew at once that it was about Diana, not Paul Burrell, because that was just the thing she would do.

This is common in a lot of workplaces, for example Junior Officers are expected to entertain Senior Officers. It’s called enforced fun.

I like your assessment Shauna, thank you…

I like Paul Burrel.

That's just what I thought! Diana probably had a way of making one think that you were her friend and confidant. I'm pro Paul Burrell

I agree with you. Diana had difficulties with boundaries and that often results in dysfunction. I don't judge her very harshly because the situations she found herself in were very stressful and I'm sure, incredibly lonely. I have a childhood trauma and I often tend to overshare because I want people to know me and love me. I am working on good boundaries now in therapy. If only Diana had real help. I'm not sure she did. Paul Burrell, to me, was a loyal friend. He should have just been a loyal butler, but he was more than that and he loved the role as well as loved Diana.

Blurred boundaries is what the Queen didn’t like and knew it took advantage of the people helping them.

Exploitation of someone in an unequal position who took the job to serve the Royal Family and who would have then, as now , been paid a lot less than the private rate. . Selfishness. Complete disregard of PB' s welfare and family unit. Diana probably interpreted it as he was completely willing to do these things, not understanding/ caring he had no power to oppose her demands Time and revealed history has not been kind to Diana.

Yes I did and still do. I find it difficult to play “boss” and got into a lot of trouble. Perhaps I am just a “worker” through and through and unsuitable as a “boss”.

Interesting take on their relationship. Great book review as usual

You are right--Diana set the boundaries and Paul Burrell had to conform to them or he would have been out of a job. And she met her needs, with seemingly little regard for his personal life--I guess the trade off is that there is usually a good chance, down the road, for the butler to write a book for a big pay day which made all the sacrifices worth it.

I agree with you re the long hours that Paul was having to work . Must have been very hard on his wife and children .

You are so right @Shauna Even I like Princess Diana I don't think she always did the right back then.

Mr Burrell is very well known here in the UK. He has inflated his own self-importance to ridiculous proportions. Princess Diana cannot answer back and Prince William never will. Meanwhile Mr Burrell continues to grift.

It is unbelievable how narcissistic Diana was! The fact that she knew Paul’s family was there for the weekend, she made him choose to spend time with her, over them. She had to be at all times be the focus of attention.

Can’t wait 😊

Paul is the one who should have said no. His contract would have said his work hours. Diana used to tell poor William details which a son shouldnt know. I suspect this is why he started to spend more time with his father and extended family. All the royal family knew what Diana was like. She could be lovely but she knew how to get attention. She wanted her own way. She knew how the royal family worked, she was brought up on the Sandringham estate for the most part.m

Yippee I have been waiting. Yippee

Brilliant. Loved it. Thank you.

I have go back and reread a lot of the books you review- it’s costing a small fortune but so worth it- I lent so many titles out that you discuss and never got most of them back Ask to borrow a book now?ppfffttt no chance You give me a whole different perspective that makes my rereads all the better and I’m finding I’m enjoying them better second time around

You are spot on! People like the casual approach to professional relationships, but then, often forget roles that define expectations and behavior. The inevitability of unhealthy work-place environs is too common and avoidable. An employer or boss can be both casual and know their boundaries for all involved. It takes attention to detail, as in other places on the job.

I live in Spain and it used to be quite normal to have a job interview over lunch or dinner...this becomes a mine field and tough to make short. And another story. I had an off shore account for a rainy day, like a squirrel. The banks used to send the agents to visit their clients but couldn't meet up on public soil. So I'd have to go and have a meeting in a hotel, quite often in the room. The Hilton rooms have office type desks, etc...but as a female, it felt VERY odd. Talking about money with a bed next to the desk. Very icky.

Yes my experience with blurred lines was very recent. A dear friends "new boyfriend". Not speaking to either atm. That's fine. I had realized there were smoke signs. As the saying goes where there is smoke there is fire. Linger to long and get burned. 😂 Very interesting take Shauna. Agreed Paul always seemed "to wear his heart on his sleeve" ( old Hungarian saying). Still trying to crack Lady C. book Daughter of Narcissus. Reading Spare is like dragging my nails on the chaulkboard. Ugh So thank you for delving into them so we may choose whether or not to. ❤from Buffalo, NY

I am delighted that you actually read how devoted Paul was & yes, he let her use & abuse his time, his kindness & love for her. Accusing him afterwards of being a thief shows - and reminds us all - how badly the royal family treats the little people...

Diana had reason for complaints but seriously she’s was irresponsible. A lot was wrong with the way she handled the situation. But then she was very young

It is all very unfortunate and don't forget Diana over shared with the boys too.

I admire your analytical mind to the past to shed light on the present. I think Diana had a fragile and very lonely self. I am not sure if it was romance, but a need for nurture I think Burrows was in love with her Not romantic, but the need to protect and care for her As an aside Prince William will be the best King He realizes that there is a personal self and Regal self. That I think he learned from QEII

Great analysis 👏👏👏👏!

I agree, but also, Diana would unexpectedly turn on him and chastise him and freeze him and become very regal for no reason at all.

My reservation about all of this is that we only ever get Paul Burrell's side of the story, which inevitably shows him in a heroic and saintly light. Even his ex wife's situation only ever seems to be explained by him. I wonder if there are any independent sources, such as letters from Diana or accounts by others confirming that he was indeed her 'rock', rather than a toady of a servant looking for opportunities to profit from his employment.

While I truly sympathise with what an awkward position Paul was in, he worked with QE for 10 years before going over to work for Diana for another 10 & she died 25 years ago. Which means he hadn't been in the RF employ for 35 years so where did he get such intimate family knowledge that QE saw Lilibet, had a cake made but was snubbed by the Markles? He was after all just a servant who was unlikely to have had close contact in the last 35 years yet he pops out regularly saying very highly unlikely things as though he's in the know. He's definitely milking the RF & especially the Diana connection for all it's worth.

Agree! Charles' generation was knee-deep in Valentine Low's described courtiers, and I think Diana went a tad far for reasons that carried a slight stench of self-absorption. She did attract people into her tangled, emotional web. Where I think Paul Burrell needs to stand down on the family's issues now, I believe he was acting as a loyal associate, friend, servant....whatever...at that time.

Diana was self absorbed and manipulative and Paul was the breadwinner for his family. She had total control and everything the way she wanted, he was living a noteworthy employer that he may have been sympathetic towards but would also make him money, til today and beyond.

Here’s my question. At Christmas time, there’d always be a story about how Diana would leave her sons with their father’s family for Christmas dinner after the Sandringham church service. Invariably the story would conclude with poor Diana would return on her to Kensington Palace and eat her meal on a tv tray. So, with two sisters, and a brother and cousins, none of them invited her to Christmas diner with their families or they couldn’t journey to join her for a full on Christmas dinner at Kensington Palace? A very odd situation.

Having read both of is books twice, I agree the the lions share i he the blurred binderies was her fault.

I don't buy Paul Burrell's being "the poor, kind guy" who was so hard done by. I really feel nothing good or bad about him. However, remember he wrote the book! He made a lot of money from it Queen Elizabeth II put a stop to the case against Burrell. The case was dropped, but he wasn't found to be innocent. She has done much harder things since with her son to try to put things to rest. However, there is no doubt that he had items of Diana's in his possession that he had no right to have. He should have touched nothing after she died unless he had written proof that he was to have them or hold onto them. Obviously, I don't know the whole story but I always very found this affair extremely fishy! In writing that book, he hurt Diana's sons by once again laying her private life bare. Very few ex royal employees have written such intimate tell all books out of loyalty. Prince Harry and Prince William did not trust him and actually really disliked (maybe hated him). Every time I see him, I find him very obsequious and exceedingly insincere. I've never felt he could be trusted. He just has an icky way about him. In addition, in Diana's later years, he was definitely not the close confidant he liked to think he was. He did not know about the Panorama interview before it happened. I believe he didn't know a lot about Dodi Fayed before it was made public. I absolutely agree that Diana blurred boundaries, but I believe he relished it. If his relationship with Diana was keeping him away from his family and causing problems in his marriage, any decent good, kind man with any backbone would have resigned. People who mattered knew who Diana was. He would have been able to get another job That didn't happen. He wanted to stay right where he was. He liked it. He encouraged her. I'm sure he loved her in a twisted, co-dependent way. But he betrayed her memory and hurt her children for nothing more than money. He didn't help anyone but himself. He contributed nothing. Shauna, you are so good, but I really think you've been taken in by this man.

Legitimate Authority. 'A legitimate authority is one which is entitled to have its decisions and rules accepted and followed by others.'. 'Charismatic authority is relatively unstable because the authority held by a charismatic leader may not easily extend to anyone else after the leader dies.' Eg. the late Princess of Wales Diana Stet 'Leader' with Hierarchy, status.

Yes, it's a tricky one. Unfortunately there seems a thread that runs thru these relationships. Backstairs Billy & the Queen Mother, Paul & Diana I mean the list will continue as long as this power displacement with aids, I think is tolerated. Perhaps Prince William has learnt this. Good for him. I hope his insights into relationships will strengthen his transition into Kingship when it happens. Thanks for this. 😊

I'm a bit late to the party here but you never disappoint. Thank you for sharing.

Well that’s a good pick up