IT WAS as if a new blood sport had been invented: butler-baiting.
Lawyers at the inquest into Diana's death could scarcely keep the smirks from their faces as the man known as "Diana's rock" crumbled under their questioning; the public gallery fairly rocked with mirth as the self-styled "keeper of royal secrets" wa
s reduced to an international laughing stock. The verdict seemed unanimous: last week Paul Burrell got what he so richly deserved.
Until he flew in from Florida to take the stand at the High Court, Burrell might have supposed the ultimate in humiliation would be to throw a tizzy on national television at the prospect of having to eat a kangaroo's testicle for a reality show. But the former butler soon discovered there are worse affronts than having Ant and Dec mock you for your culinary squeamishness.
In a public dressing down to make the most brazen egotist squirm, Burrell was exposed as a charlatan, while the last great "secret" about Diana which he has dangled just out of public reach for almost five years was found to be nothing but a chimera. Worse still, it emerged that Burrell, who once cited "discretion" and "loyalty" as his watchwords, copied the princess's letters without permission and recorded details of her private life in his diaries.
Naturally, the press had a field day, hanging him out to dry for his "betrayal" of the princess he professed to adore. But was their treatment fair? Is Paul Burrell really a scheming conman bent on exploiting his association with Diana? Or is he, as some argue, a devoted servant being punished for "getting above himself"? And what, if anything, has his evidence – and the inquest as a whole – done to throw light on the deaths of Diana and Dodi, surrounded as they are by a fog of conspiracy theories?
It was the way Diana's "rock" was reduced to rubble that made Burrell's testimony so cringeworthy and so compelling. Under merciless questioning, the former butler wrote and rewrote history several times. Unable even to provide unequivocal accounts of incidents that had featured in his own books, the puffed-up peacock was reduced to a bumbling buffoon. Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, had a ringside seat for the entire event. In the press area of the High Court, she watched as the butler's demeanour changed from his customary unctuous rectitude to utter bewilderment.
"Burrell came to the High Court because he couldn't miss out on such a great PR opportunity, but it totally backfired on him as it soon became clear he was having difficulty distinguishing truth from lies," she says. "As he was put under increasing pressure, he seemed genuinely shocked that he was being expected to answer difficult questions about the princess's private life, which just shows you how stupid he really is."
At times, it appeared the interrogation's main purpose was to entertain the defence barristers who delivered punchline after punchline at Burrell's expense. His abasement was complete when the coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, sent him on a 400-mile round trip to his home in Cheshire to collect the documents containing the last great "secret" about Diana which the former butler hints at in the final paragraph of his book, A Royal Duty. Since, by this stage, it was already clear no such secret existed, the exercise was tantamount to sending the office junior out to buy tartan paint. Burrell came back bleary-eyed, but with nothing to show for his late-night excursion.
A grace note to his downfall was the genuine dismay of many devoted Diana admirers. According to Seward, although the public gallery took on all the gaiety of a box at the panto, some onlookers were distressed by Burrell's evidence. "I think it's a good thing he has finally been exposed for what he is," says Seward. "There were people who said to me afterwards: 'This is terrible. We read his book and believed it. Now we realise we've been hoodwinked.'"
For royal author Hugo Vickers, though, Burrell is "a man more sinned against than sinning". He says: "Of course I can see why people take against him. There's all that dreadful commercialism – endorsing teddy bears or what have you, and I suppose it would have been better if he had kept quiet about Diana. But I think Burrell's problem is that by becoming a member of the memorial fund committee and by donning a black tie and speaking at a dinner (in her honour] in Los Angeles he moved out of his orbit. The establishment hates that and has done its best to bring him down. He's not a particularly intelligent man and at the High Court he simply found himself out of his depth."
From the outset, the inquest into Diana's death at the High Court in London has been an Alice Through the Looking Glass adventure populated by a cast of eccentric characters who take the stand, make wild, apparently random statements about the Princess's life and then disappear from view. There was the stepmother, Raine Spencer, who testified to Diana's deep love for Dodi; Simone Simmons, the spiritual healer, who said she had overheard MP Nicholas Soames telling Diana "accidents can happen" (Simmons says she communicates with the dead princess from beyond the grave). Then, late last week, interior designer Roberto Devorik added another layer of colour, claiming Diana told an actress playing the title role of Mary Stuart at the National Theatre that she feared she would finish "like Mary Queen of Scots and be chopped".
These witnesses may have added baroque detail to the Diana legend, but little new of substance has emerged, and the link between the most salacious testimony and events leading up to the car crash itself seems tenuous to say the least. With two extensive inquiries – the French inquest in 2001 and the three-year coroner's inquiry carried out by the then head of the Metropolitan Police Lord Stevens – already having ruled the car crash an accident, many believe the inquest is unnecessary.
Like the previous inquiries, this inquest has cast serious doubt over many of the conspiracy theories. The claim that Diana was pregnant when she died, for example, had flourished because her body was embalmed so quickly – a move some concluded was evidence of a cover-up. Yet a succession of witnesses has testified she was on the Pill, had had a period in the days running up to her death and saw her relationship with Dodi as a fling rather than a serious commitment.
Suggestions Diana may have been bugged by the security services have been backed up by some witnesses, but as for the most serious allegation – that Prince Philip was involved in a plot to murder the pair – no serious evidence has been proffered. Indeed, excerpts from letters to Diana from the Duke of Edinburgh suggest he was genuinely concerned about the breakdown of the couple's marriage – and that his daughter-in-law was grateful for his advice
Paul Burrell's evidence was never likely to add gravitas to the proceedings. Ever since criminal charges against him for stealing Diana's possessions were dropped at the last minute in 2003, the butler has made money from salacious revelations, such as his claim that Diana once went to meet a lover wearing nothing under her fur coat, but her jewellery. His books, speaking engagements, TV appearances and endorsements have made him a millionaire.
His first few hours at the High Court delivered more of the same. Diana's mother Frances Shand-Kydd had called her a "whore" for dating "f****** Muslims", he revealed, before going on to claim the princess had helped dig a grave for the stillborn baby of her friend Rosa Monkton.
Then there was his Romeo and Juliet-style tryst with a Catholic priest to talk about the possibility of a Christian marrying a Muslim in private; and the nights he and the princess spent handing out £50 notes to prostitutes on condition they went home to bed instead of walking the streets. The descent into farce – as Burrell was questioned over the alleged "secret" – simply consolidated the perception the proceedings are a waste of time and taxpayers' money.
Seward doesn't believe the inquest will draw a line under Diana's death, but feels it serves a purpose nonetheless. "It doesn't matter what the verdict is. Mohamed Al Fayed truly believes his son was murdered. He's not going to let go of it now," she says. "But the inquest has helped us understand a bit more about Diana. There she was, fearful for her life and surrounded by this motley crew of friends. You can see why Dodi seemed like a life-raft. I think she may have fantasised about marrying him, because she wanted a way out, and, let's face it, she wasn't left with many options."
In that sense, Burrell and Diana have much in common. Once vibrant and popular, they cut lonely, isolated figures spurned by the establishment. The image on Burrell's website – which shows him grinning in a dapper suit with a glass of pink champagne – seems to hark back to a different era. With his credibility in shreds, his dignity shattered, what does Burrell have to celebrate? What options are open for him now? In the UK, the former butler is a spent force. Cut off from his royal roots – the princes branded his books a "cold and overt betrayal" – and with TV offers dwindling, perhaps he has no real choice but to return to the US.
"It is possible to feel sorry for Burrell," says Seward. "He did give himself over to Diana and he genuinely believes it when he says he was the 'hub' of her life, but he is in total self-denial. And, he does have a lovely home in Florida to go back to. Americans are so gullible. I think they will lap up his royal stories for some time to come."
But it is also possible to see how quickly Burrell's luxurious new lifestyle could pall. "A big home in Florida is one thing, but if you're cut off from your old life then it's not all going to be good," says Vickers. "I don't think there'll be a happy ending. After all, if there's one thing Diana's life has taught us, it's that money and possessions don't always bring happiness or fulfilment."
