They say there was no conspiracy. So why all the fuss over the 'crown jewels'?
Despite the protestations by Paul Burrell's solicitor yesterday that there has been no cover up, the establishment has been working very hard to keep the public in the dark. Kim Sengupta reports
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Paul Burrell's solicitor yesterday dismissed the growing conspiracy theories about the extraordinary collapse of his client's trial. "There has never been any evidence of that," he insisted.
But the end of the Burrell case may be only the beginning. The sudden and momentous collapse, and the astonishing role of the Queen, has raised crucial questions about what exactly happened.
Some of the answers may never be known, but what many were agreed on last night was that there had been an effort by the establishment to keep damaging information out of the public eye.
At the heart of the case are the so-called "crown jewels", the most personal of items belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, which have now disappeared. When the police raided Mr Burrell's home just after 6.50am on 18 January last year, their mission was to try to recover these "jewels", kept by the princess in an inlaid mahogany box. So what was in the box? The contents included letters to Diana from Prince Philip complaining about her behaviour; personal notes she had made during the most stormy time of her marriage, a signet ring belonging to her former lover James Hewitt and, perhaps the most damaging of all, an explosive tape recording about an alleged sexual assault.
The letters from the Duke of Edinburgh, written at the time when her marriage was publicly falling apart, are said to be particularly acerbic, accusing her of doing untold damage.
The details of the notes that Diana had kept are not known, but they are said to be "random thoughts" jotted down at a time when she was in the most bitter phase of her war with Prince Charles and the Royal Family. The tapes are recordings of a servant of Prince Charles's who claims he was raped by another, more senior, member of the staff. We have learnt that the alleged victim was paid off with £50,000, a sign of the determination to keep the matter away from the courts.
The items were kept in an 18-inch box which Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Mr Burrell had anxiously opened together at Kensington Palace a few days after Diana's death. The box is now at the Spencer family home at Althorp, but all the contents are missing. Lady Sarah claimed during the trial that she had passed these on to the former butler, a claim he denies.
In what was, after all, a relatively simple trial for alleged theft, secrecy was a constant theme. Two and half days were spent behind closed doors on an application from the Crown for a Public Interest Immunity certificate – a judicial tool normally used in trials involving national security or organised crime.
The Independent on Sunday has now established that the "crown jewels" were not the only reason for this draconian attempt. Was there a mole spying on the royal household? Senior police officers visiting Prince Charles had claimed that Mr Burrell was selling the princess's belongings abroad. In fact, the FBI had been contacted in the United States in an attempt to prove how collectors were paying thousands of dollars for the items. There were also, they said, photographs of him wearing Diana's clothing.
Scotland Yard later admitted that this information was "based on intelligence". Security sources told The Independent on Sunday yesterday that MI5, MI6 or GCHQ were not involved in any such operation. But it leaves the question open whether the Yard's Special Branch had infiltrated the royal household.
This was another reason to stop Mr Burrell taking the stand. If his defence team had pursued that avenue during the trial, the trial could have traced back to the days of "Squidgygate" and questions of how the various phone calls involving Charles and Camilla, Diana and James Gilbey were taped and then broadcast for public consumption. Just a few months ago Mr Burrell's solicitor, Andrew Shaw, wrote to the Queen to point out the inherent dangers the Royal Family faced if his client took the stand. Mr Shaw sought a meeting with the Queen's solicitor, Henry Boyd-Carpenter, of Farrers. However, Mr Boyd-Carpenter turned down the request and with it the chance at that stage of ending the possibility of Mr Burrell's revelatory testimony emerging. The former butler had, of course, built up an enormous amount of embarrassing knowledge during his years of service. He and his wife Maria served at Highgrove throughout the marriage of Charles and Diana and their acrimonious parting. Later, as the princess's butler, Mr Burrell was privy to her own many affairs, as well as her alienation both from her own family and the Windsors.
An example of the extent of the seeming pettiness to which the feud between Diana and Prince Charles had degenerated was when she, out of spite, took some photographs Prince Charles wanted to illustrate an intended book about Highgrove. In the witness box Mr Burrell would have been prepared to say how she gave them to him to look after and the police found them in his home during their search.
All parties involved were sticking to the official line yesterday. Mr Shaw claimed that Mr Burrell had no specific recollection of his crucial three-hour meeting with the Queen, the same meeting the Queen had managed to recall only last week. "His memory needed jogging," said Mr Shaw. "His recollection is the same as the Queen's."
The rival campsThe Windsors
Allowed case to go ahead despite doubts of Prince Charles. It proved embarrassing as royal secrets came to light. Queen's recollection of meeting with the butler ended the trial. Buckingham Palace yesterday insisted she had done nothing untoward.
The Spencers
Initially supported Mr Burrell but turned against him. Lady Sarah McCorquodale pressured police for return of the box reported to contain letters and a tape recording relating to an alleged rape involving two royal employees.
Burrell's backers
Paul Burrell, loyal butler and confidant of Princess Diana. Supported by Richard Kay of the 'Daily Mail', Lady Annabel Goldsmith – a friend of Camilla Parker Bowles – and Sir Jimmy Savile, all due to give evidence in court.
The Police and CPS
On a high after the Jeffrey Archer case but yesterday facing condemnation for the £1.5m trial fiasco. Accused of blunders such as wrongly telling Princes Charles that Mr Burrell had sold some of Princess Diana's belongings.
Burrell inundated by million-pound newspaper offersBy James Morrison and Andrew Johnson
Paul Burrell was last night at the centre of a newspaper bidding war – besieged by offers, including one worth up to £1m.
As he went to ground to escape the media onslaught following the collapse of his trial, Princess Diana's former butler was bombarded with 300 email requests for interviews, according to his spokesman, Dave Warwick.
"I have had inquiries from New Zealand, Germany and America as well as the UK," said Mr Warwick, who is more used to handling the affairs of minor television presenters.
Two unnamed newspapers are thought to be at the forefront of attempts to sign up Mr Burrell. One industry source said: "The bids are flying in – one is around the £1m mark. Lesser stories have gone for hundreds of thousands of pounds, so imagine what this is worth."
Should Mr Burrell decide to tell all, he has several options. A straightforward newspaper interview could net him a six-figure sum. But given the extent of his inside knowledge of royal affairs, a book deal would potentially earn him tens of millions of pounds. The publicist Max Clifford, who was consulted by Mr Burrell briefly last April, said: "What he has is worth millions, particularly at the moment. Every publisher would be desperate for Paul Burrell's book. He has a unique insight into the monarchy and what went on behind the scenes."
However, Mr Clifford said he believed Mr Burrell would stick by his word not to reveal anything that would embarrass the Royal Family, at least for the time being.
"When he came to see me he broke down in tears, because he realised the only way he would be able to clear his name was to reveal details of the level of closeness he had with the princess and the family as a whole. We had two or three meetings and many phone conversations. He [Burrell] said he might have to go to prison rather than reveal all of the confidential things he knew. He was determined not to say anything which would in any way harm the Princess of Wales, the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince Philip. He made it clear, he would not do it."
If he decides against writing a block-busting memoir, Mr Burrell will always have his florist shop in his home town of Farndon to fall back on. According to his solicitor, Andrew Shaw, he is likely to be back arranging flowers very soon.
He might also try to revive his fledgeling media career, which ended abruptly when he was charged with theft 20 months ago. His book on etiquette, In the Royal Manner, has sold more than 100,000 copies, and before his arrest he wrote several newspaper articles offering advice on entertaining.