The royal butler who saw too much

By ANNE McHARDY, Herald correspondent

Radio listeners in Britain on Thursday morning started the day to the strains of the national anthem and a clipped English voice saying, "Today is the 54th birthday of the Prince of Wales. We wish his Highness ... " On many front pages were dignified photographs of his mother, Queen Elizabeth, in full royal regalia, at the state opening of Parliament.

In the evening it was all smiles at a jubilee party at the Ritz attended by the Queen, a relaxed Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.

Meanwhile, sprayed across the rest of the pages of the tabloid papers, despite the fact that a national firemen's strike had started was the other story of royal life: the saga of Paul Burrell, the butler with far too much still to tell.

After a week of continuous and increasingly wild stories of cover-ups, homosexual rapes and slanging matches between royal retainers, some of the tabloids and all the broadsheets, plus the serious television news programmes were starting to speculate on how extensive and how lasting the damage to the royal family and its position within the British Constitution might be.

Several had fun with the medieval ritual of the state opening, with the official known as Black Rod arriving to summons the Members of Parliament into the House of Lords, from which they are normally banned as being too lowly, to hear the Queen's speech, which is written for her by the Prime Minister.

The Royals have had their dignity shredded repeatedly over the past 15 years by marital misadventures, by the vicious public name-calling which Prince Charles and Princess Diana indulged in before their divorce, then by the spectacle of Diana cavorting around the world, lastly with Dodi Al Fayed, with whom she died.

The speculation about Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, his acknowledged consort, has raised the inevitable questions about his ability to become not only King but also head of the Church of England.The Anglican Church is ambivalent about the remarriage of divorcees.

Now this present saga is seen as ammunition for the already vocal minority of republicans, and its revelations of how embedded royal privilege is have raised even royalist eyebrows.

The fascination of the Burrell story is its anecdotes of royal domestic life, not just the drama of Burrell's dealings with the hysterical princess, but the trivia, such as the Burrells conducting their courtship while walking the Queen's corgis at Balmoral.

Speculation about Burrell himself has occupied several of the tabloids, particularly those who failed to buy exclusive rights to Burrell's story.

As the Independent columnist David Aaronovitch pointed out, as Burrell's trial came to its premature conclusion, he was described by the Daily Mail as "a man of integrity". It is reported that the Mail then offered Burrell £500,000, rising later to £600,000, for his story. However, the Mail was keen that the former butler should really dish the dirt, and not hold back and spoil the value of the exclusive.

It was while they were pressing him for such details that the Daily Mirror came through the middle and bought the story for less money, but with the agreement that it should be told in Burrell's own words.

"The Mail and the News International titles [which apparently bid £1 million between them] then went bonkers. The 'man of integrity' who had refused to sell his story to the Mail was accused of being a traitor to the royal family and - treason of all treasons - of having upset Prince William. He was now fair game himself."

Burrell then became the centre of a spate of allegations of gay liaisons, one with a former, recently disgraced TV presenter, Michael Barrymore, who claims he was seduced by Burrell on the day of Princess Diana's funeral. Burrell, still protesting his loyalty to Princess Diana's memory and lack of desire for cash, is presently in the United States with his wife and two children, negotiating deals with film companies.

On Thursday the Daily Mirror, which had won the bidding war for Burrell, carried, in glorious red on black across the top half of the page, Burrell's wife Maria's paean of praise for her "too nice ... very naive ... loyal" husband.

Inside she said, in apparent confirmation of some of the gay innuendo but not the Barrymore claim, "there have been episodes in Paul's life of which I am aware ... Our marriage has never been stronger." Underneath on the front was the revelation that another royal servant, a former valet, now a trusted adviser of Prince Charles, had been sent home under suspicion.

Michael Fawcett, pictured inside in plus fours out shooting with the prince, was accused in the Sunday papers of selling unwanted gifts given to the Prince and pocketing up to 20 per cent of the proceeds. By Thursday evening the London Evening Standard was casting doubt on whether Fawcett had been sent home - but added that the tax authorities were anxious to know more of the thousands of pounds apparently raised.

The next turn of the saga is only to be guessed at; the only certainty is that there will be more.

Prince Charles, identified in many stories as "St James' Palace", his London home, has ordered an internal inquiry, headed by a another royal servant, one with a very respectable pedigree of royal service, Sir Michael Peat. Sir Michael has hinted that a public inquiry might follow.

The most serious allegation Sir Michael has to investigate is a charge by yet another former royal servant, George Smith, that he was raped by one of Prince Charles' inner circle and that the rape was hushed up. A tape of Smith's allegations was apparently what the police really thought Burrell had hidden.

There are reports of tensions between St James' Palace and the home of Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth, Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace is deemed less anxious than St James' to have any inquiry and St James' is furious at this failure to recognise the public relations needs of modern life.

Sir Michael, whose past tasks included a thorough review of royal spending (which resulted in economies not least ousting the Burrell family from their grace and favour home inside Princess Diana's former palace, Kensington), has said he will not question the Queen as he knows her position already.

This statement brought a furious response from some left-wing Labour MPs, who saw it as yet another proof that the royals hold themselves above the law.

The Burrell story dates from Princess Diana's death when he was the only non-family member at her private burial and was given a trusted position as fundraiser for the trust in her memory.

His first explosion into notoriety was when he was sacked from that job after rows, it was said, with Princess Diana's sister, Sarah, her brother Earl Spencer and her mother, Mrs Frances Shand-Kydd, now revealed as having fallen out during "slurred" phone calls with Diana before her death.

There was a frisson two years ago when Burrell was arrested and his home was raided by the police looking for property allegedly stolen from Kensington Palace, and then came the trial.

The dramatic collapse of that trial came when the Queen apparently suddenly recalled a conversation with Burrell, who started his royal career as one of her footmen.

He had, she told Prince Charles, told her that he had stored some of Diana's property for safekeeping. Although Burrell had apparently referred to the conversation when he was questioned by the police, because of her status, the Queen had not been questioned, nor will she be. Aborting the trial opened the Pandora's box of allegations.

The royal family has survived notoriety before, but this row has dimensions previous scandals lacked, not least the ability of the personalities involved, Burrell in particular, to earn undreamed-of cash by revealing what really happens behind the dignified facades.

The court hearing unveiled some, Burrell himself has dribbled out more. The leaking of his statements to the police to other tabloids has brought more into the public domain, but there is clearly more to tell and a public appetite, abroad as well as in Britain, to hear more.

With royal constitutional business being so often seemingly futile, bedded in outdated tradition and with so much of the scandal turning on the Queen's apparent right to pick and chose which laws she is governed by, some believe the royals' constitutional standing will be undermined.

It's possible, but in a country where Black Rod still conducts subjects to their Monarch, it might take several more decades of scandal to create a serious revolution.