I remember when William Shawcross viewed with some consternation the decision by Penguin to publish butler Paul Burrell’s book A Royal Duty in 2003. I’ll keep private his expressed disapproval but, suffice it to say, his attitude mirrored many within the great and the good: ’How very dare they!’
Six years on, the upper-crust Mr Shawcross has now released the great tome he started back then: an official biography on Britain’s late grandma, the Queen Mother (notably released by Macmillan)
And what has he served up? A convenient version of history, it seems; a veritable hagiography that either skirts over or brushes under the carpet some key moments – namely, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Prince Charles’ affair with Camilla. Not to mention the Queen Mother’s well-known acerbic views about the princess. So we are denied these pivotal moments – and potential insights – that would have revealed much about true character within these specific episodes. Her character and mind-set are explored via other events within this long and admirable life.
It now makes abundant sense why Mr Shawcross didn’t approve of the butler’s life story – a vantage point of an active witness not a researcher armed with a permit. It also makes sense why royal advisors labelled A Royal Duty “a cold and overt betrayal” because Paul Burrell’s account was about serving the memory of Princess Diana, not just the interests of the Royal Family. Yet, at the same time, he could not have been more affectionate about the monarchy.
Paul, too, could have painted Diana as a saint. He chose not to. He showed her true,
complex character, flaws and all. “It is to his credit that he manages to show the princess as both maddening and loveable. Most other royal chroniclers have done one or the other but not both,” wrote reviewer Craig Brown, Mail on Sunday.
History often depends on the vantage point from which it is told. But now we can compare both sides of the fence with Shawcross’s 2009 version and Burrell’s 2003. The ’sirs’ and the ‘ladies’ will doubtless fawn over this tome, rich in detail. But who better serves history? The unauthorised butler or the approved historian? Or should that be the other way round: historian Burrell or servant Shawcross?
