What happened during the trial of Princess Diana’s butler Paul Burrell?

Even by the colorful standards of the case to date, it’s one of the most memorable phrases.

According to Prince Harry’s testimony in his High Court battle with Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), the prince believed his mother’s former butler, Paul Burrell, was an attention-seeking, selfish “two-faced shit.”

This was in 2003, shortly after Burrell went on trial for the alleged sale of Diana’s belongings – a case that collapsed.

Time passes and perspectives change. But the anger of the young prince (then a teenager) as recorded in the court documents makes it clear how divisive a figure Burrell had become so soon after Diana’s death in 1997.

Paul Burrell, 64, served as a footman to the Queen before working for Diana for 10 years until her death in 1997.

It was previously believed that the Prince of Wales, 40, and the Duke of Sussex, 38, last met the former butler in 1997 after their mother’s funeral.

But according to The Sun newspaper, the brothers had a secret meeting with Paul at Kensington Palace in 2017, before Harry announced his engagement to 41-year-old Meghan Markle.

The source told the outlet it was a “very quiet meeting” the royals held because they wanted to speak to “someone who had been close to their mother,” and felt there were aspects of the princess’s life that they believed were Paul can clarify for them.

“They asked for everything to be kept secret and he respected that,” the source added.

“Paul was happy to tell them everything he knew and shed some light on their memories.”

The brothers previously accused Paul of “cold and open treachery” after he published his book A Royal Duty in 2001, which contained a slew of private revelations.

This year was indeed turbulent for the butler, who was awakened in January 2001 by Detective Superintendent Maxine de Brunner and three other police officers.

“Do you have anything from Kensington Palace in this house?” Burrell was asked.

“No,” he lied. He was subsequently arrested and a raid began on his home near Runcorn in Cheshire before dawn.

It was revealed that rooms were filled with paintings, drawings, porcelain and photographs that clearly belonged to Diana, who had died three and a half years earlier, and her children William and Harry.

Other items included autographed photos of Diana, the Princess’s daily personal notes to William at school, and clothes belonging to her, including a blue ribbon hat she had worn during her visit to South Korea with Prince Charles in 1992.

That year, Mr Burrell was charged with theft of a total of 310 items, reportedly worth £5 million, allegedly stolen from Kensington Palace, the princess’s former home in London.

He denied any impropriety and claimed the items were given to him by Diana.

The case against him was based on the fact that he had not told anyone that he kept the princess’s belongings.

The prosecution’s solicitor, William Boyce QC, said it was revealed that Mr Burrell met the Queen privately in December 1997, where he said he had taken custody of some of the Princess’s papers.

Although following the raid on Mr Burrell’s home in January, the Prince of Wales’s private secretary informed the Queen’s private secretary that no personal effects belonging to the Queen had been found – which was no basis for any involvement in the police investigation.

In April of that year, police outlined the possible charges and said they were investigating whether Mr Burrell had sold some of the items.

Later in September, a letter from Paul Burrell’s solicitor requested a meeting to discuss Paul Burrell’s life and service with the Royal Family, but this was declined as the Queen was not actively involved in the matter.

In late 2001, the Queen’s Private Secretary was informed informally by the Prince of Wales’s Private Secretary that police had told Charles they had evidence that Paul Burrell had sold items from the Princess’s estate.

In the following year, however, it became clear at trial that, contrary to their previous advice, the police had no evidence that Mr Burrell had sold the items in question.

On October 25, 2002, the Queen, Charles and Prince Philip had driven together to St Paul’s for a memorial service for the victims of the Bali bombing.

She drove past the Old Bailey and asked why there was a crowd outside. Charles replied that Paul Burrell was on trial. The Queen apparently did not know that he was being persecuted.

She then went on to say that Burrell had sought an audience with her a few years earlier to explain that he took care of some of Diana’s papers, and that she had agreed for him to do so.

Given the importance to the prosecution of whether or not Mr Burrell had told anyone that he had taken items from Kensington Palace, the relevance of this information was recognized and quickly brought to the attention of the police.

The prosecution’s solicitor, William Boyce QC, later told the Old Bailey: “Under all circumstances, the prosecution has concluded that the present trial is no longer viable because it has been based on an erroneous premise that Mr Burrell never told anyone that he everything for safekeeping.

“The prosecution believes that if the defense were to request that the jury be dismissed, even though it were a My Lady case, the prosecution could not object to that request.”

After hearing the prosecution’s and defense’s comments, the judge, Mrs. Justice Rafferty, dismissed the jury and told Mr. Burrell that he was free to go on November 1, 2002.

Had the trial gone ahead, the former butler would have been called to testify and possibly questioned about his time in the service of the Queen and Princess Diana.

Outside court, Mr Burrell said: ‘The Queen has come by for me. I’m excited, I’m so excited.”

Prince Harry is part of a class action against MGN alleging that the newspaper group stole or hacked private information that was subsequently published. MGN denies the claim.

Yesterday on GB news Mr Burrell said Prince Harry’s description of him was defamatory and demanded an apology:

“I find this very disturbing and hurtful. I have to process what has been said. I think it’s careless and insensitive what Harry said in court.

“He seems to live in an alternate world, a world that has been deceived. He seems to be able to say what he can and what he wants.’