This stinks to high heaven.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: Two years ago, Princess Diana’s butler, Paul Burrell, is accused of stealing her property with the intent of making a buck (or should I say a quid?). After two years of hell for him and his family and twelve days into his court case, Queen Elizabeth suddenly remembers that following Princess Diana’s death, she had a three-hour audience with the butler, during which he informed her that he was keeping some of Diana’s stuff for safekeeping. She agreed with him that this is a good idea. She sees fit to mention this in an off-hand manner to her son, Prince Charles, in the car on the way to a church service. “Charles realized it was significant and said the police should be informed”. Charles realized it was significant? Charles realized it was significant????

The Independent: Prosecutor William Boyce QC told the Old Bailey: “… I am informed that because the Queen's personal property was not involved and because of concerns to avoid any suggestion that Buckingham Palace was trying to interfere with the investigation of this case the Queen was not briefed on the way in which the case against Mr Burrell was being prepared.

Therefore Her Majesty had no means of knowing until after the trial had started of the relevance to the prosecution of the fact that Mr Burrell had mentioned to Her Majesty that he had taken items for safe keeping”.

We are expected to believe that the Queen neither watches nor reads any news, whatsoever. I have never had more than a passing interest in this case. I don’t remember reading anything about it. My knowledge seems to have come from hearing it on the news, without really paying attention. I still seem to have known more about the details of the case than the Queen, who is an interested party and should have been following it closely.

Tom Bradby, ITV News royal correspondent: “I have to say I find that explanation completely extraordinary.

This was one of the best publicised trials of the decade.

There were long lists in all the British newspapers about what Paul Burrell was alleged to have taken.

The Queen was in Canada immediately before the trial, but so was I, and there were long lists in the Canadian newspapers too.

The idea that a private secretary or an assistant private secretary didn't brief her extensively about the basis of the trial I find very difficult to accept.”

I can think of three options:
a. The Queen has difficulty making logical connections between pieces of information.
b. The Queen is getting on in age and is suffering the mental consequences of this.
c. The Royal family knew about the meeting all along, and that the butler was getting a raw deal, but there is much more to this story than meets the eye.

I tend to think that option c. is most plausible.

Maybe the butler should be king. He seems to be the honorable one. He remained loyal to the end, even though he could have gone to prison. He apparently told the press, on leaving the Old Bailey, that "The Queen has come through for me."

Sky News is saying that with all the muck coming out at the trial, the Royal family wanted to prevent the butler from taking the stand in court and spilling the beans. The British press is emphasizing the sloppy police investigation. I don’t think they really dare go all the way pointing the finger at the Royal family. It doesn’t look like the butler will be writing a book about it. He’s too goody-goody.

Update: I initially thought of a fourth option, which is that they invented the audience with the Queen to get Burrell off, but then I heard that he had mentioned the meeting himself, in his testimony he gave to the police when first arrested. The police failed to check if it was true.