Paul Kidd was the 'Urbane Gent' who waited on the Royal Family for nine years - first serving the Queen at Buckingham Palace, and then her Mother.
However, throughout his service Paul Kidd was leading a double life as a Serial Child Abuser who molested a number of boys over a 30-year period. Kidd, even stood for election as a UK Independent Party candidate in Dukinfield and Stalybridge.
The defendant was Senior Footman to the Queen Mother from 1979 to 1984 and previously worked as a Royal Butler to the Queen from 1977.
The former candidate for the UK Independence party was caught after one of his three abuse victims read a newspaper interview he gave on the 10th anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Described by police as a "Brilliant Groomer", Paul Kidd, then 55, of Stalybridge, Greater Manchester, had pleaded guilty to a string of sex offences at an earlier hearing.
Kidd started grooming one of his victims when the boy was 12 and a patient on a hospital ward where he then worked as a trainee nurse.
Another victim was 14 when he first spoke to Kidd on CB radio, Manchester Minshull Street crown court heard.
His boasts about his royal connections, coming from a man who had his own website, http://www.royalbutler.co.uk, led the complainant to contact police.
The victim, now in his 40s, reported he had been indecently assaulted by Kidd at the butler's home in the early 1980s when he was 13. The police uncovered evidence of further abuse during a search of Kidd's home. Among items found on his computer were 18,019 images of unknown children and a video recording of him abusing another child in 2006.
Many of the images were encrypted in computer files with the password Pickles – thought to be a reference to a Royal Corgi.
His third victim, who was treated to the Royal Tea Party, came forward after reading publicity on the case when Kidd was charged by police.
Kidd pleaded guilty to nine counts of indecent assault, six counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. He also admitted 11 counts of making indecent images of a child and two counts of possessing indecent images of children. The offences were committed between 1974 and 1977, 1981 and 1983 - when he was employed by the Queen Mother - and 2005 to 2008.
Kidd introduced his most recent victim to a friend, David Hobday, who also abused the youngster. Hobday, 57, of Dukinfield, Tameside, Greater Manchester, was jailed for three years after he pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of possessing an indecent image of a child, namely a video recording.
Kidd pleaded guilty to nine counts of indecent assault, six counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
He also admitted 11 counts of making indecent images of a child and two counts of possessing indecent images of children.
Paedophile Royal Butler who took one of his victims to tea with the Queen Mother was jailed for a minimum of six years.
A paedophile royal butler who took one of his victims for tea with the Queen has failed to get his indefinite jail sentence overturned.
Paul Kidd, 56, of Stalybridge, argued that an indeterminate order of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was "wrong" and "excessive", but the Court of Appeal rejected his challenge, saying that he had carried out serious sexual assaults.
Kidd was senior footman to the Queen Mother between 1979 and 1984.
The former butler was jailed at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court in December after pleading guilty to charges including indecent assault and sexual activity with a child.
Kidd's offences were committed between 1974 and 1977, 1981 and 1983 - when he was in the employ of the Queen Mother - and 2005 to 2008.
He introduced one of his victims to the Queen Mother as a "Friend" during a Christmas party at Clarence House - but in reality he had been assaulting the boy since the age of 14.
Mrs Justice Slade said it was argued on Kidd's behalf that an extended sentence of imprisonment was a more appropriate sentence. This would have comprised a custodial element and a period on licence - coupled with the "stringent" terms of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order imposed in his case.
Dismissing the sentence challenge, she said that he had perpetrated serious sexual offences against boys with "Devastating Consequences for Them" and it was clear that such behaviour was "Ingrained" in him. He "shows no remorse or recognition that what he has done is wrong", she added.
She said that it was "entirely unsurprising" that imprisonment for public protection was imposed and the minimum of six years was "not excessive".