The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 07-25-2004, 02:53 PM
royal_sophietje's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , Belgium
Posts: 531
Quote:
The duchy provides an income for the heir to the throne and Charles is the first heir to make the duchy make a profit.
Charles DOES recieve money from this.
Quote:
Diana was not going to have to go out to work, she had inherited a sizeable amount from her grandmother and the home at Kensington Palace was hers for life RENT FREE.
Diana was allowed to live in Kensington until her children reached the age of 18.


Please stop that Diana-bashing. This forum is for people to talk about Diana, and not bashing her.

You don't have to put Charles and Camilla in a good light. His team is already busy with that.

Quote:
For my own safety, regarding Bear's rules and regulations about the "three strikes", I will no longer "argue" about this subject with you because I do not want to be thrown off this board!
Don't be scared. The warning system is de-activated because we don't see the boxes anymore.
__________________

  #322  
Old 07-25-2004, 05:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 386
My question is, if Diana got all of his personal wealth, how did he pay for the children's education and her security arrangements. I beleive that was a part of the divorce settlement that she got how much she got money wise, and got apartments at Kensington Palace, and Charles had to pay for the kids education and her offices and security (correct me if I'm wrong). So how could she have gotten all of his personal wealth if he gets an annual income from the Duchy, did they mean his stocks and investments? Anyways, I guess it doesn't really matter now, but it is interesting.
__________________

  #323  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:01 AM
maryshawn's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 1,213
What it tells me is he really wanted out badly. And the Queen's coffers are large; I had heard she financed the divorce. On the lighter side, Charles' expenses are not so bad--as a royal, he gets a lot of free stuff and discounts....in other words, he could dress Camilla in Dior for about the same cost as I could dress myself at Kmart......
__________________
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known - Winnie the Pooh
  #324  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:17 AM
maryshawn's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 1,213
So many people who knew Diana or write about her have varied accounts of her life.....Andrew Morton says Paul Burrell was on his way out--possibly as a butler to Donald Trump. Burrell says they'd never been closer. The Queen supposedly gave Charles money for the divorce; now he's broke. Does anyone have the real story? Is there a book or video or some account that is credible. Just curious.
__________________
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known - Winnie the Pooh
  #325  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:19 AM
maryshawn's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 1,213
So many people who knew Diana or write about her have varied accounts of her life.....Andrew Morton says Paul Burrell was on his way out--possibly as a butler to Donald Trump. Burrell says they'd never been closer. The Queen supposedly gave Charles money for the divorce; now he's broke. Does anyone have the real story? Is there a book or video or some account that is credible. Just curious.
__________________
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known - Winnie the Pooh
  #326  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:53 AM
hrhcp's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,938
this party is.
__________________
"Every decision is right for its time."
  #327  
Old 07-26-2004, 02:00 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
The one thing coming out of this thread is that we can praise Diana to the rooftops and criticise Charles as much as we like but the opposing opinions are not to be tolerated.

There are some of us who admire the work Diana did but see her as the flawed human being that she was (and all of us are too). However our opinions are ridiculed and scorned by others on this forum.

I noticed that a Diana Forum has been opened....perhaps the syncophants could post their opinions on that forum and allow open discussion without criticism on this one????
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #328  
Old 07-26-2004, 02:20 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 65
Not true; I'm sure both of them have/had faults, and both of them have/had great qualities.

That said, your assertions about Diana are ludicrous. She deserved what she was paid for what she put up with that marriage - and it seems to me that the establishment was the main culprit, not Charles.
  #329  
Old 07-26-2004, 04:47 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I think the problem was that although Charles gets income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he can't just sell property at will when he wants or needs a large amount of cash. Diana was wanting a lump sum of quite a few millions rather than (or as well as - I don't remember which) an annual income, and that's hard to provide when you can't sell major assets. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Charles had to liquidate most of his investments if he had to come up with nearly £20 million at once.

I'm also a bit concerned about this business of "no Diana bashing." If this is a forum to talk about her and if Diana worship is allowed, then why not criticism too? It does seem that anything other than positive remarks are taken as "bashing," and she did have negative as well as positive qualities. The Frederick and Mary forum has seen its fair share of criticism about Mary; these boards aren't just for praise.
  #330  
Old 07-26-2004, 05:35 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally posted by Elspeth@Jul 26th, 2004 - 3:47 pm
I think the problem was that although Charles gets income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he can't just sell property at will when he wants or needs a large amount of cash. Diana was wanting a lump sum of quite a few millions rather than (or as well as - I don't remember which) an annual income, and that's hard to provide when you can't sell major assets. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Charles had to liquidate most of his investments if he had to come up with nearly £20 million at once.

I'm also a bit concerned about this business of "no Diana bashing." If this is a forum to talk about her and if Diana worship is allowed, then why not criticism too? It does seem that anything other than positive remarks are taken as "bashing," and she did have negative as well as positive qualities. The Frederick and Mary forum has seen its fair share of criticism about Mary; these boards aren't just for praise.
Thankyou Elspeth! This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #331  
Old 07-26-2004, 06:08 AM
Ennyllorac's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally posted by wymanda+Jul 26th, 2004 - 4:35 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ Jul 26th, 2004 - 4:35 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Elspeth@Jul 26th, 2004 - 3:47 pm
I think the problem was that although Charles gets income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he can&#39;t just sell property at will when he wants or needs a large amount of cash. Diana was wanting a lump sum of quite a few millions rather than (or as well as - I don&#39;t remember which) an annual income, and that&#39;s hard to provide when you can&#39;t sell major assets. It&#39;s not beyond the realms of possibility that Charles had to liquidate most of his investments if he had to come up with nearly £20 million at once.

I&#39;m also a bit concerned about this business of "no Diana bashing." If this is a forum to talk about her and if Diana worship is allowed, then why not criticism too? It does seem that anything other than positive remarks are taken as "bashing," and she did have negative as well as positive qualities. The Frederick and Mary forum has seen its fair share of criticism about Mary; these boards aren&#39;t just for praise.
Thankyou Elspeth&#33; This is exactly the point I was trying to make. [/b][/quote]
Never said Diana was a saint. However, it is not fair to say that Charles was left a pauper because Diana was greedy. Quite honestly, no one here really knows the truth. Let Diana rest in peace and let Charles live his life. He is the one that has to live with his conscience, not one of us.
  #332  
Old 07-26-2004, 07:21 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
I don&#39;t think his financial advisor was saying that he was left a pauper; he just said that Charles had to liquidate pretty much all of his investments as well as borrow from the Queen in order to come up with the amount of cash needed and within strict time limits. Obviously he was still getting his income, but that wasn&#39;t going to help him in the short term.
  #333  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:23 PM
micas's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: , Portugal
Posts: 1,711
The artical from Hello&#33;

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2004/.../princecharles/
  #334  
Old 07-26-2004, 05:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
It&#39;s not beyond the realms of possibility that Charles had to liquidate most of his investments if he had to come up with nearly £20 million at once.
It&#39;s also not beyond the realm of possibility that those divorce negotiations produced this outcome, is it? If the lawyers of the PoW had a leg to stand on in the months and months of divorce negotiations that went on, they would have made certain that Diana received nothing, given the tone of this accountant. As it was, they could do no better in negotiations that were fair and square. Such is life.

Then there&#39;s the matter of where these funds actually came from. The "taken to the cleaners" b.s. by his accountant is rather desperate all these years later, especially in light of the fact that it was reported so repeatedly at the time that most of that 24 million pounds came from the Queen&#39;s own largesse and not at all solely from the PoW&#39;s funds.

There was a window of time following Diana&#39;s death when in fact the PoW&#39;s could have legally taken back the entire settlement that had been left to his sons. If he was so destitute, I wonder why he didn&#39;t? Obviously, because he had in fact not been taken to any so-called cleaners -- a fact borne out by his continued spending at the same level he had always maintained. In fact, increased with such bombastic and lavish spending as he made in recent times on Clarence House for his mistress and himself.

I won&#39;t bother to go into why or for what pathetic reason this accountant is allowed by the PoW&#39;s office (and thereby through his own personal approval) is permitted to put this silly type of muckraking out, other than to note that it clearly seems as though some people just can&#39;t move on so they have to go on making up new lies about why their employers&#39; lives are so pathetic.
  #335  
Old 07-26-2004, 05:16 PM
hrhcp's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,938
all the fodder that is fit to print
__________________
"Every decision is right for its time."
  #336  
Old 07-26-2004, 06:14 PM
royal_sophietje's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , Belgium
Posts: 531
I had to install it again. So everyone who joined has to register again....
  #337  
Old 07-26-2004, 07:42 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
If the lawyers of the PoW had a leg to stand on in the months and months of divorce negotiations that went on, they would have made certain that Diana received nothing, given the tone of this accountant. As it was, they could do no better in negotiations that were fair and square. Such is life.
It was reported that she originally asked for around £40 million and the final settlement was just under £20 million. The tone of the accountant has nothing to do with the lawyers of the Prince of Wales.

Quote:
Then there&#39;s the matter of where these funds actually came from. The "taken to the cleaners" b.s. by his accountant is rather desperate all these years later, especially in light of the fact that it was reported so repeatedly at the time that most of that 24 million pounds came from the Queen&#39;s own largesse and not at all solely from the PoW&#39;s funds.
The Telegraph article says that the Queen lent Charles several million pounds and he&#39;s still repaying her. The accountant isn&#39;t disputing that. He&#39;s saying that the Queen lent some of the money and Charles raised some by liquidating what investments he could liqudiate.

Quote:
There was a window of time following Diana&#39;s death when in fact the PoW&#39;s could have legally taken back the entire settlement that had been left to his sons. If he was so destitute, I wonder why he didn&#39;t?
The accountant isn&#39;t saying he&#39;s destitute. He&#39;s just saying that in order to pay the divorce settlement, Charles had to liquidate his investment portfolio because he couldn&#39;t raise the money by selling Duchy assets.

Quote:
Obviously, because he had in fact not been taken to any so-called cleaners -- a fact borne out by his continued spending at the same level he had always maintained. In fact, increased with such bombastic and lavish spending as he made in recent times on Clarence House for his mistress and himself.
This is now nearly 10 years later. With his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he&#39;s bound to have built up his financial reserves again after this long. For one thing, his office wouldn&#39;t have been paying for Diana&#39;s expenses like it did while they were married, and that would have represented quite a decrease in expenditure. As far as his spending habits immediately before and after the divorce, I haven&#39;t seen any numbers to back up your assertion or to disprove it. Feel free to share the factual basis for the assertion that his spending level didn&#39;t decrease in the few years after the divorce.

Quote:
I won&#39;t bother to go into why or for what pathetic reason this accountant is allowed by the PoW&#39;s office (and thereby through his own personal approval) is permitted to put this silly type of muckraking out,
How do you know it was authorised by the Prince&#39;s office? Most of the stuff printed about the Prince and Princess over the last few years by ex-employees and "friends" has been unauthorised - it&#39;s been a handy way to boost the sales of their books.

Quote:
other than to note that it clearly seems as though some people just can&#39;t move on so they have to go on making up new lies about why their employers&#39; lives are so pathetic.
This stuff sells. If it didn&#39;t sell, there&#39;d be no reason to keep on writing it. As long as a revelation about the Charles-Diana business is a guarantee of headlines, it&#39;ll keep happening.
  #338  
Old 07-26-2004, 09:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
It was reported that she originally asked for around £40 million and the final settlement was just under £20 million.
She didn&#39;t ask any more than he gave. It was negotiated between their legal representatives. If those legal representatives asked for more it was clearly based on the fact that they knew it was a reasonable starting point from which to work toward a final figure. It was a legal calculation by Diana&#39;s lawyers. If Charles and his lawyers could have avoided it entirely they would have.

Quote:
The tone of the accountant has nothing to do with the lawyers of the Prince of Wales.
Exactly. That&#39;s why it&#39;s inaccurate, misleading and spin.

Quote:
The Telegraph article says that the Queen lent Charles several million pounds and he&#39;s still repaying her. The accountant isn&#39;t disputing that. He&#39;s saying that the Queen lent some of the money and Charles raised some by liquidating what investments he could liqudiate.
That&#39;s not however what the accountant is being quoted most prominently on. Or why some people jumped on what he said to initially create threads on this forum. They seized on the fact that he emphasized that the PoW had somehow been "taken to the cleaners" which is nonsense.


Quote:
The accountant isn&#39;t saying he&#39;s destitute. He&#39;s just saying that in order to pay the divorce settlement, Charles had to liquidate his investment portfolio because he couldn&#39;t raise the money by selling Duchy assets.
The accountant is indeed inferring he was somehow made destitute, impoverished, ground into penury, etc. afaik. You can read his remarks as you want, and I&#39;ll read them as I want.


Quote:
This is now nearly 10 years later. With his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he&#39;s bound to have built up his financial reserves again after this long. For one thing, his office wouldn&#39;t have been paying for Diana&#39;s expenses like it did while they were married, and that would have represented quite a decrease in expenditure. As far as his spending habits immediately before and after the divorce, I haven&#39;t seen any numbers to back up your assertion or to disprove it. Feel free to share the factual basis for the assertion that his spending level didn&#39;t decrease in the few years after the divorce.
His income from the Duchy of Cornwall was probably what his ex-wife&#39;s lawyers factored into their own calculatoins as far as what he could or couldn&#39;t financially afford. Nowadays, he has his mistress on his expenditures -- visibly now, but probably for years before he took the step of making it visible. We don&#39;t hear talk about being taken to the cleaners in the present even though that suite of hers at Clarence House must have run into several of the millions of the fourteen plus millions he racked up. As to his spending level, I don&#39;t note that the PoW cut back in any of his public or private expenses in the intervening years. If his spending level did decrease, I&#39;m sure his overly vocal accountant and friends would have trumpeted that for you long ere since.

Quote:
How do you know it was authorised by the Prince&#39;s office?
How do you know it wasn&#39;t?

Quote:
This stuff sells. If it didn&#39;t sell, there&#39;d be no reason to keep on writing it. As long as a revelation about the Charles-Diana business is a guarantee of headlines, it&#39;ll keep happening.
It has more to do in this instance than the mere fact of book sales (I don&#39;t see where the man is selling a book either). Some people have debts to pay back and nests to feather. Jephson was one, Junor was one. There&#39;s an agenda beyond mere book sales figures with some people.
  #339  
Old 07-26-2004, 09:19 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Elspeth@Jul 26th, 2004 - 5:42 pm


Quote:
I won&#39;t bother to go into why or for what pathetic reason this accountant is allowed by the PoW&#39;s office (and thereby through his own personal approval) is permitted to put this silly type of muckraking out,
How do you know it was authorised by the Prince&#39;s office? Most of the stuff printed about the Prince and Princess over the last few years by ex-employees and "friends" has been unauthorised - it&#39;s been a handy way to boost the sales of their books.

The accountant did not come out and sell his story to some newspaper as others have done. The accountant has wrote a book (not about the Royals) and in the book he talked about this instance because he was the accountant for Prince Charles. The press picked up this part of the book and printed it and also made note that this was one of the only things about the Royals in the book. Why would he feel the need to lie for Charles, he hasn&#39;t worked for him for around 8 years and left his post before Diana even died. In the papers, it was also discussed that yes, the POW had the opportunity to take all of the money from Diana&#39;s estate back when she died, but Prime Minister Major advised him not to do so and just let the boys have it and pay the proper taxes on it. Everything Elspeth has said below is correct.
  #340  
Old 07-26-2004, 09:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
The accountant did not come out and sell his story to some newspaper as others have done.
I never said he actually did. On the other hand, he obviously didn&#39;t need to. Very clever of him or should we say too clever by half.

Quote:
The accountant has wrote a book (not about the Royals) and in the book he talked about this instance because he was the accountant for Prince Charles. The press picked up this part of the book and printed it and also made note that this was one of the only things about the Royals in the book.
If being the accountant for Prince Charles was so insignificant and unimportant then he perhaps shouldn&#39;t have ventured opinions about the Prince&#39;s financial affairs. His problem. But AFAIC it was a deliberate plant, intended to be picked up by the media as a parting favour to his former employer and to curry favour in the right quarters for reasons best known to him.

Quote:
Everything Elspeth has said below is correct
lol&#33; Please, you&#39;re making less and less sense, since Elspeth is the one asserting that this accountant deliberately wants to use his past association with the PoW to boost sales of his book while on the other hand you are saying he has no such interest, he is such a noble and disinterested chap. Do get your respective stories straight and stop moving your goalposts for a change, i.e., try and be consistent although I realise that is difficult in trying to make cases for the PoW.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
diana princess of wales, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 8: June 2008- Warren Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 652 Yesterday 01:46 PM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 7: October 2007-June 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 237 06-15-2008 07:18 AM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 3: September 2005-September 2006 Elspeth Current Events Archive 200 09-03-2006 06:25 AM
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 2: August 2004-September 2005 Martine Current Events Archive 200 09-11-2005 08:51 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit june 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece harald kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander may 2016 member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess stéphanie's fashion & style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion royal visits september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises