Diana's Will

[carlota]

Her will clearly states her wish to be buried.

It is the first clause IIRC.

As for the details they were worked out I believe during the week after her death but she had expressed, verbally at least, I believe, that she wished to be buried with her father. That was not seen as feasible due to the size of the church and the size of the village in which the church is located, so the compromise was thought up of her being buried all alone on that island.

was being buried her only (official) funeral wish? did they ever say how many years before this will was written? is it a normal procedure of the british roual family to produce wills even though they are young and to regularly update them?

i was also curious about when her will was made public.

 

[diamondBrg]

Elspeth

This may just be a matter of language then, IF you were the Executor as well as the ONLY beneficiary of your father's will, then I can see what you are saying. Whether you would have been acting as Executor in adding those causes or Beneficiary in spending money that you inherited?

I am trying very hard to remember that there well might be some cultural values differences at play here as well. Perhaps because in my personal experience with my mother who died before my father, leaving me everything (in Texas that is exactly 50% of everything my parents owned [community property]) and my father nothing and the trouble that caused with his side of the family. But even though they tried, they could do nothing to disturb my mother's will. I just find that a will is an extension of a person simply disposing of their cash and property as they see fit, only after death. It still belongs to them, imo.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't know how it is in the USA, but I know it's possible in the UK for the executor to add stuff to a will after the person's death if it doesn't adversely affect the beneficiaries unless they've agreed to it. Or something. I know that as the executor of my father's will, I was able to specify some legacies to individuals and charities, some of which he'd said he wanted to have done but hadn't written it into the will and some of which I thought would be appropriate. Since I was also the beneficiary, there was no problem with doing it. However, if I understood the lawyer correctly, if I'd been the executor but not the beneficiary, I wouldn't have been able to do it unless there were documents signed by my father which had specified that this was his wish even if they weren't part of the will, and the beneficiary would have had to agree. I assume the executors of Diana's will were able to ignore the bequest to her godchildren because it wasn't part of the will, and the fact that it was detrimental to the beneficiaries (William and Harry) would have provided some sort of excuse.

Here you have to be very careful about adding beneficiaries as a trustee or executor/trix, as it can be seen as an attempt to avoid some of the inheritance tax, a hefty 40%. Every last piece of jewelery, stock, share or item over a certain amount, is listed for probate.

Perhaps because in my personal experience with my mother who died before my father leaving me everything (in Texas that is exactly 50% of everything my parents owned [community property]) and my father nothing and the trouble that caused with his side of the family. But even though they tried, they could do nothing to disturb my mother's will. I just find that a will is an extension of a person simply disposing of their cash and property as they see fit, only after death. It still belongs to them, imo.

Here, unless your father had written a will leaving his share to his relatives after your mothers death, ie he left it in trust for them with your mother having use of, it would have automatically have gone to you. The rules here are fairly simple - Intestate

It's strange, talk of inheritance or wills and a lot of families fall out.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Earl offered Diana a cottage on the estate for her use, but Diana wanted another cottage that would have given her more privacy. The only problem there was that it was occupied by a young family and the earl did not feel it would be right to evict them. Even though I am not a fan of his, on that I agree with him. With her settlement, Diana could have rented or purchased a house in most parts of the country.

If this story is true, I guess the Earl realised that Diana would want everything going her way. That she would not stop from evicting a young family could have been read by him as a sincere warning. Diana had already proven that she did not accept the old rules of monarchy/aristocracy, so how should the earl (her younger! brother) know if she would accept that Althorp was his and his alone according to tradition and the law?

He did spent some time back then away from Althorp, didn't he and he must have been aware that if he is gone and that his sister, a former HRH could easily take over the estate, even to the point that she moved in main house on some invented reasons. And how shoudl he have gotten rid of the sainty Diana then? And what if she didn't like or didn't accept his countess?
he must have known how Diana behaved around Raine when she didn't like her....

It must have been his worst nightmare. But later, in death, she was welcome, of course.

 

[jcbcode99]

Obviously, there was some tension between the two--he asked for the Spencer tiara to be returned, and then he refused to make the young couple move. On the previous thread, about when opinions about changed, one poster took up for the Earl and said that he really isn't exploiting her memory--and while I cannot find the thread to link or post, I have to agree with it. I do think that Diana felt entitled to everything she could get from the Spencer family--and I do feel sorry for her; it would have been nice if she could have returned to the family home and live but not if it meant evicting people. I never heard that part of the story--I suppose because the media only wants to portray Diana as a victim--when in fact, she was anything but the victim in this particular circumstance.

I always thought it odd too that the Princess' personal effects were on tour and appeared to be with the Earl Spencer. I suppose they will be returned to the boys eventually.

And, if I were William and Harry I would have been very irked if the executors of my mother's will let 17 god children's parents into my home to take trinkets. While I'm sure they had the say in what was up for grabs, I still think it put them in a bad situation. When my beloved Grandmother passed away, I absolutely hated it if anyone took anything--and that was family! Perhaps I am more selfish than most, but for a long time I just wanted everything to stay the same. I would think, with the sudden way she departed the world, that the boys would have felt similar.

 

[diamondBrg]

Obviously, there was some tension between the two--he asked for the Spencer tiara to be returned, and then he refused to make the young couple move. On the previous thread, about when opinions about changed, one poster took up for the Earl and said that he really isn't exploiting her memory--and while I cannot find the thread to link or post, I have to agree with it. I do think that Diana felt entitled to everything she could get from the Spencer family--and I do feel sorry for her; it would have been nice if she could have returned to the family home and live but not if it meant evicting people. I never heard that part of the story--I suppose because the media only wants to portray Diana as a victim--when in fact, she was anything but the victim in this particular circumstance.

I always thought it odd too that the Princess' personal effects were on tour and appeared to be with the Earl Spencer. I suppose they will be returned to the boys eventually.

And, if I were William and Harry I would have been very irked if the executors of my mother's will let 17 god children's parents into my home to take trinkets. While I'm sure they had the say in what was up for grabs, I still think it put them in a bad situation. When my beloved Grandmother passed away, I absolutely hated it if anyone took anything--and that was family! Perhaps I am more selfish than most, but for a long time I just wanted everything to stay the same. I would think, with the sudden way she departed the world, that the boys would have felt similar.

I have seen this reoccurring theme frequently and now would like to ask about it.

Diana was instructed to return the Spencer Tiara, The Earl of Spencer refused to make the young couple move, etc.

What property / inheritance rights do women have in the UK? Are women allowed to control their own money and property?

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, that's been the case since Victorian times if I remember right. However, things are a bit different with entailed property attached to peerages. Since I haven't lived in the UK since the 1980s, you'll probably want someone still living there to explain what's going on.

Skydragon, my dad lived in the UK and the lawyer was aware of estate tax implications; he still said it was OK to add the bequests, although I think that if the bequests to individuals had been substantial there might have been a problem. According to him, specifying bequests to charities as an addition to a will were pretty much OK regardless of amount.

However, if an informal bequest like that isn't written into the will, then it's up to the executors to make sure that the beneficiaries of the will itself aren't adversely affected. If William and Harry had been adults, I assume that Mrs Shand Kydd and Lady Sarah could have asked them if they were OK with this large bequest to Diana's godchildren, and could have gone ahead and approved it if the princes agreed. Since the princes were minors, the executors had to make the decision on their behalf. I think they could have gone along with Diana's wishes in that document, but I can see where they might have felt they wouldn't have been acting in William and Harry's best interests, especially since a lot of the godchildren were from well-off families.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, that's been the case since Victorian times if I remember right. However, things are a bit different with entailed property attached to peerages. Since I haven't lived in the UK since the 1980s, you'll probably want someone still living there to explain what's going on.

Skydragon, my dad lived in the UK and the lawyer was aware of estate tax implications; he still said it was OK to add the bequests, although I think that if the bequests to individuals had been substantial there might have been a problem. According to him, specifying bequests to charities as an addition to a will were pretty much OK regardless of amount.

Sorry Elspeth, I had not realised they were for charities, which makes a great deal of difference.

Although the law has changed and I would have to 'phone a friend', IF my father had wanted to leave THE family property to me, he couldn't, it had to go to the eldest son, who holds it in trust for his eldest son, who holds it.....

What property / inheritance rights do women have in the UK? Are women allowed to control their own money and property?

If money is left to you 'outright', you can do what you want with it. It is only when Trust Funds are involved that limitations can be placed on you, if you only have use of the interest, most trustees will look at how you are spending the money if you put in a request for release of some of the capital. If they really want you to toe their line, they can move the money to a holding account, that pays no interest!
On the whole if a parent leaves all his/her property to a particular son or daughter, any others, unless they can show they relied on the parent to support them and they are unable to earn their own living, they would have no claim on the estate, although many do try to put in a claim.
--------------------------------
One thing that puzzled me about Diana, after the divorce settlement, was why didn't she purchase or rent the house of her choice?

 

[diamondBrg]

Sorry Elspeth, I had not realised they were for charities, which makes a great deal of difference.

Although the law has changed and I would have to 'phone a friend', IF my father had wanted to leave THE family property to me, he couldn't, it had to go to the eldest son, who holds it in trust for his eldest son, who holds it.....

If money is left to you 'outright', you can do what you want with it. It is only when Trust Funds are involved that limitations can be placed on you, if you only have use of the interest, most trustees will look at how you are spending the money if you put in a request for release of some of the capital. If they really want you to toe their line, they can move the money to a holding account, that pays no interest!
On the whole if a parent leaves all his/her property to a particular son or daughter, any others, unless they can show they relied on the parent to support them and they are unable to earn their own living, they would have no claim on the estate, although many do try to put in a claim.
--------------------------------
One thing that puzzled me about Diana, after the divorce settlement, was why didn't she purchase or rent the house of her choice?

Skydragon

OK, so when you say family property, do you mean everything? For instance, your mother passes and had a beautiful diamond/ruby pendant that was your grandmother's, could she leave that to you? Are you only speaking about real property (real estate) that must stay within a male lineage? What if your mother and father wanted to make provisions for you to insure that you would always have sufficient financial resources to be OK, could they do that without your brother being in charge and your having to "please" him in order to receive cash?

 

[Elspeth]

She would be talking about entailed property, which doesn't include personal property:

Fee tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[diamondBrg]

She would be talking about entailed property, which doesn't include personal property:

Fee tail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THANK YOU ELSPETH!

Now this is FASCINATING.

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon

OK, so when you say family property, do you mean everything? For instance, your mother passes and had a beautiful diamond/ruby pendant that was your grandmother's, could she leave that to you? Are you only speaking about real property (real estate) that must stay within a male lineage? What if your mother and father wanted to make provisions for you to insure that you would always have sufficient financial resources to be OK, could they do that without your brother being in charge and your having to "please" him in order to receive cash?

Although Elspeth has already answered most of your question, with respect to the jewellery, if the items are family heirlooms, they pass down the male line (blooming annoying), personal jewellery (father purchased item X for mother), she can leave it to whoever she wants. The idea of a trust fund is to ensure you have an income and most parents/grandparents ensure that at least one or two of the trustees are not related. I was only giving you a worse case scenario. If you are likely to be at loggerheads with the trustees, you can save or invest some of your income, so that if you want to be a naughty girl......

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Although the law has changed and I would have to 'phone a friend', IF my father had wanted to leave THE family property to me, he couldn't, it had to go to the eldest son, who holds it in trust for his eldest son, who holds it.....

But didn't you get at least an allowance or a dowry? And what if your brother mismanaged and the estate had to be sold - would you then have a right to a bit of the proceedings as the entail would have been broken?

As for family jewelery: my mother doesn't care much for my brother's wife but feels she has to leave her jewelery to her because she has given my brother a son.
(as an add-on later: Not that anyone believes there is much to it - my mother's family is from Silesia (now Poland), so most of what was is gone and the things the family could take with them were used to building a new life in the West... For me the most important thing left is a recipe of spiced gingerbread from the 1600s - handed down the family through all this time and still delicious when made into a reality!)


Thus she bought some extra pieces from a friend of hers who according to her husband's will may spent the whole money and other things like works of art she inherited from him as she likes as long as she is alive. But she cannot will her belongings to somebody else but his son. The problem for mother's friend is that she is ultra-Catholic and never knew that her husband was divorced till he died. She had embraced his son believing him to be her husband's nephew and only living relative. As they had no children and she had no family of her own left, she agreed to the stipulation in her husband's will, only to find out that he had lied to her, that the nephew is her husband's son and that there is another woman whith whom to share his officer's widow's pension...

Now my mother's friend is trying to spent and sell as much as she can while still alive. Problem is that she don't want to end up in poverty herself but has no idea how long she will need the money for herself... Talk about problems...

Well, my mother bought some quite pretty pieces and gave them to me, only to find that I'm not interested in jewelery myself but would have loved to have some family heirlooms (for my own future daughter-in-law?) instead. Well, she promised to think it over...

Oh, inheritance is such a bad, bad topic. I'm glad I have only one son.

 

[Skydragon]

But didn't you get at least an allowance or a dowry? And what if your brother mismanaged and the estate had to be sold - would you then have a right to a bit of the proceedings as the entail would have been broken?

Oh, I was already 'financially independent', due to a rather nice legacy and professionally managed trust fund from my grandparents but father also left me an amount to spend or invest! If my brother mismanaged the estate and it has to be sold, I wouldn't get a brass farthing from the sale, but I don't see that as a problem because I was brought up, knowing my brother got everything. I only rant about the jewellery, because it is one of my weaknesses, I love the stuff, new or old but the older the better!

I knew of a woman who was instructed by her husband in his will, to sell the holiday cottage and give the proceeds to his new mistress. Her solicitor carefully checked the will, with all it's codicils and the house was duly put on the market and sold for a measly £31,000 rather than the £310,000 it was worth! Oh so sweet!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I knew of a woman who was instructed by her husband in his will, to sell the holiday cottage and give the proceeds to his new mistress. Her solicitor carefully checked the will, with all it's codicils and the house was duly put on the market and sold for a measly £31,000 rather than the £310,000 it was worth! Oh so sweet!

I see... LOL - I hope your acquaintance was able to buy back the cottage for an affordable price...

As for your love of jewellery: you should have been around in Germany/Austria after the war. My mother's sister is a fan of historical jewellery and silverware as well and as she was im public service at that time she could get cheap loans from the state and used them to buy a lot of beautiful pieces from refugees from the east. Quite something to look at!

 

[BeatrixFan]

And let us not forget the fact that Diana could have done a Joan Crawford who's will saw her give two adopted daughters $77,500 each with more money added depending on how old they were when Joan died. She gave money to her secretary, her make-up man and her housekeepers, to charities and of course, to the funeral home to cover her funeral expenses. Bear in mind that Joan was worth a multi-millions and her other two kids thought they were really going to clean up. So they sit in the lawyers office and he reads. At the very end, he reaches those immortal lines;

"It is my intention to make no provision herein for my son Christopher or my daughter Christina for reasons which are well known to them".

Joan = 1. Daughter from hell = 0.

 

[diamondBrg]

Oh, I was already 'financially independent', due to a rather nice legacy and professionally managed trust fund from my grandparents but father also left me an amount to spend or invest! If my brother mismanaged the estate and it has to be sold, I wouldn't get a brass farthing from the sale, but I don't see that as a problem because I was brought up, knowing my brother got everything. I only rant about the jewellery, because it is one of my weaknesses, I love the stuff, new or old but the older the better!

I knew of a woman who was instructed by her husband in his will, to sell the holiday cottage and give the proceeds to his new mistress. Her solicitor carefully checked the will, with all it's codicils and the house was duly put on the market and sold for a measly £31,000 rather than the £310,000 it was worth! Oh so sweet!

Now you have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. He spoke of his MISTRESS in his WILL and then LEFT HER THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM REAL ESTATE? That man had BIG BRASS .... You know what I would have had put on his gravemarker, right?

 

[Skydragon]

LOL, how about and to my son & daughter, (big, big pause)...... my love!

You know what I would have had put on his gravemarker, right?

You mean you would have paid for a headstone!

 

[diamondBrg]

LOL, how about and to my son & daughter, (big, big pause)...... my love!
You mean you would have paid for a headstone!

Well he certainly was one ignorant ... .. . ..... wasn't he!

If I was son or daughter I know what I would be giving back!!

I would have a SIMPLE marker laid down, AFTER I found out just how far I could push the envelope and not have law enforcement remove it.

 

[GillW]

Oh, I was already 'financially independent', due to a rather nice legacy and professionally managed trust fund from my grandparents but father also left me an amount to spend or invest! If my brother mismanaged the estate and it has to be sold, I wouldn't get a brass farthing from the sale, but I don't see that as a problem because I was brought up, knowing my brother got everything. I only rant about the jewellery, because it is one of my weaknesses, I love the stuff, new or old but the older the better!

I knew of a woman who was instructed by her husband in his will, to sell the holiday cottage and give the proceeds to his new mistress. Her solicitor carefully checked the will, with all it's codicils and the house was duly put on the market and sold for a measly £31,000 rather than the £310,000 it was worth! Oh so sweet!

I'd have sold it for £3.10 !! AND to someone I made sure would not sell it to the mistress, thereby allowing her to re-buy it & sell it for the market value!! After that he would have gone into an unmarked pauper's grave ....

 

[diamondBrg]

Skydragon

Funny enough while I was waking up this morning, very slowly, I thought about this deceased man, cottage and mistress story you shared and a thought crossed my mind.

Is it possible that the mistress may have preferred NOT to be named in this man's Will and her involvement with him made public? Could he perhaps be one of the SUPREME whatevers of the new century? Depending on where in the UK she lives (urban vs country) there could be some social implications for her, right?

 

[Elspeth]

Oh, I was already 'financially independent', due to a rather nice legacy and professionally managed trust fund from my grandparents but father also left me an amount to spend or invest! If my brother mismanaged the estate and it has to be sold, I wouldn't get a brass farthing from the sale

I thought part of the issue here was that you can't just sell an entailed estate, at least without heavily compensating the heir.

 

[Skydragon]

I thought part of the issue here was that you can't just sell an entailed estate, at least without heavily compensating the heir.

If he has mismanaged to the extent that the estate has to be sold to pay off his debts, the monies left after settlement of debts, would be taken into trust and as he has son's, I am not an heir, the money would go to his line.

He could declare personal bankruptcy, which would then leave the estate 'intact' to pass 'in trust' to his children under a stewardship agreement, (someone else is appointed to manage the estates finances). As he is not in that unenviable position, I have to admit it is not something I know a great deal about. (shoot oneself logo here)

Once the estate was settled, as I was not a beneficiary of the estate (property and heirlooms), I have no 'right' to any monies earned or raised on it. Had my brother not had sons, in the event of him turning down the reponsibility for the estate or his early demise, it would have passed to another younger brother!

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon

Funny enough while I was waking up this morning, very slowly, I thought about this deceased man, cottage and mistress story you shared and a thought crossed my mind.

Is it possible that the mistress may have preferred NOT to be named in this man's Will and her involvement with him made public? Could he perhaps be one of the SUPREME whatevers of the new century? Depending on where in the UK she lives (urban vs country) there could be some social implications for her, right?

As I understand it, she had no problem flouncing about the village telling everyone she was going to be the next Mrs ????. I think she would be called an 'in your face' individual by the youngsters.

 

[diamondBrg]

As I understand it, she had no problem flouncing about the village telling everyone she was going to be the next Mrs ????. I think she would be called an 'in your face' individual by the youngsters.

Around these parts, she just might find the current Mrs would like "a word" with her about that and after the conversation was finished, she might find a dental appointment necessary?

 

[zhontella]

Around these parts, she just might find the current Mrs would like "a word" with her about that and after the conversation was finished, she might find a dental appointment necessary?

Oh My! I haven't been following this thread. Are we by any chance referring to Diana as the "current Mrs" and Camilla as the flouncy "in your face" interloper? I always thought of Camilla as being bold as brass, but I suppose some might see that as "in your face". Well, I guess they are kinda similar?

 

[Skydragon]

Oh My! I haven't been following this thread. Are we by any chance referring to Diana as the "current Mrs" and Camilla as the flouncy "in your face" interloper?

Well perhaps if you have a chance to read the thread, you will realise that we were not talking about Camilla, who, as you know never spoke or flounced anywhere! We could of course have been refering to Diana and any of the wives/girlfriends she was trying to displace, now there the word 'flounce' is justified.