The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 09-10-2014, 09:01 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
Yes you are right Monarchs have always had control over many aspect when it comes to children's and even some Adults . They are Legal Guardians but mostly in name now. You need The Queen/King Permission for names, a child to leaving a country, etc,.

Sometimes There been Royals who choose not follow orders for various reasons. Queen Victoria wanted to attend the births of her all her Daughters, Daughters In Laws and some Granddaughters. it was said that Many were able to bypass this by giving The Queen a fault Due Date and Would only call The Queen after they give birth. Alexandra The Princess was said to have done this for all of her Pregnancies as she did not want the Queen there and is said to be the reason why all her kids were born prematurely. Needless to say The Queen was not amused. She wanted The first son of George and Mary The Duke and Duchess and Cambridge first name to be named Albert when they choose Edward i stead George got a letter from his Grandmother expressing her unhappiness of them going against her will. It was promise next child would named Albert

Victoria became a Mother figure to Princess Alice Kids after she died and acted as legal guardian as she was.

George I took his Grandchild George William away from his Son George II and Caroline.




Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
I did not know Victoria wanted to be present at all the births - thanks for the tidbit. I knew she was overbearing and intermeddling (understatement!) but had no idea she wanted to be at deliveries. What the heck for?

Maybe she wanted to be at the conceptions, too.

She also loved to grieve and when family members were not grieving quite enough to her liking they would get some stern letters about that too.
__________________

__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-10-2014, 10:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
Diana's mother and sisters were loading up the boots of their cars with Diana's possessions and shredding documents. I don't think executors get to help themselves. They can petition the court for a reasonable fee. I found it reasonable that someone stepped in to safeguard some things.
Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-11-2014, 12:03 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.
I think people do it all the time.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-11-2014, 10:45 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway
Diana's mother and sisters were loading up the boots of their cars with Diana's possessions and shredding documents. I don't think executors get to help themselves. They can petition the court for a reasonable fee. I found it reasonable that someone stepped in to safeguard some things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps that is true but there are legal channels one can go through to address those types of situations. One person can't just take it upon himself to countermand the decisions of the executors. Diana choose her mother and one of sisters as executors. It could be they were following her instructions. We know she wasn't speaking to her mother as of the date of death but we don't know if Diana left her any oral instructions.

I don't know how things work in Britain but I've had experience with settling estates in the U.S. and what Burrell did would have been considered illegal here. If Diana's mother and sisters were in fact looting the estate, that would be illegal too.
It's been a long time since I've read about this, but it seems that the way the charges against Burrell were worded had to do with his taking the property to deprive the rightful owner or something along that line. Therefore, since he hadn't sold the property -- he had it all stored -- and he had told The Queen that he was storing some property, then the charge went away. Of course, we all know that The Queen's remembrance was quite convenient, spurred probably by the fear that Prince Charles might be asked to testify.

Anyway, the executors of Diana's estate did not carry out her wishes regarding her godchildren and that was discussed at length in the media. So, her mother and sisters played a bit loose with her wishes.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-11-2014, 11:36 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hathaway View Post
It's been a long time since I've read about this, but it seems that the way the charges against Burrell were worded had to do with his taking the property to deprive the rightful owner or something along that line. Therefore, since he hadn't sold the property -- he had it all stored -- and he had told The Queen that he was storing some property, then the charge went away. Of course, we all know that The Queen's remembrance was quite convenient, spurred probably by the fear that Prince Charles might be asked to testify.

Anyway, the executors of Diana's estate did not carry out her wishes regarding her godchildren and that was discussed at length in the media. So, her mother and sisters played a bit loose with her wishes.
I've also read that Diana's wishes for her godchildren were not honored. II hope that William and Harry have made it right.

You are probably right about the way the charges were worded but I am pretty sure that you need more than the approval of a former family member in order to take items from an estate.

The defense may have wanted to divert attention and call Charles, (a lot of things came out during that trial that had nothing to do with the case) but I can't think of anything that he would have to say that was relevant to the actual charges. Their divorce would have negated any information he had about Diana's wishes and they weren't close enough after the divorce that he would know what type of property she still had.

Burrell did hold on to some items inappropriately. Didn't Settelin have to sue in order to get Burrell to return the tapes to him?
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-11-2014, 02:15 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
He had to sue someone--either Burrell or the Spencers. He says on the tapes that's one reason why he made the agreement with NBC to show them; he had to recover his legal costs. I don't remember who had them before Settelen got them back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Burrell did hold on to some items inappropriately. Didn't Settelin have to sue in order to get Burrell to return the tapes to him?
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-11-2014, 03:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
It occurs to me that those people who think that the Queen manufactured the conversation think that Burrell was guilty. My understanding is that if he never spoke with the Queen, then he never told anyone that he took the items. He hadn't disposed of them at the time of the arrest, but who knows what he was planning to do.

Didn't Burrell himself say that he had told the Queen? If that is the case, why would the defense call Prince Charles but not the Queen? It doesn't make any sense unless the Queen is being honest. She didn't realize that what she had to say was important because she didn't understand the nature of the charges.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-11-2014, 10:13 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Didn't Burrell himself say that he had told the Queen? If that is the case, why would the defense call Prince Charles but not the Queen? It doesn't make any sense unless the Queen is being honest. She didn't realize that what she had to say was important because she didn't understand the nature of the charges.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-11-2014, 10:16 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.
Albert Edward also Testified in a Divorce Case as well I believe


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-11-2014, 10:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I don't think that the Queen can required to testify in court, because the courts operate in her name. However, the Prince of Wales can be, in the same way that Edward VII--as Prince of Wales--testified about a gambling scandal.
Thanks for the information, but that wouldn't explain why the defense or the prosecution wouldn't have just asked her if it was important to the case. If nothing else, the defense could have used the media to pester the palace about it.

Okay, the defense could call Charles, but I still can't think of anything he could have added to the case.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-11-2014, 11:34 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
The prosecution wouldn't ask her because charges are always pressed in the name of the Crown. Her Majesty the Queen couldn't testify in a case brought on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. In the same way, she wouldn't be asked to testify for the defence, because she'd be defending someone against charges brought under her name.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-12-2014, 02:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,178
The incident with Diana popping into the kitchens occurred at Balmoral during her long honeymoon. She disliked the lifestyle at Balmoral and began calling into the kitchens for some company. One day she did so, and according to Tina Brown in 'The Diana Chronicles,' she was approached by the Yeoman of the Glass and China, who nodded towards the green baize door out of the kitchens and said "Over there is your side of the house, ma'am, and this is our side". Diana beat a blushing retreat!
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-12-2014, 02:20 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post

Okay, the defense could call Charles, but I still can't think of anything he could have added to the case.
Charles could not testify about the conversation between the Queen and Burrell because he did not witness it. His evidence would be hearsay only and therefore of no value.

Only the Queen and Burrell could testify to the conversation between them.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-12-2014, 04:50 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The incident with Diana popping into the kitchens occurred at Balmoral during her long honeymoon. She disliked the lifestyle at Balmoral and began calling into the kitchens for some company. One day she did so, and according to Tina Brown in 'The Diana Chronicles,' she was approached by the Yeoman of the Glass and China, who nodded towards the green baize door out of the kitchens and said "Over there is your side of the house, ma'am, and this is our side". Diana beat a blushing retreat!
While it seems harsh, I think the staff were entitled to carry out their duties without Diana aimlessly watching. The royal households and indeed her own family home was run by the man or the lady of the house communicating their desires to the Butler or Housekeeper or even the Yeoman of the Glass and China.

This pathetic picture of a sad and lost little girl, just wanting someone to talk to just doesn't wash. Althorp isn't a semidetached and it wasn't just staffed by a Housekeeper and Cook. I would imagine both her mother and stepmother would never have allowed Diana to distupt staff there even if she had been welcome to tea and biscuit as a child/teen. She was well and truely grown up and had moved to her own flat.

Just image a young staff member trying to carry out their duties and suddenly there's "The Princess of Wales/Duchess of Rothesay" coming up behind them. They were just as prone to be enthralled as any other person and suddenly here they are just doing their job and here she is wanting a chat. How awkward, embarassed and inarticulate that could have made them. And then there's the "I couldn't get the xxxxx finished because the Princess of Wales stopped by for a chat.

I have never understood what motivated Diana to "drop in on the staff" and think how that would have destabilised the flow of the house. Diana had a lot of friends before she was married and was used to the country house lifestyle. It's not like the Chef's assistant was her BFF. There were people to see and places to go whether she was at KP or Balmora or Highgrove.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-12-2014, 05:35 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
It was unprofessional and it is never wise to mingle too much with staff. Of course there can be a true devotion and loyalty but in the end it always is and remains an employer-employee relationship. It is indeed remarkable that a lady, used to ancestral estates and countryside, seems so bored as hell in venues as Balmoral. No wonder the princely couple grew totally apart, knowing Charles' profound love for the counrtyside, the nature and tranquil...
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-12-2014, 10:08 AM
Miss Hathaway's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: In the South, United States
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Thanks for the information, but that wouldn't explain why the defense or the prosecution wouldn't have just asked her if it was important to the case. If nothing else, the defense could have used the media to pester the palace about it.

Okay, the defense could call Charles, but I still can't think of anything he could have added to the case.
I believe the idea was to have him identify some of the property. It was never a foregone conclusion that he was going to be called to testify, but that suggestion was floated about in the media.

I do remember that the police had told Prince Charles at the beginning that Burrell had sold some property and had been photographed wearing some of Diana's clothes. This turned out to be false but the police never updated Charles. Until the end, the royals thought that the police had proof that Burrell had actually sold property. When Charles found out that was not true, he told the Queen, who remembered that Burrell had told her he was storing some things, and that was the end of that trial.

However Burrell has ultimately turned out to be, I think he really was treated disgracefully by the police over this matter. They deserved to have the Queen step in and end it.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-08-2014, 09:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kettering, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Not everything William does is related to his mother. William has a child and a wife who is a home maker and a cook, I'm sure it has more to do with that then some snippet Diana gave to Andrew Morton.

I also wonder if Williams reluctance to become a full time royal has a little to do with not wanting to being in a lot of staff to do the things he can no longer do and have them start leaking stories.
My father's mother committed suicide just before his 8th birthday because she had cancer, and at the time treatment was brutal. According to my mother it affected his life right up to when he died at the age of 72.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-08-2014, 09:54 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kettering, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I did not know Victoria wanted to be present at all the births - thanks for the tidbit. I knew she was overbearing and intermeddling (understatement!) but had no idea she wanted to be at deliveries. What the heck for?

Maybe she wanted to be at the conceptions, too.

She also loved to grieve and when family members were not grieving quite enough to her liking they would get some stern letters about that too.
She also was so angry about her girls breastfeeding against her orders she called one of her cows after one of her daughters.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-09-2014, 01:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,178
Victoria wanted to help by sitting by the bedside of the mother to-be and soothing them (stroking their arm and their forehead etc). This was especially true for her motherless granddaughters, Alice's offspring. Victoria Battenburg (later Milford Haven) gave birth to her first child who became Princess Alice of Greece, (Prince Philip's mother), at Windsor. She had also been by her daughter Alice of Hesse's bedside when Victoria Battenburg was born.

She was extremely annoyed that she missed the births of all Princess Alexandra's babies. The Princess of Wales had a habit of giving birth prematurely!
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-11-2014, 08:57 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,888
In Diana, Sarah Bradford wrote:

Diana was no fool where domestic staff were concerned and Stephen Barry himself recognized that his happy years of getting away with everything with the indulgence of the Prince of Wales would soon be over. He jumped before he was pushed.

__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
class system, diana princess of wales, princess diana, staff


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 Staff and Court of the Royal Family Lena Royal House of Sweden 183 11-13-2016 03:13 AM
Staff of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Zonk The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 403 10-17-2016 12:35 AM
Royal Staff and Household of The King of Spain lula Royal Family of Spain 34 03-12-2015 03:17 AM
Haakon and Mette-Marit's staff hrhcp Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 15 02-04-2014 02:08 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit 2016 catherine middleton style countess of wessex coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf's birthday king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander 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 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 september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark 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 05:33 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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