The Late Princess Diana

[ReinaMissy]

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.

[Elspeth]

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.

[wymanda]

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.

[Ennyllorac]

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'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. [/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.

[Elspeth]

I don'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't going to help him in the short term.

[micas]

The artical from Hello!

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2004/.../princecharles/

[Julian]

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.

It'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'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's own largesse and not at all solely from the PoW's funds.

There was a window of time following Diana's death when in fact the PoW'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'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't bother to go into why or for what pathetic reason this accountant is allowed by the PoW'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't move on so they have to go on making up new lies about why their employers' lives are so pathetic.

[hrhcp]

all the fodder that is fit to print

[royal_sophietje]

I had to install it again. So everyone who joined has to register again....

[Elspeth]

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.

Then there'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's own largesse and not at all solely from the PoW's funds.

The Telegraph article says that the Queen lent Charles several million pounds and he's still repaying her. The accountant isn't disputing that. He's saying that the Queen lent some of the money and Charles raised some by liquidating what investments he could liqudiate.

There was a window of time following Diana's death when in fact the PoW'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't?

The accountant isn't saying he's destitute. He's just saying that in order to pay the divorce settlement, Charles had to liquidate his investment portfolio because he couldn't raise the money by selling Duchy assets.

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's bound to have built up his financial reserves again after this long. For one thing, his office wouldn't have been paying for Diana'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'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't decrease in the few years after the divorce.

I won't bother to go into why or for what pathetic reason this accountant is allowed by the PoW'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'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's been a handy way to boost the sales of their books.

other than to note that it clearly seems as though some people just can't move on so they have to go on making up new lies about why their employers' lives are so pathetic.

This stuff sells. If it didn't sell, there'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'll keep happening.

[Julian]

It was reported that she originally asked for around £40 million and the final settlement was just under £20 million.

She didn'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's lawyers. If Charles and his lawyers could have avoided it entirely they would have.

The tone of the accountant has nothing to do with the lawyers of the Prince of Wales.

Exactly. That's why it's inaccurate, misleading and spin.

The Telegraph article says that the Queen lent Charles several million pounds and he's still repaying her. The accountant isn't disputing that. He's saying that the Queen lent some of the money and Charles raised some by liquidating what investments he could liqudiate.

That'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.

The accountant isn't saying he's destitute. He's just saying that in order to pay the divorce settlement, Charles had to liquidate his investment portfolio because he couldn'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'll read them as I want.

This is now nearly 10 years later. With his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, he's bound to have built up his financial reserves again after this long. For one thing, his office wouldn't have been paying for Diana'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'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't decrease in the few years after the divorce.

His income from the Duchy of Cornwall was probably what his ex-wife's lawyers factored into their own calculatoins as far as what he could or couldn'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'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'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'm sure his overly vocal accountant and friends would have trumpeted that for you long ere since.

How do you know it was authorised by the Prince's office?

How do you know it wasn't?

This stuff sells. If it didn't sell, there'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'll keep happening.

It has more to do in this instance than the mere fact of book sales (I don'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's an agenda beyond mere book sales figures with some people.

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by Elspeth@Jul 26th, 2004 - 5:42 pm

How do you know it was authorised by the Prince'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'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'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'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.

[Julian]

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't need to. Very clever of him or should we say too clever by half.

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't have ventured opinions about the Prince'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.

Everything Elspeth has said below is correct

lol! Please, you'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.

[A.C.C.]

Who said anything about him being uninterested in his position of being a royal accountant??? I said he did not write a lot of facts on the Royals in his book because he was not trying to bank on his connections. As for my saying that Elspeth was right, I read what she wrote in a totally different light than how you read it, thats ok. And I have no need to make cases for the POW, I'm not his lawyer and this really isn't that big of an issue, just, to me a rather interesting one.
The book the accountant wrote was his memoirs and he was interviewed about the book by the Telegraoh, it was not something special about the Royals.

Here is a link to an article about the issue at hand by the telegraph.
Diana "took Charles to the Cleaners"

By the way, that was the name of the article.

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by wymanda+Jul 26th, 2004 - 3:35 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ Jul 26th, 2004 - 3:35 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'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. [/b][/quote]
I agree

[Elspeth]

She didn't ask any more than he gave. It was negotiated between their legal representatives.

There were reports at the time that her initial request was over £40 million. Of course a compromise was negotiated between their legal representatives; that's part of their job.

That'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.

Being taken to the cleaners isn't necessarily the same as being left impoverished. The accountant said he'd had to liquidate all his investments to put toward the settlement; the accountant felt that was excessive. People might disagree with him, but he's entitled to his opinion. If he's being incorrectly quoted, that's a good reason for people to go and read the original Telegraph report in order to see what he really was saying. A.C.C. has provided a link to it.

The accountant is indeed inferring he was somehow made destitute, impoverished, ground into penury, etc. afaik.

Where in the Telegraph report does it say that? The accountant said that Charles had to give up his investments in order to pay toward the settlement and to borrow from the Queen for at least some of the balance. He doesn't say anthing about destitution or penury. He said that the Prince had no personal wealth left. That's different, because the Prince still had his Duchy assets and income.

We don'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.

According to reports, he spent about two and a half million pounds on refurbishing the private apartments at Clarence House. What is this 14 million you're talking about?

As to his spending level, I don'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'm sure his overly vocal accountant and friends would have trumpeted that for you long ere since.

I don't suppose any of us who don't know him are in a position to know much about his private spending. However, I've already mentioned one area where his expenditure would have decreased, which is that he was no longer paying his wife's expenses.

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't know one way or the other; I'm not the one making the claim. You seem to think that this is an authorised disclosure, and I'm asking about the basis for that.

It has more to do in this instance than the mere fact of book sales (I don't see where the man is selling a book either).

If you read the Telegraph article, it says he's written a book and was being interviewed by the Telegraph in advance of its publication.

"Mr Bignell was interviewed by the Telegraph last week ahead of the publication of his memoirs, Sundowners at Dawn: a Banker's Tale - where he makes only a fleeting reference to his crucial role because, he said, he did not want to "cash in" on his royal links."

Some people have debts to pay back and nests to feather. Jephson was one, Junor was one. There's an agenda beyond mere book sales figures with some people.

I'm sure there is. However, I wasn't talking about just the money, I said that this stuff sells. Whatever the