Diana's Will

[msleiman]

Ok, maybe this has been answered but while reading other post I have a few questions. Why in the world was Diana's brother giving most of her things. Her wedding dress for one. She has two sons and it just seems crazy that anything should go the Earl. I think that he should not have recived anything. Will all of her things be returned to William and Harry?

 

[Duchess]

if i'm not mistaken, her mother and sisters were executors of her will and when she passed away, they removed a lot of her personal possessions from KP. she had expressed a wish that her wedding dress be given to the Victoria and Albert museum for the dress collection but the Earl took it for the display at Althrop inspite of what she wanted.

 

[branchg]

Actually, William allowed the Earl Spencer to take certain items for display at Althorp. All of Diana's possessions belong to him and Harry.

 

[wymanda]

For those who wish to wade through a mountain of legalese here is a link to Diana's will http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/wills/diana/part1.html

 

[Roslyn]

For those who wish to wade through a mountain of legalese here is a link to Diana's will http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/wills/diana/part1.html

Ooh! Thank you. Glad I found this one before the mod squad. I must get up earlier than Warren.

 

[Warren]

Now it's in the correct thread we don't have to worry about who gets up or logs on first.

 

[Sara Hamada]

am with duchess because her mother and sisters were executors of her will.

 

[Roslyn]

Below is a link to Diana's will and codicil and orders made by the Chancery Division in December 1997 modifying the terms of the will. I have only just seen the orders for the first time and it has come as a bit of a surprise.

The original will was fairly straightforward. It provided for the executors to distribute chattels in accordance with separate written wishes, and for the residuary estate to be divided equally between William & Harry at 25. There was no provision for Burrell.

Then, after Diana died, there was an approach to the Court to vary the terms of the will, which I think is a bit odd but which was accepted by the Court as being for the benefit of the infant beneficiaries. I haven't digested the new provisions, but they introduce a gift of GBP 50,000 for Burrell and some interesting concepts including some relating to intellectual property rights which I assume relate to the way it was then proposed to administer the estate for the production of income. Anyway, the boys still seem to take their share at 25.

Will and codicil:
Court TV Online - FAMOUS WILLS

Orders varying the will:
Court TV Online - FAMOUS WILLS

 

[HRH Queen Mary]

I think it's weird that Prince William and Prince Harry are only allowed to choose one piece of jewelry from her mother.........

 

[sassie]

I think it's weird that Prince William and Prince Harry are only allowed to choose one piece of jewelry from her mother.........

Where did you get that information? Except for the royal jewels and a few bequests, all of Diana's jewelry was left to her sons. They're not limited to "one piece" each.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

Where did you get that information? Except for the royal jewels and a few bequests, all of Diana's jewelry was left to her sons. They're not limited to "one piece" each.

Wonder if there was or if there will be any bickering between the two of who gets what and who gets to choose first to give to their "wife" when it happens?

 

[carlota]

did diana write any testaments or last wills (where to be buried, how funerals should take place) just in case something happened or was it all decided by her family and the royal house after her accident?

 

[Iluvbertie]

did diana write any testaments or last wills (where to be buried, how funerals should take place) just in case something happened or was it all decided by her family and the royal house after her accident?

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.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

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.

In a sense, it's dreadful to think that Diana is out on the island all by herself isolated from the people who loved her the most. She also loved many people and would be quite taken back to know that she and they weren't able to visit on a daily basis in life/death (that is according to Christian belief of visiting from the grave etc.).

A last note regarding the island, I can imagine the lost of the casket and condition of the body after ten years buried in the ground on a island where the casket would be penetrable by water (unless she is buried above ground).

In addition, it put the sons in an awkward situation between Spencers & Windsors should they have desired to visit their mother's grave more often than they have been able to because of the distance between Althorp & London (I don't know the distance).

 

[sassie]

A last note regarding the island, I can imagine the lost of the casket and condition of the body after ten years buried in the ground on a island where the casket would be penetrable by water (unless she is buried above ground).

The "lake" is a man made, concrete-lined ring dug around the circumference of the solid piece of land which forms the "island". There is no real difference between where Diana is buried and a traditional plot in a cemetery, and her plot is exposed to no more moisture than as if she was buried next to an in-ground swimming pool.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

The "lake" is a man made, concrete-lined ring dug around the circumference of the solid piece of land which forms the "island". There is no real difference between where Diana is buried and a traditional plot in a cemetery, and her plot is exposed to no more moisture than as if she was buried next to an in-ground swimming pool.

Thanks for letting me know that. I thought it was just a natural forming lake. So, they built this lake by laying down concrete? I've seen something like this in Garmish-Partikirchen, but this was huge and I remember seeing concrete as the bottom.

 

[sassie]

Thanks for letting me know that. I thought it was just a natural forming lake. So, they built this lake by laying down concrete? I've seen something like this in Garmish-Partikirchen, but this was huge and I remember seeing concrete as the bottom.

Yes, they dug the ring and lined it with concrete before filling it with water. The ring is fairly wide, so it has the appearance of an oval lake, but it actually isn't.

 

[sirhon11234]

It must be very expensive to have a lake man made.

 

[sassie]

It must be very expensive to have a lake man made.

Well, as Earl Spencer has said that he and Diana enjoyed The Oval as children, then it has been on the Spencer estate for 40 years, at least, and I would imagine the estate/grounds workers probably contributed to the labor involved in creating it, so it likely wasn't all that expensive.

I'll bet it wasn't as expensive as that similar concrete oval in Kensington Gardens that resembles a drainage ditch more than a fountain.

 

[Roslyn]

Diana's will

The gifts to God-children were not expressly stated in the will, but in papers that were referred to in but did not form part of the will; they were not the subject of the codicil, which did nothing but remove Patrick Jephson as executor/trustee and replace him with sister Sarah. What Frances & Sarah did was do a complete overhaul of the original will, with the sanction of the High Court of Justice, and ostensibly for the benefit of William & Harry. Diana's sons were originally to take their shares at age 25, but the document sanctioned by the Court on 19.12.97 - I hestitate to call it a will because it bore little resemblance to Diana's document - created a fairly complex trust structure. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that there are probably substantial tax benefits to the new structure.

 

[diamondBrg]

The gifts to God-children were not expressly stated in the will, but in papers that were referred to in but did not form part of the will; they were not the subject of the codicil, which did nothing but remove Patrick Jephson as executor/trustee and replace him with sister Sarah. What Frances & Sarah did was do a complete overhaul of the original will, with the sanction of the High Court of Justice, and ostensibly for the benefit of William & Harry. Diana's sons were originally to take their shares at age 25, but the document sanctioned by the Court on 19.12.97 - I hestitate to call it a will because it bore little resemblance to Diana's document - created a fairly complex trust structure. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that there are probably substantial tax benefits to the new structure.

You can see all the documents at Court TV Online - FAMOUS WILLS for the Will and Codicil, and select part2 for the Court sanctioned document.

I had heard that, but this is the first opportunity I have had to get information about it.

IF needed please move the quoted post and this reply to an appropriate thread or start one, PLEASE.

I would like to know HOW EXECUTORS of a Will can decide that THEY DON'T LIKE THE WILL and then go about completely rewriting it to their tastes and then I find out A BRITISH COURT OF LAW thinks it was just OKIE DOKIE, oh really?

That wouldn't work where I live.

 

[Skydragon]

The gifts to God-children were not expressly stated in the will, but in papers that were referred to in but did not form part of the will; they were not the subject of the codicil, which did nothing but remove Patrick Jephson as executor/trustee and replace him with sister Sarah. What Frances & Sarah did was do a complete overhaul of the original will, with the sanction of the High Court of Justice, and ostensibly for the benefit of William & Harry. Diana's sons were originally to take their shares at age 25, but the document sanctioned by the Court on 19.12.97 - I hestitate to call it a will because it bore little resemblance to Diana's document - created a fairly complex trust structure. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that there are probably substantial tax benefits to the new structure.

It's called a 'wish list' and they are not enforcible in any way. They are reliant on the executors 'goodwill' and 'honesty'! Wish lists are never a good idea. As many executors present invoices, it would have made sense to remove Jephson as an executor/trustee, although you have to wonder if her family charged her estate.

It is possibly to apply to have some instructions changed if it is deemed to be in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

 

[diamondBrg]

Unbelievable!!!

A Wish List is written and specific bequests are made but it means nothing UNLESS the Executor(s) decide they kinda wanna do it?

I want to discuss "The Arrangement" where Paul Burrelle is left 50,000 GBP when in the original will he is left NOTHING. Now just how did this work AND WHY???

We are going to allow Diana's will to be altered and say it is for the benefit of INFANT BENEFICIARIES (I take it that is the equivalent of minors in the USA?) YET WILLIAM can decide to allow and authorize his mother's family to take possession of property that he himself DOES NOT have the legal capacity to control because of his legal infancy?

Mummy and Sis wind up getting MORE out of this "new" Will and they are Executors of it and NOBODY sees a conflict of interest in that?

OK, now tell this silly, stupid American then, SERIOUSLY, is this one of those British "wink wink" situations where polite people do not discuss it in public?

Yall should be so thankful I am not one of your relatives and come to visit often, can you just imagine what could pop out of my mouth and at the most inopportune times.

 

[Skydragon]

Did you know that here in the UK a common expression is 'the law is an ass'?

The trouble when you write a wish list is that you think you know and can trust your executors, spouse or relative to agree with what you have specified be given, sadly that is not always the case! Any solicitor worth his/her salt will tell you, if you want cousin A 13 times removed to receive that necklace, specify in your will that cousin A 13 times removed is to receive the gold necklace, with 12 rubies and 10 diamonds, set in such and such a way, purchased from/given by and preferably with documentation/photographs, so there can be no wriggle room!

 

[diamondBrg]

Well Sky, we have similar sayings about the law here in the US as well. Maybe we all need to get together and do some house cleaning in that specific branch of our governments? Here in the States, you had better prove somebody violated a law in what they did in their Will or were insane at the time they made it OR whatever they did is how it goes, MOST OF THE TIME.

I can only speak as a son who has buried his MUCH LOVED AND RESPECTED MOTHER and I was an adult when she passed (God is merciful and let me keep her a long time,) BUT IF I had of ever learned that ANYBODY was messing around with what belonged to my DEAD MOTHER, I would have gone ballistic. THEY BETTER BE STRAIGHT ABOUT IT. Princes William and Harry are grown men now and I doubt they would tolerate and overlook being abused as kids, especially over what belonged to their Mama.

 

[Melania]

If I remember correctly, before Diana had passed, she had asked her brother if she could have one of the cottages or guest houses (not for sure exactly what type of housing) on the Althorpe estate in which to live (and escape to.) This was after her divorce with Charles, and Diana needed a place to escape. At first her brother agreed, but then later changed his mind because he didn't want all of the attention that she would bring there. It’s a possibility that this caused Diana to escape with Dodi Al Fayed instead. The funny thing is, now her brother Charles keeps her casket on his estate which brings hundreds of thousands of people to his property every year. What kind of brotherly love is that? He wouldn't let her live on the estate while she was alive, but he keeps her there when she is dead? To me, that helps show the true character of Earl Spencer.

Also, the executors of Diana’s will ignored her wishes, or side-stepped her wishes, when it came to the inheritance of her god-children. They received only one memento item each and not any money. Diana’s will can be contested by her god-children, but to my understanding, not one of her god-children wants the publicity or the reputation of fighting over Diana’s money. How sad that they are not able to fight for what was left to them by Diana in an addendum to her will! But, maybe Diana saw this as a way of not leaving her god-children more money, and instead giving more money to her children. Her god-children can take it that she had wanted to leave them money but that her wishes were not granted. Who knows? That might be a stretch though.

 

[Skydragon]

If I remember correctly, before Diana had passed, she had asked her brother if she could have one of the cottages or guest houses (not for sure exactly what type of housing) on the Althorpe estate in which to live (and escape to.) This was after her divorce with Charles, and Diana needed a place to escape. At first her brother agreed, but then later changed his mind because he didn't want all of the attention that she would bring there. It’s a possibility that this caused Diana to escape with Dodi Al Fayed instead. The funny thing is, now her brother Charles keeps her casket on his estate which brings hundreds of thousands of people to his property every year. What kind of brotherly love is that? He wouldn't let her live on the estate while she was alive, but he keeps her there when she is dead? To me, that helps show the true character of Earl Spencer.

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.

I can even part way understand the executors thinking, in offering a memento rather than hard cash. The god children cannot fight the decision as it was never written in her will.

 

[ysbel]

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.

I can even part way understand the executors thinking, in offering a memento rather than hard cash. The god children cannot fight the decision as it was never written in her will.

Now I heard even a different story. I heard this happened when she was still royal and had royal protection and the conditions of a royal living on the grounds meant that royal protection officers had to do a sweep of the whole grounds 3 times a day while she was there and the family thought that it was too intrusive on their own privacy.

Interesting.

 

[Liz]

I've also heard that the incident never happened at all. I guess we will never get the real answer.

 

[Elspeth]

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.