Earl Spencer to Raine: "Hi Pot? This is Kettle. You're Black."
Maeve
First he writes a book about Althorp, thoroughly excoriating his
stepmother for selling off family heirlooms.
Then he turns around and does it himself! Stupid, silly, genetically
over-processed wanker.
Check out the link:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_209929.html
And he has the cheek to call it an attic sale!
Loreen
>right
>>to sell anything. He, of course, has the perfect right to sell it all if he
>>chooses.
>>>^..^<
>
>
>At the time, the problem *seems* to have been that Raine, Lady Spencer
>was (according to the present Lord Spencer) doing a good deal of
>damage to the family inheritance. And yes, that was most certainly his
>and not hers or her childrens'. Her husband really was not very
>well and it appeared that he'd handed the reins of the estate over to
>her. As she didn't get on well with her stepchildren and as she is a
>forceful character, the combination was not a happy one. I think her
>view would be that she was - in estate terms - trying to keep body and
>soul together. The present Earl seems to think otherwise and was very
>outspoken about it, which may have led to less than harmonious family
>interchanges! Perhaps the Spencers have a family history of public
>squabbles on family matters? Sometimes, I feel that I know
>altogether too much about their family's altercations because for some
>reason or other, they always seem to get into the newspapers........
>--
>Sacha
Was it always that way, Sacha? I mean even before Diana?
>^..^<
Loreen
Well, not to speak for the Earl, but maybe he thought it wasn't Raine's right
Loreen
>
>>>>Well, not to speak for the Earl, but maybe he thought it wasn't Raine's
>>>right
>>>>to sell anything. He, of course, has the perfect right to sell it all if
>he
>>>>chooses.
>>>>>^..^<
>>>
>>>
>>>was (according to the present Lord Spencer) doing a good deal of
>>>damage to the family inheritance. And yes, that was most certainly his
>>>and not hers or her childrens'. Her husband really was not very
>>>well and it appeared that he'd handed the reins of the estate over to
>>>her. As she didn't get on well with her stepchildren and as she is a
>>>forceful character, the combination was not a happy one. I think her
>>>view would be that she was - in estate terms - trying to keep body and
>>>soul together. The present Earl seems to think otherwise and was very
>>>outspoken about it, which may have led to less than harmonious family
>>>interchanges! Perhaps the Spencers have a family history of public
>>>squabbles on family matters? Sometimes, I feel that I know
>>>altogether too much about their family's altercations because for some
>>>reason or other, they always seem to get into the newspapers........
>>>--
>>>Sacha
>>
>>Was it always that way, Sacha? I mean even before Diana?
>>>^..^<
>
>
>relationship with Raine bad?
>Sacha
Actually, I meant did you always hear about the Spencers more than other
aristocratic families even before Diana came on the scene, or do you think the
fact that you hear more about them is just because of the connection to Diana.
>^..^<
brit
For myself, I didn't even know they EXISTED before Prince Charles got
involved with Diana..
brit
Tom
> And he has the cheek to call it an attic sale!
The difference being, I think, he really IS selling from the attic.
Raine was selling right off the Saloon walls.
Norina
One hopes your minder washes your mouth out with soap for obscene language.
Earl Spencer's sale won't be made up of heirlooms.
Norina
> >altogether too much about their family's altercations because for some
> >reason or other, they always seem to get into the newspapers........
> >--
> >Sacha
>
in-fighting, posturing and jostling for prominence, their public
airing of dirty linen each year when the Queen holds family birthday
parties....The struggles between the heir and his Soveriegn and his
venerable Father as well. The animosity and tug of war between the
courtiers at BP and St.Jas...the gross leaks,
,the hostility between the three brothers with Edward and Andrew
outraged at their other Brother's interference and degrading remarks
about them whilst he persists in disgracing the family name by
refusing to wed the woman he says loves him as well as the contempt
the Father and Daughter feel for the heir's views on GM foods and
other timely topics. A constant hotbed of intrigue and back
stabbing...
Susan T
@excite.com says...
Norina
=======================
Hmm, let's examine the article, shall we?
"The sale will include furniture, porcelain, paintings by masters such
as Sir Peter Lely and books collected by 20 generations of the Spencer
family."
Sir Peter Lely was born in 1618 and died 1680. MOST people would
consider his paintings as heirlooms. Books collected by 20 generations
of Spencers would be considered family heirlooms.
That leaves furniture and porcelain. Not likely Sotheby's would bother
auctioning off recently bought pieces from IKEA, now, is it?
--
Crone Princess
"I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to."
Norina
which I can't find that lists the items up for sell, I stand corrected
about heirlooms albeit only items treasured by the family itself are
considered heirlooms....IOW, your Grandfather might pass down a Purdy
hand gun but if shooting puts you off, the piece might not be
'valuable' to you and lastly because someone owns an old painting it
does not mean they have owned it since it was painted. The point
however is that Susan was right at least regarding some of the items
mentioned.
Karen Horn
: I know this will unleash all sorts of fury on my head but in my
: opinion, they seem, as a family, to be vengeful. Is there an inability
: just to let go and move on? Look at the way the late Lord Spencer
: fought his wife for their children - to the immense damage of those
: children, IMO. Charles Spencer was angry with his stepmother and
: publicly declared it, Diana was angry with Charles and publicly
: declared it; Charles Spencer humiliated his wife through adulterous
: liaisons and publicly reported insults about being 'thick and thin'.
: In court, he fought her for the lowest possible settlement and also
: had the cheek to bring his mistress to his sister's funeral. The
: trust set up in Diana's name is headed by her sister and spends huge
: amounts of money pursuing others to prevent them 'cashing in'. There
: appears not to have been a day since its inception when the Trust
: hasn't been fighting *someone*. I can understand their annoyance but
: their endeavour seems endless *and* fruitless and the charitable 5 or
: 10 pounds someone has donated is going where? Quite possibly to
: lawyers! When I look back on their recent history in a collective
: way, which is something I haven't done until now, I get the impression
: of a highly contentious family - full of anger and "I'll show you".
: --
: Sacha
: S. Devon
: www.garden.demon.co.uk
Excellent observations, as usual. And let's not forget the nasty,
nasty custody fight re: Diane's parents. Didn't Diana's mother's mother
testify on behalf of Spencer for him getting custody of the children
too? And if memory serves it really runs in the family even further back,
because Ruth Fermoy [Diana's maternal grandmother] was the granddaughter
of a messy divorce herself. Wasn't her dad one of the twin sons by produced
after a short, messy marriage by an American Heiress of the Work family
and Baron Fermoy?
So this genetic tendency of messy divorce and blame game has at first
hand affected at least 6 generations! William, Diana, her mother, Ruth
Fermoy, Baron Fermoy..and his parents. Either they HAD a messy divorce,
or were the children of folks involved in a messy divorce. There are
those "amicable" divorces, where the parents try their best not to
use the children as pawns...and then there are those....well, "you know."
These people are "experts" in fighting this sort of battle.....let's pray
God it doesn't hit william even further down the line with any woman
he marries!
Karen
Susan T
cronep...@worldnet.att.net says...
I just checked my copy of John Pearson's Blood Royal: The Story of the
Spencers and the Royals.
The painting by Sir Peter Lely was done during the reign of Charles II.
It's a portrait of Robert Spencer, the 2nd Earl of Sutherland.
"The painting, which is still at Althorp, shows exactly what one would
expect - the epicene features and haughty glance of a terribly spoiled
young man of fashion."
The painting is older than the Spencer Earldom!
DeadeyeDev
>> And he has the cheek to call it an attic sale!
>
>The difference being, I think, he really IS selling from the attic.
>Raine was selling right off the Saloon walls.
-------
I understand that some family art collections are sold almost on the sly --
below appraisal value, no competitive bidding -- owing to the stigma factor of
having to sell.
Could the current Earl Spencer be annoyed with his stepmother, not because of
the sales, but because of the prices?
Susan T
deade...@aol.com says...
Dev
-------------
From the John Pearson book:
Shortly after his illness, when Johnnie and Raine began a selling spree
together, Johnnie appeared, if anything, more enthusiastic to be selling
the family heritage than Raine. His son Charles believes that 'my
grandfather's compulsive devotion to the house caused great resentment
in my father. By selling off the art, my father may have derived
pleasure in the knowledge that the seventh Earl would be spinning i his
grave. It was his revenge for not feeling loved as a child.'
The book mentions that the entire Spencer collection of documents and
letters relating to the family was sold for 1 million pounds (they wound
up split between the British Library in London and the County Records
Office in Northampton)
Two solid gold wine coolers (reputed to have been a gift to the Duke of
Marlborough by Queen Anne) went for around 1 million pounds to the
British Museum.
A pair of paintings bought in Rome in 1761 were sold privately to London
dealers Wildenstein for a fraction of their value. Spencer received
40,000 pounds for the Andrea Sacchi painting, Appollo Crowning the
Musician Marcantonio Pasqualini. It was later sold to the New York
Metropolitan Museum of Art for 270,000 pounds.
The book goes on to mention that throught in 1980's there wasa "selling
frenzy" and that the sales were "hapharzard" and that nobody is
absolutely sure just what was sold.
Tom
> Sir Peter Lely was born in 1618 and died 1680. MOST people would
> consider his paintings as heirlooms. Books collected by 20 generations
> of Spencers would be considered family heirlooms.
>
> That leaves furniture and porcelain. Not likely Sotheby's would bother
> auctioning off recently bought pieces from IKEA, now, is it?
If he sells Nelson Shanks' "Diana, Princess of Wales", that's when
I'll write him off as a loser. Otherwise, he's got an over-crowded
expensive house to run, and apparantly a lot of obsessive/compulsive
relatives who liked to spend buy spend buy spend buy. Diana's not the
only Spencer who could have benefited from paxil or buspar.
Susan Cohen
Maeve wrote:
> Is the Earl as insufferable as I think he is?
>
> First he writes a book about Althorp, thoroughly excoriating his
> stepmother for selling off family heirlooms.
>
> Then he turns around and does it himself! Stupid, silly, genetically
> over-processed wanker.
That's not *quite* what Raine said, but it'll do :-)
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Sacha wrote:
> At the time, the problem *seems* to have been that Raine, Lady Spencer
> was (according to the present Lord Spencer) doing a good deal of
> damage to the family inheritance. And yes, that was most certainly his
> and not hers or her childrens'. Her husband really was not very
> well and it appeared that he'd handed the reins of the estate over to
> her. As she didn't get on well with her stepchildren and as she is a
> forceful character, the combination was not a happy one. I think her
> view would be that she was - in estate terms - trying to keep body and
> soul together. The present Earl seems to think otherwise and was very
> outspoken about it, which may have led to less than harmonious family
> interchanges!
I think the problem was that she was spending money on things
that didn't contribute to the overall welfar eof the estate - just regilding
portrait frames, wall-to-wall carpetting, etc. The it's okay to sell off a
few heirlooms to keep the place open & running, but not so you can
buy a newer care or a fur coat....
SusanC
> Perhaps the Spencers have a family history of public
> squabbles on family matters? Sometimes, I feel that I know
> altogether too much about their family's altercations because for some
> reason or other, they always seem to get into the newspapers........
> --
> Sacha
> S. Devon
> www.garden.demon.co.uk
>
> (remove spam-trap)
Susan Cohen
Loreen wrote:
> I meant did you always hear about the Spencers more than other
> aristocratic families even before Diana came on the scene, or do you think the
> fact that you hear more about them is just because of the connection to Diana.
> >^..^<
I think her parents' divorce hit the papers.
SusanC
brit
multiple namer
whew..aren't you glad you're not British and part of it all!!!
Maeve
Ah Norina
One would hope that YOUR minder (who, by definition should be smarter
and wiser than you) has an IQ higher than your average garden slug, or
he/she would not have allowed you to make the completely oblivious
comment that you did INDEED make.
Do TRY to be informed, dear, or suffer uncomplainingly the sarcasm due
you.
Maeve
Ah, back-pedaling, are we, Norina? It doesn't suit you. Makes you look
like a wobbly chinned idiot, quite frankly.
brit
> >
> > which I can't find that lists the items up for sell, I stand corrected
> > about heirlooms albeit only items treasured by the family itself are
> > considered heirlooms....IOW, your Grandfather might pass down a Purdy
> > hand gun but if shooting puts you off, the piece might not be
> > 'valuable' to you and lastly because someone owns an old painting it
> > does not mean they have owned it since it was painted. The point
> > however is that Susan was right at least regarding some of the items
> > mentioned.
>
> Ah, back-pedaling, are we, Norina? It doesn't suit you. Makes you look
> like a wobbly chinned idiot, quite frankly.
maeve
********************************
OMG..many a true word spoken in jest!???:)
brit
Norina
I'm not back pedaling at all. I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Get over it.
Norina
LOL, forgot to add, at least *I* have a CHIN....you can't afford an opthamologist?
Cya
His Jadedness
>should appear in the paper only 3 times in your life; when you were
>born, when you married and when you died!
>--
>Sacha
Depending, of course, upon the spouse's station.
--
His Jadednes
Internet Facts of Life:
Norina =The Kitty Kelly of the Internet
Royal Reckoning =The National Enquirer of the Internet
PK/BZ = Sockpuppet Mistress of the Internet
His Jadedness
>shotguns, not handguns - sporting pieces, IOW.
>--
>Sacha
Quite so! At one time they were the defining aspect of a sporting gentleman.
Loreen
>having once given her opinion on something while engaged (or perhaps
>newly married) was soundly ticked off by King George V and never, ever
>opened her mouth for a press interview again.
>--
>Sacha
And she DOESN'T either! One never ever hears her opinion first hand. It does
make her stand out as a shining example, IMHO, one that other members of her
family should consider now and then.
>^..^<
His Jadedness
>You mean the grander the spouse the less times or the more times?
Err.. no. I meant that the less grand the spouse you might not want the
marriage mentioned in the papers ar all. <G>
Maeve
lol - I CAN see that you have added superhuman powers to your many
talents....namely the ability to peer through computer monitors to
discern the facial attributes (or lack thereof) of our hardy AGR
posters!
Is this a first on the AGR? Does anyone else possess superhuman
talents?
Maeve
Susan Cohen
Sacha wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2001 00:48:13 GMT, agh...@aol.commoner.de (His Jadedness)
> wrote:
>
> >>It was said that your name
> >>should appear in the paper only 3 times in your life; when you were
> >>born, when you married and when you died!
> >>--
> >>Sacha
> >
> >Depending, of course, upon the spouse's station.
>
> You mean the grander the spouse the less times or the more times?
> ;-)) I don't think it counts for royalty, no! But the Queen Mother
> having once given her opinion on something while engaged (or perhaps
> newly married)
It was when they were engaged, & she gave the teeniest of what
*today* would be considered ridiculously innocuous interviews to
the press clamoring for a word. Something to the effect of "HRH
is just [at his camp for biys, or something] & I'm sure will be to see
me shortly," or something like that.
> was soundly ticked off by King George V
"Royal ladies do NOT give interviews to the press!"
SusanC
> and never, ever
> opened her mouth for a press interview again.
> --
> Sacha
Martha Tassi
> lol - I CAN see that you have added superhuman powers to your many
> talents....namely the ability to peer through computer monitors to
> discern the facial attributes (or lack thereof) of our hardy AGR
> posters!
>
> Is this a first on the AGR? Does anyone else possess superhuman
> talents?
>
> Maeve
=========
Well, I hate to brag, but . . . . .
-Martha
=========
Susan Cohen
Martha Tassi wrote:
Well, if you have to brag, rather than having others do it for you....
SusanC
Martha Tassi
=============
I knew you'd say that.
-Martha
=============
Susan Cohen
Martha Tassi wrote:
My telepathy must be working overtime again
Sometimes I send instead of receive....
SusanC (still straight-faced)