I do not know what to call this

[Gentlemen Prefer Blondes]

DAILY MAIL, July 14, 2003

So Did Diana Die to Make Lawyers Rich?

PETER MCKAY

Shouldn't the Charity Commission investigate why the Princess of
Wales Memorial Fund spent so much money on hiring lawyers that it has
had to freeze its payments to 120 good causes? Also, it might look
into the allegation - made by a spokesman for the American firm now
suing the fund - that the real reason the fund is freezing its
donations is 'in the hope of finding a fairy godmother to rescue
them'.

Surely, the writing was on the wall from the beginning. Founding
chairman was lawyer Anthony Julius, who had handled Diana's divorce.
Mr Julius said legal action was needed to stop unauthorised Diana
merchandise. Why so?

It existed before Diana's death and she ignored it. The Queen doesn't
sue the makers of royal memorabilia; the Roman Catholic church
doesn't litigate against those who produce Jesus, Mary and Joseph
dolls.

Yet Mr Julius had his way. The company of which he was a partner,
Mishcon de Reya, raked in 500,000 from the fund for the initial 11
weeks' work.

After a storm of criticism, this legal work was put out to tender.

The fund scared off some British producers of royal tat but it didn't
frighten America's Franklin Mint, the makers of Diana dolls. It
fought back and won, which cost the fund more than 4 million in legal
expenses. Now, Franklin Mint is claiming 16 million for malicious
prosecution.

So the Memorial Fund lets it be known that Diana's estate - worth 21
million at her death, and held in trust for Princes William and Harry
until they are 25 - could be devoured by the soaring legal costs.

Franklin Mint's spokesman calls that 'scaremongering' and it's hard
to disagree. The fund's administrators have got themselves into a
mess and want to be bailed out. Also, they are frightened of losing
money personally.

Diana's friend Rosa Monckton points out that the memorial fund was
unnecessary in the first place. 'The Princess already had a fund set
up, the Princess of Wales Charitable Trust, with very clear
guidelines as to the sorts of charities she wanted to support and,
indeed, did support. Why did the money not all go into this?' Indeed.
Ms Moncktonsuggests the fund is now wound up 'not because they have
not done enough, but rather because they have done too much, and not
always in the spirit of the Princess they claim to represent'.

She is right. New donations are down to a trickle. Some of the causes
supported - bee-keeping in Kosovo, arts projects for asylum seekers -
are ridiculed. In its short life, the fund has attracted an enormous
amount of criticism over cheap endorsements it has given, heavy
expenses and an over-dependence on lawyers.

Everyone connected with the policies which led to this crisis have
now to be purged, including Diana's sister Sarah McCorquodale.
Princes William and Harry must become involved in the running of
their mother's fund. They must recruit sophisticated, respected
administrators.

Those who appear to have precipitated the crisis must be interviewed
by Charity Commissioners. Were their errors honest mistakes or the
result of pursuing strategies that seem in retrospect to be reckless?
There were plenty of warnings in this newspaper and elsewhere.

As for Mr Julius, we need to know if there was a conflict of interest
for him to advocate legal action when his own firm, win or lose, was
the only guaranteed beneficiary.

Memorial funds always sound a good idea at their inception, but too
many end up serving those who work for them more than good causes.

It's especially unfortunate when their main beneficiaries turn out to
be already-rich lawyers. Diana would have had no more thought of
enriching them than giving handouts to paparazzo photographers.