Sunday, February 14, 2016

Saturday, February 3, 1979 - Lady M gets injunction - Makes you wonder what happened


November 21, 1981 - Lady M cops a rent writ

Note this interesting mention of Alex in the article below: 

    "Her son, the Honorable Alexander Charles David Drogo Montagu, was taken to Prahram police station for questioning after an incident at the home.  
      Montagu, 19, is the heir apparent to the Duke of Manchester.
      Police were called to the Montagu home after a complaint by Melbourne private 
detective, Norm Mathews. Matthews was at the home to serve the two writs and 
inspect the premises for the owners.  
    Prahram police confirmed they seized a loaded 22 rifle found in Montagu's bedroom.
They said they released him after questioning. 
    Alexander Montagu, a former Geelong Grammar School student, denied all knowledge
of the incident.  He said he was working as "bar manager" at Lazar's restaurant in Melbourne at the time of the incident.  
     Montagu also denied he had been taken to Prahram police station."



Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Laura should actually read this site and let it sink in.

 Actually, Laura, it is most likely Alex was in custody on June 5, 1985.  If you take the time to look at the Time Line you will see the flow of events more clearly.  They probably had decided he was a flight risk.  Here is the full rekeyed text in its original location.

From the Time Line.
1985 
          
June 
                 
5 Angus Charles Drogo Montagu succeeded to the title of 12th Duke of 
                  
Manchester upon the death of his brother, Sidney Arthur Robin George Drogo
                  
Montagu, 11th Duke of Manchester.  Alexander, his oldest son, succeeded to the 
                  
title, Viscount Mandeville
                    
ARTICLE -  by Ian Livingstone Mary and Alexander:  It's a title fight 

          
August 
                  14 - Alexander, Viscount of Mandeville, is sentenced to jail
            
                           From The Age -"Duke's heir weeps in dock "

                           From The Sun, "Tears as heir, 22, gets jail"


And from the article this is Laura's translation: 
1985 
           June 
                  5 -  Angus Charles Drogo Montagu succeeded to the title of 12th Duke of 
                   Manchester upon the death of his brother, Sidney Arthur Robin George Drogo
                   Montagu, 11th Duke of Manchester.  Alexander, his oldest son, succeeded to the 
                   title, Viscount Mandeville
                     ARTICLE -  by Ian Livingstone Mary and Alexander:  It's a title fight 

           August 
                  14 - Alexander, Viscount of Mandeville, is sentenced to jail
            
                           From The Age -"Duke's heir weeps in dock "
                           From The Sun, "Tears as heir, 22, gets jail"
- See more at: http://www.thedukeanddoxieofmanchester.info/p/time-line.html#sthash.TBJaykXi.dpuf

Thursday, October 13, 2011

MARY MCCLURE, KIMBOL MONTAGU, ALEXANDERS YOUNGER BROTHER. WANTING THE DUKE TITLE, THE 13TH DUKE OF MANCHESTERS FAMILY CHEERING THE DEATH OF THERE GRANDFATHER. CHAMPAGNE AND ALL! WHERE WAS THE REAL HEIR THE 13TH DUKE OF MANCHESTER? ODD MAN OUT? THE TRUE HEIR ALEXANDER MONTAGU MANCHESTER,.HIS MOTHER LADY MARY MONTAGU WAS NOT THE DUCHESS SHE WAS DIVORCED FROM ANGUS MONTAGU,THE 12TH DUKE. WHAT ESTATE FORTUNE WERE THEY WAITING FOR? THE13TH DUKE WAS THE ONLY REAL HEIR TO ANYTHING.THEY ALL GET A MONTHLY ALLOWANCE. NONE OF THEM HAS DONE DNA EXCEPT THE TRUE HEIR THE 13TH DUKE OF MANCHESTER ALEXANDER MONTAGU MANCHESTER, THIS PHOTO NEED TO BE ENLARGED THE ARTICLE IS SHOCKING CHEERING A FAMILY MEMBERS DEATH!


The original is unreadable when placed online but is below this rekeyed reproduction.
In the article below Lady Mary Montagu claims to have succeeded to the title of duchess, absurd since she was divorced from the  her husband, who did succeed to the title of duke at the death of his brother, the 11th duke.
Most civilized people do not celebrate when close relatives die, or if they do their toasts are at least kept private. 
The quotes from Lady Mary should be closely considered along with the scarce mention of her eldest son, Alexander, who was next in line to the dukedom. 
 
Now Lady Mary is our first duchess
Sunday June 5, 1985
by Lex Lopez
AUSTRALIA'S newest and only duchess – Mary, the Duchess of Manchester (formerly Lady Mary Montagu) – was sipping champagne last night.
It has taken me 30 years to educate taxi drivers that I'm really Lady Montagu....now they are going to think I'm a pub.” she said.
The duchess has just learned she had become the 12th Duchess of Manchester, following the death from a heart attack of the 11th duke in the U.S.
Because the 11th duke was childless, my ex-husband (Lord Angus Montagu) has inherited the title as the 12th duke,” the duchess said.
So now my children, as his only heirs, will inherit from him.”
The inheritance involves estates in Britain, the U.S. And Africa and is estimated to be woth several million dollars.
“For me it's a funny feeling,” the duchess said. “For my children, it will mean they are going to have more than Susan Sangster got from her husband. When the 11th duke was in Australia a few years ago he was quoted as saying that he was down to his last four castles.”
The former Lady Mary has inherited the title of duchess through her marriage to Lord Angus Montagu.
In 1961, the marriage of the daughter of a Geelong second-hand car dealer with the British blueblood was the social event of the season.
But the couple were divorced in 1970 after a five year separation.
As heirs to the 12th duke – whose motto is “By changing me, not disposing of me” - the duchess's three children will also have claims to titles.
The eldest, Alexander, 22, becomes a Viscount; Kimble, 21, a peer; and daughter Emma, 20, a lady.
The duchess said the Manchester dukedom with its seat, Kimbolton Castle in East Anglia, was one of the oldest in Britain – predating the Doomsday Book.
Under the British protocol system, the new Duchess of Manchester will outrank the Governor General. Sir Ninian Stephen - “When the Queen is in Australia.” The inheritance also involved 20 other titles, the Duchess said.u
“To me it can't make much difference,” she said. “There was a day when it was exciting to be 23 and have a title – and to flaunt it.”
“Now I feel that I have earned it, even if only as a debt from the duke's family for raising my three little aristrocrats.”
The duchess said two of her children, Lord Kimble and Lady Emma, will go to the late
The original is unreadable when placed online but is below this rekeyed reproduction.
In the article below Lady Mary Montagu claims to have succeeded to the title of duchess, absurd since she was divorced from the  her husband, who did succeed to the title of duke at the death of his brother, the 11th duke.
Most civilized people do not celebrate when close relatives die, or if they do their toasts are at least kept private. 
The quotes from Lady Mary should be closely considered along with the scarce mention of her eldest son, Alexander, who was next in line to the dukedom. 
 

Laura wants the Trustees charged with breach of trust. Film at 11.

 Laura has really been going to town with the posts on her site.  There is the one below, on February 9, 2016 and one she copied from this site.  I am the uncredited person who rekeyed the article, which will be posted here in a few minutes.  

Below Laura is, again, worried about where the money went.  You would think living with Alex for this long would have answered any questions she had.

 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

When will a person who assists a trustee to commit a breach of trust be liable as a constructive trustee

 

218 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50 (2) When will a recipient of trust property transferred in breach of trust be liable as a constructive trustee? At least two possible types of claim may lie against such a recipient.8 If the property is still in the recipient’s hands in a traceable form, the claimant may bring an in rem tracing claim enforceable by means of a lien. Such a claim will fail if the recipient was a bona fide purchaser without notice, or if the property has become untraceable. Whether or not such a claim will lie, the recipient may be liable in the alternative to an in personam claim as a constructive trustee on the grounds of knowing r e ~ e i p t . ~ The point of contention is whether constructive notice or actual knowledge on the part of the recipient is necessary before liability will be imposed.’O On this point, the three cases are not unanimous. Re Montagu’s Settlements In 1923, Viscount Mandeville, who was entitled in remainder to a large collection of chattels (in which his father, the 9th Duke of Manchester, had a life interest), assigned his interest to two trustees. Under the terms of the trust, the trustees were, on the death of the 9th Duke, to select such of the chattels as they in their absolute discretion thought fit, for inclusion in a settlement. Those chattels would be held on the same trusts as the lands to which Viscount Mandeville would become entitled on the death of his father. Any chattels not so selected were to be held for Viscount Mandeville absolutely. The 9th Duke died in 1947 and Viscount Mandeville succeeded to the Dukedom. By then both the trustees and the 10th Duke’s solicitor had forgotten the precise terms of the 1923 settlement. No selection of chattels was ever made, and all parties assumed in good faith that the 10th Duke was entitled to them absolutely. Many were sold by him in 1949, and the rest shipped to Kenya where the Duke had taken up ~~~ ~~ * There is a third possibility. Should a personal representative pay money from the estate to someone not entitled to it. any next of kin, legatee or creditor of the estate may bring an in personam claim to recover that payment from the recipient: Ministry of Health v. Simpson (19511 A.C. 251. A claim of this kind was pleaded both in Re Montagu and in Lipkin Gorman. In each case, it was doubted whether such a claim lay in respect of dispositions made by a trustee of an inter viwos trust. In the former, the claim was stood over, and in the latter dismissed, because the plaintiff had not pursued his claim against the defaulting trustee first. MAR.19871 NOTES OF CASES 219 220 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50 the trustees. Even if the doctrine of imputed notice did apply, the Duke would not thereby have been fixed with notice.’] Two themes underpin Megarry V.-C.’s judgment. The first is a unitary view of the basis of liability as a constructive trustee for intermeddling. All forms of such liability depend upon there being some “want of probity” on the part of the alleged trustee. This view derives from certain passages in Carl Zeiss Srifrung v. Herbert Smirh & Co. (No.2).12The second theme is that the concept of notice with its overtones of being put upon inquiry had no place where a donee rather than a purchaser was involved. Megarry V.-C. laid great stress on a passage in Re DiplockI3 to this effect. These two distinct points are interwoven and treated as one in the judgment. With some diffidence, it is suggested that although the result of the case is plainly correct, the reasoning is open to doubt: (i) Historically, liability for knowing receipt grew up inextricably with the in rem liability to a tracing claim with no differentiation between the threshold of knowledge that was required for each.14 (ii) There is some authority that imputed notice will suffice for liability for knowing re~eipt,’a~nd a number of decisions where a wholly honest recipient of trust property has been held liable as a constructive trustee because of a failure to make inquiries or to draw inferences from facts.I6 John v. Dodwell and Company, Lrd.17 is a case in point. The respondents’ manager drew cheques on their account to pay for shares which he had purchased for himself from the appellant broking firm. The appellants then paid over the moneys so received (after deduction of commission) to the sellers. The appellants received the payments honestly but with notice from the face of the cheques that the moneys did not belong to the manager. The Privy Council held the Megarry V.-C. found that the Duke had notice of the terms of the 1923 settlement. It does not follow that the Duke had notice that a breach of trust had been committed. l2 (19691 2 Ch. 276, 298, Sachs L.J.; 301, Edmund Davies L.J.-cf. Danckwerts L.J. at p.290. In both judgments in Re Monragu, Megarry V.-C. expressed the view obiter that constructive notice would not suffice for liability for knowing assistance. I’ (19481 Ch. 465, 478-479. I‘ Hill v. Simpson (1802) 7 Ves. 152 and M’Leod v. Drummond (1810) 17 Ves. 152, both tracing cases, were influential in the early evolution of knowing receipt; see, e.g., Keane v. Robarts (1819) 4 Madd. 332, and Wilson v. Moore (1834) 1 My. & K. 337. Is Midgley v. Midgley [1893] 3 Ch. 282, 303-304, Lopes L.J.; John v. Dodwell and Co. Lid. [1918] A.C. 563, 569, Viscount Haldane. l6 Bryson v. The Warwick and Birmingham Canal Company (1853) 4 De G.M. & G. 711; Mayor and Corporation of Berwick v. Murray (1856) 26 L.J.Ch. 201; Gray v. Lewis (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 526; Reckilt v. Barnerr, Pembroke and Slarer, Lrd. (19291 A.C. 176; Belmonr Finance Corporation Lrd. v. Williams Furniture Lid. (No.2) (198Ol 1 All E.R. 393; and Nelson v. Larholt [1948] 1 K.B. 339 (a case of wilful shutting of eyes?). See too Rolled Sreel Products (Holdings) Ltd. v. Brirish Sreel Corporation (19863 Ch. 246, 298, Slade L.J.; 303, Browne-Wilkinson L.J. I’ [1918]

Laura pops up again defending her man, or expressing hunger for the assets.

And again Laura demonstrates her literacy in defense of the assets which originally attracted her to Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester.  At this point everyone associated with Alex knows he is a convicted felon, tried to murder his first wife, and squanders every penny he can get his hands on.

When I was working for the Ducal Couple Laura's inability to scan anything correctly drove me crazy, and here it is again.  

The letter referred to below was written while he was still sofa surfing and before he had conned Wendy into her life.  We can all hope Laura is enjoying her more stable life in Los Angeles. 


Monday, February 8, 2016

As you can read below, The 13th Duke of Manchester in 1992 was still asking about his inheritance from his Grandfather the Tenth Duke of Manchester, AND about the sale of the painting of Henry Vlll, TRUSTEE, Thomas Gilcrist Jr sent the Will to his mother LADY MARY MONTAGU ? Why? Please do explain why you send private information to a Mother you do not speak to or like? He was 32 years old not a child and had been on his own for years. THOMAS GILCHRIST JR HAD NO RIGHTS TO SEND THIS PRIVATE INFORMATION AND WILL TO A MOTHER WHO CLEARLY HAD NOT THE BEST INTEREST FOR HER SON. LADY MARY MONTAGU ( Geelong AUSTRALIA) AS A MOTHER KNEW HER SON ALEXANDER MONTAGU HER FIRST BORN SON WAS TO RECEIVE BILLIONS AT THE AGE OF 21 years old. HIS MOTHER Lady Mary did nothing to help her young son or get him a Lawyer as he was to receive his inheritance. SHE JUST STOOD BY AND DID DEALS BEHIND HER SONS BACK.