Auckland Museum and the Hillary Bequest #4

Bill Ralston in his Media Scrum blog looks at the Auckland Museum/Hillary children spat in a much more considered way than either the Herald, or indeed the Fairfax stable so far.

Ralston surveys the issue and writes, amongst other things the following:-

We have the children of New Zealand’s greatest hero threatening legal action against the Auckland Museum, which itself is a frequent target of criticism in the media. Also, although it is not entirely clear in the original story, it seems it is only Peter and Sarah Hillary who are arguing for control of their dead father’s memorabilia. There is no mention of the position on the will taken by their stepmother, Sir Edmund’s widow, June. This raises the question of whether there is a rift in the family over this particular issue.

The museum is likely to get a thrashing in the media because it has more than its fair share of cultural critics who intensely dislike the new more user friendly direction it has taken. There is nothing nastier than a feud in the arts world and I would expect the critics to leap at the opportunity to attack the museum’s director, Vanda Vitali, who has aroused their ire.

I suspect the museum is caught in a nasty bind. It has the prospect of a looming court case and will have to watch what it says. It also cannot be seen to be attacking Sir Ed’s kids or getting caught up in Hillary family issues. It also has to be seen to respect Sir Ed’s wishes for his papers and gear.

At the same time it has an Elgin Marbles type of problem. Yes, Peter and Sarah are right, some of the stuff held by the museum is their shared family heritage which they “own”, as all families “own” their photo albums and memorabilia. The problem here is if the museum hands over formal control of the bequest to the children, what other treasures that it holds may then become subject to ownership issues from descendants of the original owners?

Ralston raises some good points. He notes how nasty cultural arguments can be and suggests that given the power of the Hillary name, the museum is on a hiding to nothing.

This ties in with Adam’s view as expressed in his several posts from post#1,through post #2 and post #3 on this topic.

As Ralston concludes:-

I have long been a great supporter of the museum and I fear it is about to become media carrion, again.

Therein lies the problem. People in the main side with the Hillary children and attack the museum. No regard is given to the fact that the museum has rights and obligations, nor to the fact that Sir Ed did bequeath these things to the museum. Indeed, it might be asked why did he choose to leave them to the museum rather than his children. If he had intended for his children to have ownership and the intellectual property rights why did he not do so in his will?

Advertisement