Auckland Museum and the Hillary bequest #3
Interestingly enough on looking at the Your Views thread at the NZ Herald a number of the more recent comments seem to be more measured and less favourable towards the Hillary children. Though there is still a heavy preponderance of those who would ignore any rights the Museum might have, as St Edmund must have meant what the children say.
This is one recent sample:-
The behaviour of Sir Ed’s children is appalling! Sir Ed bequesthed his papers etc to the museum – the museum therefore has ownership pure and simple. A stipulation attached to the bequest is that the museum allow his children access to these items and the right to publish excerpts if they wish.
This stipulation would hardly be necessary, or even logical, if it was not intended that these items be the property of the museum. If Sir Ed had wanted his children to have ownership of these papers he would have bequested them to his children and left it to them to contribute to the museum as they saw fit. He didn’t. Get over it!
A number of comments have moved on from attacking Dr Vitali to attacking the Communications Adviser.
However there are still plenty who take the view that legal rights and process do not matter, viz this example:-
The museum has the right tools to keep the items ‘crisp’ that’s why, probably, Sir Ed entrusted them these things. What is in the will are just legal technicalities which can be circumvented with moral understanding and common sense.
So the museum should conserve the items, house and pay for their upkeep and the Hillary family should get any money. Oh and never mind the law just circumvent it. Adam was especially taken by the use of the words ‘moral understanding’ in this code for ignore the fact these items were bequeathed to the musuem. In addition we can see the impact of Annette King here, as the writer invokes the ‘common sense’ argument.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
The museum is handling this badly, as their letter to the Herald shows.
It appears that Sir Ed did intend his children to be involved in the ‘legacy’ for at least 20 years (i may have the exact time length wrong) after his death so thing are not so clear cut.
If it’s shown that the Hillary children are after money the public support will vanish. At the moment it appears as if the Museum is being money grubbing. I say appears, because so far they have done nothing to dispel what may be an incorrect assumption.
The museum may in fact be perfectly right, but they’re handling of something that any sane publicist in NZ would know as a sensitive issue is lacking.
I think aspects of the Museum’s handling have been poor. At the same time the media, especially the Herald appear to have been stoking the fires somewhat.
Indeed if you look at my most recent post on this
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/auckland-hillary-bequest-4/
you will see the points Bill Ralston has made.
IN one of their earliest articles the Herald did state that the will said:-
The museum is not denying the children access as I understand it. Further, I do not think they quarrel from what I have heard on the news or read in the media with the children’s right of approval of publication.
The children as I understand it are disputing that the museum has any rights of ownership, especially as regards intellectual property. I would submit that the children may not have the case that the populist press and comment thinks they have.
Indeed why would the museum take on all the costs of conservation if they did not have some rights?
Interestingly how our friends from the left always know how to rely on black letter law when it serves their purpose, and quickly revert to ‘moral understanding’ and ‘common sense’ where the results of clear legal application are not to their liking.
As one who has recently settled the estate of a curmudgeonly spinster who left one nephew high and dry in her will I can assure all the squarkers that no matter what, no-one can change the terms of a will unless alegitimate child of the deceased can show unfair treatment.
I think they will struggle and should give up this unseemly display of selfishness.
The Museum is absolutely correct – legally and morally.
Unfortunately Adolf, the Hillary children, aided and abetted by the Herald, have used the media and the rent a crowd comments at the Herald and on radio to seek to create pressure on the Museum.
The comments of those supporting the Hillary family are in many cases tantamount to expropriating any rights the museum has.
The Herald has stoked a mob.