James Goldsmith was not a good and true friend of the late Lord Lucan.
The 7th Earl was little more than a casino acquaintance and I quote
Taki Theodoracopulos who wrote in the Sunday Times, "Goldsmith
was not particularly fond of (John) Lucan."
John Aspinall was not one of the late
Lord Lucan's best friends. Both Sir James Goldsmith and John Aspinall
have supported my version of events - namely that my late husband murdered
Mrs. Rivett by mistake instead of me and shortly afterwards committed
suicide. They did not want their integrity damaged by a murderer.
The Trustees were assisted in dealing
with the 7th Earl's financial affairs on 11th December 1992 when he
was presumed deceased in chambers. (See Who's Who 2000 and 2001). The
much delayed granting of probate was nothing to do with me and was brought
about by the executor of the free estate.
No death certificate can ever be issued
if there is no body. If ever his remains are discovered a death certificate
will be issued.
The late Lord Lucan was living apart
from me in our mews cottage at No 5 Eaton Row which is behind No 5 Eaton
Square. He then moved to 72a Elizabeth Street, a seven minute walk away.
The killer of Mrs. Sandra Rivett does
not remain unknown. The inquest jury of the Coroner's Court in June
1975 named the 7th Earl as the murderer of Mrs. Sandra Rivett. They
were the last inquest jury to name anyone as a murderer. The right was
abolished in 1977 (Criminal Law Act). Their unanimous verdict was "MURDER
BY LORD LUCAN". An application to have the legislation retrospectively
applied was refused in 1978.
In late 1998 my son applied for a writ
of summons to take his father's Seat in the House of Lords but this
was not authorised by the Lord Chancellor.
He did not apply to use his father's
title. He automatically became 8th Earl of Lucan when his father was
presumed deceased in 1992 but chose not to use the title. No one else
has a claim to it. He is the 7th Earl of Lucan's only son and heir.
Probate was granted on 11th August
1999 in the same way it is for anyone who has made a Will. The Grant
issued by the High Court of Justice read:
BE IT KNOWN that the Right Honourable
RICHARD JOHN BINGHAM 7th Earl of Lucan of 72a Elizabeth Street London
SW1 died on or since the 8th day of November 1974. (The net value of
his estate amounted to £14,709.)
In legal documents the 7th Earl is
referred to as my "late husband" and I am referred to as his "lawful
If I had wished to remarry after seven
years had elapsed following my late husband's disappearance, I could
have sought a decree of presumption of death although this would not
have been in the best interests of my family.
No informed people believe the 7th
Earl to be alive. One ex-police officer has written a book and was in
contact with Charles Benson of The Express who duly reported
in a piece written by himself in 1994 that the ex-police officer had
confided to him that he actually believed the 7th Earl to be dead but
it made a better story to believe him to be still alive!
The sworn statement of Mr. Arthur Whitehouse
(the assistant manager of the pub) at the inquest on Mrs. Sandra Rivett
shows that I did not burst into the Plumber's Arms "screaming".
The extraordinary behaviour of my blood
relations in supporting a belief in my late husband's innocence and
attempting to cast doubt on my sworn evidence and somehow portraying
me as the offending party has been confirmed to me by members of the
media who have interviewed them.
It was, however, to be expected that
my late husband's rather uncivilised blood relations would make futile
attempts to clear his name.
Mrs. Sandra Rivett had only been with
me for eight weeks before she was murdered. She was a kind, loyal and
dignified woman. Although we were on formal terms she confided to me
her negative views on her family with the exception of her mother.
Surprise has been expressed that Mrs.
Rivett went downstairs to the basement kitchen to make tea, when it
has been said there was every facility to make tea upstairs. However,
the Baby Belling cooker and refrigerator on the nursery floor were both
disconnected and had not been in use for several months.
At Mrs. Rivett's inquest I wore a hat because of
my rank as a Peeress of the Realm and I wore the same outfit on each
of the four days it lasted as it is vulgar to use a tragic and grave
matter such as an inquest as an opportunity to display one's wardrobe.
My late husband made his first Will
a few days before our marriage in November 1963 and it turned out to
be his last as well. Surprise has been expressed that he never updated
his Will or added a codicil after the birth of our children.
He was a heavily addicted gambler (not
an adulterer).His affairs were always chaotic,
he rarely paid bills without many reminders, seldom bothered with insurance
("If you need insurance you can't afford it and if you can afford it
you don't need insurance") …In any event, he wasn't expecting his own
imminent death, he was expecting it would be me who died!
I have publicly stated since 1987 that
my late husband is not alive and I sometimes use the prefix 'dowager'
to make my position clear which is that of a widow.
During 1978, I was horrifically and
medically abused with steroids in combination with benzodiazepines (tranquillisers).
I complained to the police and this was reported
in the press. The matter was investigated and my claim was found to
be substantiated but a decision was made that it was "not in the public
interest" to prosecute.
I received an affidavit
sent through the post dated 20th October 1982 while my three children
were all at boarding school in which my fifteen year old son declared
that he would find it "much more congenial to live as part of the family
of his uncle and aunt". I did not attend the Hearing on Friday 22nd
October 1982 and I did not apply for access either.
My children, all
in their thirties seem quite unaware that there is a young man about
their ages who has not had a quarter of the advantages they have enjoyed
and who now has to read how well the children of the man who murdered
his mother have done. It's an outrage!
Academic success without the
development of a good character is sterile.
My now married daughter
announced her engagement in The Times as "younger daughter
of the 7th Earl of Lucan wheresoever and the Countess of Lucan" although
she knew that her father had been presumed deceased in December 1992.
This piece of bad
manners was followed a few months later by yet more as she failed to
invite me to her wedding held at a church a stone's throw from my house
in Eaton Row. The press were told and when I walked past the church
which I had to do - they rushed out saying "Lady Lucan, Lady Lucan,
it's your daughter" (Sour grapes!)
Aristocrats attempt to bring up their
children to have good manners and to behave honourably with the knowledge
that privilege entails responsibility.
I hope that I have clarified some of
the points which have been raised over the years but if there are any
further questions email: email@example.com
here for a view of personal
photographs of Lord and Lady Lucan