XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <1153729555.806139.101710@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,   
   volcaran  writes   
      
   >banana wrote:   
   >> In article <1153695696.597741.162590@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> volcaran  writes   
   >>   
   >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> In article <1153616888.923154.199500@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> >> volcaran  writes   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> >> In article <1153607569.670805.181830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,   
   >> >> >> volcaran  writes   
   >> >> >> >banana wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> In article <44c1c78f$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, mikey D   
   >> >> >> >>  writes   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> >> >I am not quite sure what the false premise being   
   >> >> >suggested is here.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> The suggestion is that there was never any suggestion that the body   
   >> >> would be buried at Windsor.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Therefore John Burton's (alleged) belief to the contrary, which would   
   >> >> (arguably) have been grounds for him taking jurisdiction as 'royal'   
   >> >> coroner if it were true, was false.   
   >>   
   >> >As I said, at the time the body was returned to the UK there was no   
   >> >suggestion that she would be buried elsewhere.   
   >>   
   >> How do you know?   
   >   
   >How do you know there was?   
      
   The question is whether or not there were grounds to believe the burial   
   would take place at Windsor. According to the government, "there is no   
   evidence to support Dr Burton's understanding" that there were such   
   grounds.   
      
   I would go further and point out that there is no published evidence   
   which supports the view that "Dr" Burton ever had such an   
   "understanding" in the first place.   
      
   Presumably no such evidence was furnished in response to the FOIA   
   request either, so all we have is an official's statement that Burton   
   believed such-and-such.   
      
   Obviously such a reason was dreamt up to 'justify' the 'royal' coroner's   
   involvement.   
      
   Equally obviously, the reason for that involvement was because of   
   'royal' family dictat.   
      
   >> Are you aware of any suggestion that she would be   
   >> buried at Windsor?   
   >   
   >Are you aware of any that she wouldn't, at the time?   
   >   
   >> One hardly has to prove a negative in order to show   
   >> that Burton's alleged belied was either non-existent or groundless.   
   >   
   >Why groundless? He presumably had been advised that the body was to be   
   >taken to St James's Palace.   
      
   Irrelevant. And even if it was relevant, then by the same token he   
   should have put his 'West London' hat back on later.   
      
   >Unless there was an express statement " Oh   
   >and by the way she will be buried in ............." , why do you find   
   >it so difficult to believe that he should think he was dealing with a   
   >matter deserving of his role as Royal Coroner.  It seems to me that   
   >much is being made of the fact he had jurisdiction both as West London   
   >coroner and Royal Coroner. Perhaps the nature of communications would   
   >be clearer if there were two separate individuals had been involved and   
   >whoever made the arrangements for the return (Home Office? Foreign   
   >Office?) had had to contact both.   
      
   Or maybe if his auntie was his uncle?   
      
   >> >As the mother of a   
   >> >future monarch I don't see why it was unreasonable to believe a burial   
   >> >would be in Windsor.   
   >>   
   >> Do you think that would stand up in court?   
   >   
   >I don't see that it has to. The Circular sets out general guidelines. I   
   >can't see anywhere in the Act or the guidelines where it says that if   
   >there is an incorrect assumption as to jurisdiction with a death abroad   
   >that it is required that the coroner making the incorrect assumption   
   >must immediately pass control of an inquest to another coroner.  Of   
   >course a coroner might decide that another should deal with the matter   
   >(Section 14) but I can't see a requirement that they do so.   
      
   Why should a coroner who took jurisdiction under a false premise keep   
   that jurisdiction? And let us recall that statutory procedures are   
   different for procedures at inquests presided over by the 'royal'   
   coroner, so it is not just a question of one district versus another   
   district, e.g. West London versus Surrey. Can you imagine reading a law   
   report saying the reasons he should keep the jurisdiction are X, Y, and   
   Z? I can't. I imagine that whoever took the decision to boot him off the   
   case couldn't either.   
      
      
      
   >I still can't see your "strong grounds". The whole of the Act is silent   
   >on the day to day practice and procedures for deaths abroad hence the   
   >introduction of the Home Office guidelines.   
      
   Wrong. The Act postdates the guidelines by 5 years.   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)