Said it before, saying it again. Originally published
Saturday, March 31, 2012
After a while it becomes clear to everyone Alexander, 13th Duke of Manchester lies. He ignores the fact his lies are routinely exposed. This is his nature. We must give thanks he is not smarter.
Marion Stoner, First Marriage of Alexander Duke of Manchester
Marriage of Alexander Montagu to Marion Stoner Marriage Certificate
March 17, 1984
Married from her mother's home, the wedding taking place in their garden.
Marion
Stoner was a model, aged 32, when in November of 1983, she met
Alexander Montagu. The couple were married on March 17th of the next
year.
Stoner had been in a relationship and had two children but never married.
Due
to violence and abuse by Alexander Marion Montagu left Alexander on May
21, 1984 and filed for legal separation. See Application for
Separation
Ms.
Stoner reported in the application for separation having, "lived in a
defacto relationship with Con Sorensen for twelve years." The documents
also says the two children were Lisa Marie, born December 5, 1969, and
Daniel Frederick Sorensen, born July 10, 1973.
Immediately
following the wedding, Marion reports that her husband became extremely
hostile toward the children. This escalated until on May 12th
Alexander walked into the living room where Lisa Marie was watching
television, grabbed and choked the girl, who was handicapped. He
carried her to the front door, and threw her down the stairs, locking
the door.
The
report, in five pages of narrative, given under penalty of perjury,
outlines a series of assaults ending with an attack on Marion with a
spear gun. In her own words, this is what took place after she had
already endured barrages of violence and the assault on her children.
After filing for separation she never saw him again and never used the title, Lady Montagu.
"11. On another occasion on or about the 20th day of May, 1984 when my girlfriend AMANDA LEE RICHARDS was present in my home having tea an argument occurred between the respondent and myself about my daughter Lisa Marie and his treatment of her and the respondent came in from the kitchen and hit me across the left side of the face with his open hand but with a great deal of force. I was stunned by the force of the blow and thereafter suffered considerable pain as the blow caused painful bruising to my eye. Immediately after my husband had assaulted me he then went to the broom cupboard in the home and removed a spear gun and loaded a spear into it, came into the room where Mandy Richardson and I were standing and took aim and fired the speargun at me. The speargun missed my by approximately a foot but only missed my girlfriend's head by approximately half an inch.
12. As a result of the respondent's assault upon me and my fear for my ownsafety and that of my two children I immediately made arrangements to leave the matrimonial home and I left the home on the day thereafter taking with me such furniture and possessions as I had previously acquired prior to the marriage.
13. I verily believe that the respondent slashed his wrists with raor blades and was admitted to Dandenong and then to Pine Lodge Psychiatric Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for approximately four weeks.
14. Thereafter I resided with a number of my friends and endeavored to keep away from the respondent and not let him become aware of my address. When the respondent was unable to locate me I verily believe from my mother Mrs. Maria Stoner who resides in Cranbourne and sister Gabi Byng that the respondent telephoned them both constantly on a daily basis endeavoring to locate my whereabouts. In addition, I am informed by my mother and my sister that the respondent drove his motor vehicle up and down the street in which they reside attempting to terrorise them and that he called at their homes and knocked on the door and tried to gain admission into their homes.
15. Due to the fear that I had for my own safety and that of my children I went to reside with friends of mine in Essondon so that the respondent would be unable to threaten or assault me.
16. In September school holidays, I returned to Cranbourne to reside with my mother at 22 Mundering Drive, Cranbourne. I know, due to the fact that I have seen respondent driving his motor cycle and car up and down the street that the respondent is still trying to locate me and I am fearful for my safety in view of the respondent's irrational behavior."
Alexander was incarcerated, first in the psychiatric facility mentioned. The assault resulted in a conviction in the Dandenong Magistrate's Court on the 13th day of August, 1984 for two counts of assault with a weapon. He was placed on probation for a period of twenlve months with the direction he undergo psychiatric treatment.
He would soon be standing trial for credit card fraud and passing bad checks.
It is yet to be discovered if the attorney who represented him in those instances was the same gentleman who stood by him, intervening during the Siege of Montagu-Manchester. This part of the story never made it to the newspapers but is to be found in the transcript of September 6, 1984, Montagu vs. Montagu.
The story begins to unfold on page 4 with a question posed to Mr. Conquest, solicitor for Mrs. Montagu regarding the serving of the anticipated ex parte order by Judge Mrs. Lusink.
"....I'm worrying the effect of having an ex parte order served on the husband if he is psychiatrically disturbed, and I was wondering whether we could get the help of the psychiatrist for the time of the service of the ex parte order. Taking, you know, that I would be satisfied that an order should be made."
Mr. Conquest responded, "Sorry, I do not quite follow what your honor has got in mind there."
Verbatim from the transcript below:
HER HONOR: What I have in mind is this: here we have got a man who is under psychiatric treatment; he has been charged, and I mean, and he was found guilty, we he not, of assault?
MR. CONQUEST: Indeed, your Honor, yes.
HER HONOUR: That is right. On somebody else. But he is a man who is clearly disturbed. Now, taking that I am prepared to make the ex parte order ---
MR. CONQUEST: Yes.
HER HONOUR: ----bit alarmed at his --what is reaction might be.
MR. CONQUEST: So am I, your Honor, that is the reason why I am here, but I would happy, your Honour, to arrange -- to ascertain --I do know who the solicitor who has from time to time acted from - on behalf of the husband. In fact, the affidavit - the co-operative affidavit is made by Miss Richards, who was in fact employed by that solicitor.
HER HONOUR: Is this locally too?
MR. CONQUEST: That solicitor is in Cranbourne.
Judge Lisink and Mr. Conquest edge into their concern the respondent might learn of his wife's whereabouts through the solicitor then acting for him. They consider this and the ugly possibilities of what will happen the moment the respondent is served with papers. The Judge is inclined to worry about ensuring Montagu's rights as a respondent are respected. Mr. Conquest's concern is for what might happen to his client, Mrs. Montagu, when the papers are handed over. A strong wish to hear from the defendant's solicitor is expressed and matters are briefly tabled so he can be brought into court.
ZOLTAN VARSZEGHY, solicitor for Montagu, is sworn in. He affirms he is a solicitor with the Supreme Court of Victoria and this court, giving his address and other essential information. He states he has been representing Mr. Montagu for eight months, handling a number of matters.
Then Judge Lisink asks, "Were you aboe to form any opinion albiet not as an expert medical pinion, as to the respondent's behavioural attitudes." We learn Zoltan Varszeghy is well versed in the respondent's ways.
"I believe that this gentleman is probably the most dangerous client I have ever dealt with in seven years. He is totally unreliable in relation to his attitude. He has got streaks that at times come out of him where he does not appear to be himself or he does not appear to be on the same level of thinking as what I would class an ordinary person. He has acted quite irrationally on a number of occasions, and the most dramatic being when he locked himself in his home, virtually sieged his home - I forget the name of the street - it was in Cranbourne, and unfortunately a police siege ensued. I volunteers to try to assist the police to bring him out of the home and during this time he slashed his wrists. He had already slashed them prior to me being there, but he kept cutting himself open in the wrists. He pointed a spear gun at a police officer who attended to ask him to vacate the premises decently.
HER HONOUR: Was that the basis of the subsequent charge, Mr. Varszeghy?
MR. CONQUEST: No. your Honour, it was another one.
HER HONOUR: No, it was not? - - - No, your Honour. This was just an incident where -- -
A few incidents with a spear gun? yes---He - I think if I can give you a history of this, I may be able to bring some understanding of this gentleman. He, as a result of that assault on this police officer - the police officer is presently on sick leave. I hve spoken to him. It is one of the main reasons that this gentleman is on sick leave. He is nervous wreck. I, myself, wasin there with him for three hours, at time with a spear gun pointed at me, at times with a policeman purring some pressure on. It was quite a horrendous experience. The police subsequently did apprehend him in the home. He came out and he was apprehended. He was taken to the Dandenong Psychiatric Clinic, and just, was just checked out the next day. I then voluntarily took him back to the clinic with police escort, unbeknown to him. I told him that it was essential that he return to the clinic. They would not have him. The doctor refused to allow me to check him in.
Would that be Mr. Williamson? -- No. This was a gentleman at the - this Dr. Williamson was wonderful man. I then took him voluntarily to the Pine Lodge Clinic.
I see?---And Dr. Williamson attended him there. Dr. Williamson has in fact toldme that he has psychopathic tendencies.
As more details were shared with the court by Montagu's solicitor any objection to an ex parte order ceased. Instead, the need for instant action on the part of the police, should it become necessary, became the focus of the discussion.
Alexander Montagu served a year for 29 counts of assault, credit card fraud and passing bad checks, but that was only part of the story.
After filing for separation she never saw him again and never used the title, Lady Montagu.
August 31, 1984 - Application for Separation
September 5, 1984 - Request for Restraining Order
September 6, 1984 - Letter to Alexander, informing him of the ex parte hearing.
September 6, 1984 - Transcript of Proceedings
September 19, 1964 - Court Order extending previous order of court, made September 6th,
until 2nd of October.
October 2, 1984 - Court Order October 2, 1984 Alexander is restrained from molesting,
assaulting, abusing, intimidating, harassing or in any way interfering
with the wife.
The Application for Separation brings the words a terrified woman to life after a silence of decades. It took no time for the court, which heard the case for a restraining order ex parte, to act.
"11. On another occasion on or about the 20th day of May, 1984 when my girlfriend AMANDA LEE RICHARDS was present in my home having tea an argument occurred between the respondent and myself about my daughter Lisa Marie and his treatment of her and the respondent came in from the kitchen and hit me across the left side of the face with his open hand but with a great deal of force. I was stunned by the force of the blow and thereafter suffered considerable pain as the blow caused painful bruising to my eye. Immediately after my husband had assaulted me he then went to the broom cupboard in the home and removed a spear gun and loaded a spear into it, came into the room where Mandy Richardson and I were standing and took aim and fired the speargun at me. The speargun missed my by approximately a foot but only missed my girlfriend's head by approximately half an inch.
12. As a result of the respondent's assault upon me and my fear for my ownsafety and that of my two children I immediately made arrangements to leave the matrimonial home and I left the home on the day thereafter taking with me such furniture and possessions as I had previously acquired prior to the marriage.
13. I verily believe that the respondent slashed his wrists with raor blades and was admitted to Dandenong and then to Pine Lodge Psychiatric Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for approximately four weeks.
14. Thereafter I resided with a number of my friends and endeavored to keep away from the respondent and not let him become aware of my address. When the respondent was unable to locate me I verily believe from my mother Mrs. Maria Stoner who resides in Cranbourne and sister Gabi Byng that the respondent telephoned them both constantly on a daily basis endeavoring to locate my whereabouts. In addition, I am informed by my mother and my sister that the respondent drove his motor vehicle up and down the street in which they reside attempting to terrorise them and that he called at their homes and knocked on the door and tried to gain admission into their homes.
15. Due to the fear that I had for my own safety and that of my children I went to reside with friends of mine in Essondon so that the respondent would be unable to threaten or assault me.
16. In September school holidays, I returned to Cranbourne to reside with my mother at 22 Mundering Drive, Cranbourne. I know, due to the fact that I have seen respondent driving his motor cycle and car up and down the street that the respondent is still trying to locate me and I am fearful for my safety in view of the respondent's irrational behavior."
Alexander was incarcerated, first in the psychiatric facility mentioned. The assault resulted in a conviction in the Dandenong Magistrate's Court on the 13th day of August, 1984 for two counts of assault with a weapon. He was placed on probation for a period of twenlve months with the direction he undergo psychiatric treatment.
He would soon be standing trial for credit card fraud and passing bad checks.
It is yet to be discovered if the attorney who represented him in those instances was the same gentleman who stood by him, intervening during the Siege of Montagu-Manchester. This part of the story never made it to the newspapers but is to be found in the transcript of September 6, 1984, Montagu vs. Montagu.
The story begins to unfold on page 4 with a question posed to Mr. Conquest, solicitor for Mrs. Montagu regarding the serving of the anticipated ex parte order by Judge Mrs. Lusink.
"....I'm worrying the effect of having an ex parte order served on the husband if he is psychiatrically disturbed, and I was wondering whether we could get the help of the psychiatrist for the time of the service of the ex parte order. Taking, you know, that I would be satisfied that an order should be made."
Mr. Conquest responded, "Sorry, I do not quite follow what your honor has got in mind there."
Verbatim from the transcript below:
HER HONOR: What I have in mind is this: here we have got a man who is under psychiatric treatment; he has been charged, and I mean, and he was found guilty, we he not, of assault?
MR. CONQUEST: Indeed, your Honor, yes.
HER HONOUR: That is right. On somebody else. But he is a man who is clearly disturbed. Now, taking that I am prepared to make the ex parte order ---
MR. CONQUEST: Yes.
HER HONOUR: ----bit alarmed at his --what is reaction might be.
MR. CONQUEST: So am I, your Honor, that is the reason why I am here, but I would happy, your Honour, to arrange -- to ascertain --I do know who the solicitor who has from time to time acted from - on behalf of the husband. In fact, the affidavit - the co-operative affidavit is made by Miss Richards, who was in fact employed by that solicitor.
HER HONOUR: Is this locally too?
MR. CONQUEST: That solicitor is in Cranbourne.
Judge Lisink and Mr. Conquest edge into their concern the respondent might learn of his wife's whereabouts through the solicitor then acting for him. They consider this and the ugly possibilities of what will happen the moment the respondent is served with papers. The Judge is inclined to worry about ensuring Montagu's rights as a respondent are respected. Mr. Conquest's concern is for what might happen to his client, Mrs. Montagu, when the papers are handed over. A strong wish to hear from the defendant's solicitor is expressed and matters are briefly tabled so he can be brought into court.
ZOLTAN VARSZEGHY, solicitor for Montagu, is sworn in. He affirms he is a solicitor with the Supreme Court of Victoria and this court, giving his address and other essential information. He states he has been representing Mr. Montagu for eight months, handling a number of matters.
Then Judge Lisink asks, "Were you aboe to form any opinion albiet not as an expert medical pinion, as to the respondent's behavioural attitudes." We learn Zoltan Varszeghy is well versed in the respondent's ways.
"I believe that this gentleman is probably the most dangerous client I have ever dealt with in seven years. He is totally unreliable in relation to his attitude. He has got streaks that at times come out of him where he does not appear to be himself or he does not appear to be on the same level of thinking as what I would class an ordinary person. He has acted quite irrationally on a number of occasions, and the most dramatic being when he locked himself in his home, virtually sieged his home - I forget the name of the street - it was in Cranbourne, and unfortunately a police siege ensued. I volunteers to try to assist the police to bring him out of the home and during this time he slashed his wrists. He had already slashed them prior to me being there, but he kept cutting himself open in the wrists. He pointed a spear gun at a police officer who attended to ask him to vacate the premises decently.
HER HONOUR: Was that the basis of the subsequent charge, Mr. Varszeghy?
MR. CONQUEST: No. your Honour, it was another one.
HER HONOUR: No, it was not? - - - No, your Honour. This was just an incident where -- -
A few incidents with a spear gun? yes---He - I think if I can give you a history of this, I may be able to bring some understanding of this gentleman. He, as a result of that assault on this police officer - the police officer is presently on sick leave. I hve spoken to him. It is one of the main reasons that this gentleman is on sick leave. He is nervous wreck. I, myself, wasin there with him for three hours, at time with a spear gun pointed at me, at times with a policeman purring some pressure on. It was quite a horrendous experience. The police subsequently did apprehend him in the home. He came out and he was apprehended. He was taken to the Dandenong Psychiatric Clinic, and just, was just checked out the next day. I then voluntarily took him back to the clinic with police escort, unbeknown to him. I told him that it was essential that he return to the clinic. They would not have him. The doctor refused to allow me to check him in.
Would that be Mr. Williamson? -- No. This was a gentleman at the - this Dr. Williamson was wonderful man. I then took him voluntarily to the Pine Lodge Clinic.
I see?---And Dr. Williamson attended him there. Dr. Williamson has in fact toldme that he has psychopathic tendencies.
As more details were shared with the court by Montagu's solicitor any objection to an ex parte order ceased. Instead, the need for instant action on the part of the police, should it become necessary, became the focus of the discussion.
Alexander Montagu served a year for 29 counts of assault, credit card fraud and passing bad checks, but that was only part of the story.
In 1988 an article appeared in The People which included this snap shot of the couple together.
You cannot tell a psychopath by the way he, or she, looks.
At some point Lady Mary Montagu, Alexander's mother, became involved in the issue of the marriage, which impacted the legitimacy of the two Manchester children.
The papers were taken out by Lady Mary Montagu in Australia, expressed to Alexander, living with his wife and child in Orange County California. Alexander signed them and sent them back to his mother, where they were filed in good order. But despite the demands his mother made that the two remarry he neither remarried Wendy Buford, who had no idea he was still married. Alexander had never told her about his first marriage and never mentioned the name of Marion Stoner.
On one level it was just paperwork. But on another level we see a highly psychopathic individual in operation.
On July 24, 2011, this article. "The bigamist Duke and his three wives, by Philip Sherwell, appearing in The Telegraph.
Excerpt:
"His first wife, Marion Stoner, 61, said she was not even aware that he had married again before divorcing her until she was contacted by The Sunday Telegraph. She said their short-lived relationship in the early 1980s had ended when he tried to shoot her with a fishing speargun.
But the former Australian model’s marriage to the Duke was not ended legally until 1996, three years into his purported marriage to Wendy Buford, 44, a Californian law firm receptionist and mother of his two children.
Miss Buford, who in 1993 unwittingly entered into the bigamous relationship with the Duke, last week described her life with the peer as “15 years of heartache”.
Recognising her children’s claim on financial support from their father, which had been stopped when the offspring’s illegitimacy was revealed, Mr Justice Floyd ruled there was “absolutely no doubt that at the relevant times Wendy reasonably believed that the marriage was valid”, before their divorce in 2007.
Even the Duke’s 18-year-old American-born son Alexander, who has the title Viscount Mandeville, told this paper of his shock at learning of his and his sister’s illegitimacy. He also explained he is currently preparing to start his first job – as a cook in a fast-food outlet in Orange County, California, specialising in chicken sandwiches.
However, Laura Montagu, 49, the current duchess and another former model, is standing by her man, despite the disclosures about his past, which she portrayed as youthful indiscretions.
The court saga is the latest sorry twist for a family that is a living lesson in ducal decadence. The dukedom of Manchester was created in 1719 by George I, but there is little now left of its estates or wealth.
Marcus Scriven, the society author, has detailed the family’s self-destructive descent over a century of profligacy, fecklessness and philandering in his book Splendour and Squalor."
No comments:
Post a Comment