I disagree with this idea that Freddie thought Jim would only live a short time. Jim did not have AIDS, he had HIV. Therefore time to AIDS was unknown, and some people never develop AIDS. The drug company Merck was working on protease inhibitors. Freddie would have known this because his doctor Graeme Moyle would have known this. In the early 90s there was a lot of hope that better drugs were coming. Graeme Moyle is one of the world’s experts in treating HIV.
Freddie did not know Jim would live as long as he did. In 1991 anyone with HIV was assumed to die of AIDS within a few years.
I can attest to that. As an old fogie who grew up in the 80s in and around NYC/NJ (and who saw Queen's NJ show in the summer of '82), I can tell you that I knew a whole bunch of folks who contracted HIV in the early '80s (classmates, mainly from my premed days) who died around the same time and even earlier than Freddie did. By the time 1992 rolled around, only two were alive and no one survived that decade. The later meds that came along mainly helped the people who acquired the infection around the early '90s and after. I understand that Jim Hutton was already HIV+ by 1987. Pretty sure they both thought he'd pass by the mid '90s.
I don't profess to know anything about why Freddie did what he did in the will and why he didn't at least put in an addendum that the guys could stay in GL for as long as they needed, but once that stuff goes into probate, having someone physically in the property just delays everything, so I'm sure Jim Beach advised him to leave that bit out.
Also, re Jim Hutton, judging from is life before and after Freddie, it just seems to me that he was an emotionally very stable, centered man who seemed like a one-man man type of deal. If that IS true, then I'm very glad to know that Freddie had him in his life until the end.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1671314/pdf/bmj00151-0017.pdf
Paper published November 1991. Can’t get more contemporaneous than that.
Study is of 111 hemophiliacs infected 1979-1985.
RESULTS:
At 11 years from seroconversion the estimated rate of progression to AIDS was 42% (95% confidence interval 27% to 57%); to symptoms 85% (75% to 95%); and to death 41% (25% to 57%).
Also from the discussion:
“In the large San Franscisco cohort of homosexual men 19% of those who seroconverted during 1977-1980 remained asymptomatic in 1990.”
This large cohort is presumably from the HepB vaccine project in which stored serum samples were tested for anti-HIV antibodies once testing became available.
So, Mary has the right to live in the house but doesn't own it? Who owns it?
[QUOTE] [b]miraclesteinway wrote:[/b]
So, Mary has the right to live in the house but doesn't own it? Who owns it?[/QUOTE]
I think Freddie's estate? I'd also be interesting to know what happens to the house once the 50 years are up. Does it go into a trust and perhaps to charity?
He made very sure she has a safe place to live for pretty much all of her life, didn't he?
I thought the point was that Mary was left 50 percent of Freddie's estate, and the house was included in that, with his parents and his sister getting the other half. Of course some papers suggest that Mary's share went up to 75 percent following the deaths of Freddie's parents, but surely that would require Mary to have been left that share by Freddie's parents.... I would have presumed his sister would have inherited his parents share.
I dunno how these things work, I'm not rich enough to avoid working in a bar, let alone think about who I'm going to leave my 20 million pound mansion in central london to....
Freddie's estate owns the house.
So that means if he didn't make any provisions for it to go somewhere, his sister (or her children) have the legal right. Unless Mary gets squatter's rights. I don't know how UK laws would figure that out, though.
You all should go read the actual will. Mary owns the house. This came up a few months ago. Someone called me intrusive for reading Freddie’s will, but this persistent myth annoyed me, so I wanted to find out for myself. It defies common sense to give someone a house for 50 years. What’s Mary supposed to do, move out when she’s 90?
I have no idea how this myth got started but it’s been repeated so often that now people are just believing it because someone said it. So think about it, why do you actually believe it’s true?
Well that's why I was curious because my understanding was that Mary was left half of the estate - as in, she IS the Freddie Mercury estate, with his sister now being the other half since his parents died.
Yeah that's true. It doesn't make sense. I mean, a lot of people live to their '90s. It just doesn't make sense for her to have to move out at that time lol. I mean, it'd make more sense if the will said it would revert to the estate once she passed, but I don't know who the estate would belong to then as he didn't have kids. I guess legally it'd be his sister and her kids?
Anyway, to me, the most important thing is that once he passed and the will was read, NO ONE contested it. Right? Not one person? They all accepted his decision. To me, that says a LOT. Unless I'm talking outta my ass... which of course I am. Just ignore me folks! ;)
Miraclesteinway—not sure if you are replying to me? If I recall correctly, and I think I do, Mary got half of Freddie’s royalties. I read somewhere (and maybe somewhere no good like the Daily Mail) that Freddie knew he would need to leave her enough income to run the house and pay all the expenses of such a property. The other half of the royalties went to his parents and sister. But I learned all this from somewhere before I saw the will, I just don’t remember where.
Indy19–I don’t think there’s any reverting of the house. I gathered it’s Mary’s house and she can leave it to whomever she wants in her will.
You might enjoy Villier’s youtube video posted yesterday about Jim. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmT1he9ElR8
There’s discussion of the will, the house, etc. Queen Memes is Villiers on QZ.
Thanks Galileo... will check the vid out.
