"Summer Entertainment for Vikings", then.
I think Common law marriage is only recognised by one of the UK legal systems?
But this is my point - it should be clear it isn't a gamble. Make it simple: you marry and it becomes a joint fortune, you spilt up and your fortune is split 50/50. That way everyone knows what they are getting into were they marry, I really do think it would save a lot of unnecessary pain and hassle for divorcing couples.
That is the "risk" of getting married - if you don't want to make that commitment to someone you shouldn't have got married in the first place!
My only qualm about the 50/50 split is the problem of marriages ending because of abuse personally then I would be quite happy (if the abuse was proved in a court of law) with the abuser getting nothing and the abused got 100% of the joint assets. (And don't worry I understand the immense practical problems such an approach would entail - I'm sure it could never be implemented.)
Last edited:
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
I agree with this. I heard an interview with her where she said something like "It ended with a fine amount that will enable me and my daugther to live our lives like we want to.. And for me to support the charities that I'm obviously going to support". "Obviously going to" being key words here.
24,6 mill pounds is a travesty. She is nothing but a gold-digger. Noone should have to pay that much for sex.
I agree with the first part - it should have been £200 million. As for the second part, on what do you base this conclusion?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Even Heather Mills didn't think it should have been £200 million. She only asked for £125 million, and that was when she thought McCartney's estate was worth twice as much as the judge decided.
Why do you think she is entitled to, effectively, four times as much as even she thinks?
Why do you think she is entitled to, effectively, four times as much as even she thinks?
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
On her words "obviously going to support". That's an escape-route if I ever heard one. My bet is that it's soon going to be "wanted badly to support but..."
Also her claim for 100m pounds. And her sad song of the kid only getting 35k a year. I earn much less than that. I have nothing but the worlds smallest violin playing for her.
A case such as this is the best argument anyone could have for a prenuptial. Let this be a lesson to all men. Get that contract made.
Because as married couple their fortune was apparently £400 million, half of £400 million is £200 million.
Just as a note - prenuptial agreements are (thankfully) not legally binding in England (although the court may take it into consideration).
I can't follow from your comments how they have lead you to conclude she is "gold digger" and that the marriage was only about him wanting sex with her.
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Oh that bloke. Do we still need him? Should we still feed him?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Remind me if I'm ever rich not to get married, especially in England (unless with someone richer than myself!).
You realize that some people who would otherwise get married and get a substantial payoff as a result will instead get nothing at all because marraige is too risky for anyone except someone who already has a similar level of wealth. Most rich will only marry other rich. and most people will only marry people with a similar level of wealth.
I think if you come into a marraige with little and get 24 million out of it, you've done pretty well for yourself.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure over here at least most people do broadly only marry people within similar income brackets and certainly within a similar class. Our perception of this is probably skewed by high profile cases and the exceptions. It's not surprising really since income and class will have a huge influence on who you will meet and therefore the pool of potential partners you have access to.
I do recognise that my views on this are not mainstream (and I don't think ever have been mainstream) but I would have thought the people who want marriage to be at the center of society, who believe it is essential for a stable and "good" society and so on would be all for my view.
Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case - I do wonder if that is because those that are in a position to make such announcements (media and political bods) aren't willing to make this level of commitment to another person. I bet they would consider it a bad "risk".
Last edited:
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
and I so promised myself I wooden make jokes like that too
Paul has 400+ million earned over the last 45 years or so They were married for 4 years and have one child. Paul has other children who also have to be taken into consideration (unless we are arguing last in takes all). On a purely pro rata basis the award for 4 years and one kid is pretty fair. I can't see the merit in a 50/50 claim at all. We no longer live in a society where marriage is forever and divorce only allowed in special circumstances. If the marriage had been for say 15 years and all the kids were to Heather then a much more substantial settlement in the order of £150m+ would have been appropriate. If she had been with him throughout the 45 years then 50/50 would be the minimum with perhaps more to the wife if there were dependent kids still living with her.
Paul is not a mean person and I doubt Beatrice will want for anything - even if he could see her mother far enough. Heather's claim for £125m was crazy and I am glad it was kicked into touch.
Francesca R
Girl
"I don't like the idea of Mills profiting so I'll make fun of her disability"
Kinda mean.
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
Remind me to never get married in England. Thankfully prenups are legally binding in Denmark. I and my girlfriend luckily agree that we are going to get a prenup made.
I think it smells of golddigging when she after 4 years of marriage demands 100 (125?) million pounds.
The "sex"-part was a reference to Eddie Murphy in "Raw" mentioned earlier in the thread. I'm not saying he married her just for the sex.
How do you know this?
Asking for less than half of their fortune is "gold digging"?
Perhaps we are just using "gold digging" to mean different things - to me the phrase refers to someone who marries a person for their money rather than anything else. (I have to admit I have not followed this case in any detail as it seemed to be nothing more than a typical media circus so there may well have been evidence made public that she did in fact only marry him for his money.)
Last edited:
Elvis666
Muse
In that case, the judge should have awarded her a couple of million, then allowed Sir Paul to donate the remaining 22 million to charity himself, so he gets to choose the charity and get the tax breaks.
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
Unless she has contributed significantly to that fortune then yes, it is golddigging.
There's no way that she has contributed 125 million pounds to the fortune in the last four years. I even doubt she has contributed any significant amount.
We basically disagree on how pre-marriage fortune should be treated. My opinion on this is that pre-marriage fortune should not be taken into account when settling a divorce. The fortune that CAN be taken into account is what has been gathered during the marriage.
This is of course simplified..
This is what prenups do. They should IMHO be standard before any marriage.
Nogbad
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 2,566
