Reply to: someone who did worse than our Divorcees

[AtW]

Anyway you should marry someone who has nearly as much, equal or more wealth as you.

I'd pick the one with ....

[SueEllen]

They must be taken into account now, thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling...

Noticed I said not properly valid which is not the same as invalid.

Anyway you should marry someone who has nearly as much, equal or more wealth as you.

[AtW]

Prenups not properly valid in England.

They must be taken into account now, thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling...

[SueEllen]

Going to get prenup and spend it all before the split, it's the only way to be sure...

Prenups not properly valid in England.

[WotNxt]

MGTOW

MGTOW is the best way now.

Take the red pill, wake up.

[TheFaQQer]

Whatever generates the links in the article is broken

[BrilloPad]

Going to get prenup and spend it all before the split, it's the only way to be sure...

You are getting married?

Can I get an invite to your stag do?

I can bring my own squirrel costume.....

[vetran]

There's no suggestion that he's done that at all; the case seems to hinge on the fact that he's still doing very nicely out of it. Though how it will fare when he's in clink remains to be seen.

Again, there's no suggestion anywhere that the settlement would result in her lifestyle remaining unchanged. In fact, the article explicitly states that she's gone back to work. That sounds like a lifestyle change.

Less than £500,000 in assets isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things. It presumably includes the value of the family home, and the maintenance would just about cover the children's school fees. Or are you suggesting the children must suffer along with the mother?

It does actually (he is being offered Legal Aid because he has no money) but I also listened on the radio and read it in the Littlejohn's column apparently the Telegraph didn't think it was worth mentioning.

If he isn't earning anything as the firm is insolvent and the cash is gone then the Kids will have to suffer the indignity of the local Comprehensive.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...sts-legal-aid/

[mudskipper]

Mate of mine kept the house and kids, even though his wife was stay at home, and AFAIK, not abusive or anything obviously unusual. So it does happen.

[vetran]

And it does not mean that the stay at home person is a better parent.

or that they should maintain their lifestyle they had at a level provided by their ex.

Interestingly enough two divorces involving friends come to mind where the 'weaker party' was male both were during the divorce abusing alcohol & drugs yet the wife lost the house or paid maintenance. Though arguably both husbands had during the marriage contributed significantly to the household. Does that change it now its a different sex?

[AtW]

Going to get prenup and spend it all before the split, it's the only way to be sure...

[BrilloPad]

There is more to marriage than financial contribution. Whatever the rights and wrongs of any given case, this is the attitude I find most depressing. It suits many couples to have one at home (usually the woman) and one working. That does not mean the person at home is contributing less to the family.

And it does not mean that the stay at home person is a better parent.

[BrilloPad]

And look at this idiot

Property magnate killed himself when he realised 25-year marriage was over - Telegraph

Indeed. Complete moron. He should have taken a few with him.

[mudskipper]

... the one who has contributed the least...

There is more to marriage than financial contribution. Whatever the rights and wrongs of any given case, this is the attitude I find most depressing. It suits many couples to have one at home (usually the woman) and one working. That does not mean the person at home is contributing less to the family.

[NickFitz]

seems to be what he has done.

There's no suggestion that he's done that at all; the case seems to hinge on the fact that he's still doing very nicely out of it. Though how it will fare when he's in clink remains to be seen.

Not saying he is innocent but this assumption that life style should remain unchanged for the one who has contributed the least is a little odd.

Again, there's no suggestion anywhere that the settlement would result in her lifestyle remaining unchanged. In fact, the article explicitly states that she's gone back to work. That sounds like a lifestyle change.

Less than £500,000 in assets isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things. It presumably includes the value of the family home, and the maintenance would just about cover the children's school fees. Or are you suggesting the children must suffer along with the mother?