Possibly the most ridiculous card ever?(50 Posts)
I agree. None of the women I know (including myself) have been better off divorced, quite the opposite. Unlike the men, who seem to carry on the same standard of living. Everyone seems to know of a woman who 'rinsed' her ex husband, but no-one can actually identify her. Funny dat.
Jesus, that's awful. When I was a child (in the 70s/early 80s) I had a handful of friends who lived with their divorced mothers. Without exception, their standard of living was HORRENDOUS. One family lived in a disgusting flat, with my friend and her brother sharing a room all through senior school. Another family (mother and four children) lived in a "granny flat" in the grandmother's garden. And all the while the husbands were off happy as larry shagging their new women. It's only recently that the system has become even vaguely fair, and my god, there are a lot of men who don't like it one bit.
The late Robin Williams said it first (on Letterman?)
Let's not even start on households where women are the main or sole earners.
It's those wacky Californians and Heather Mills types giving us all a bad name. I mean, yeah i feel sorry for McCartney but this is not divorce outcome for most people.
I genuinely (must have been one of the few) who didn't follow the case at all at the time, but why do you feel sorry for McCartney? Just did a quick google and he's got £680m and she got "a lump sum of £16.5m, together with assets of £7.8m, which included the properties she owned at the time. The total was £24.3 million, plus payments of £35,000 per annum, for a nanny and school costs for their daughter.
Nowhere near as bad as the current trend for 'divorce cakes' that depict women stabbing or decapitating their now ex husbands.
It has been speculated that Robin Williams divorces contributed to his suicide and Heather Mills, there are no words.
Heather Mills, there are no words
Please find them… I genuinely don't understand (I was living abroad at the time and the top google links brought up stories in the DM which I'm not going to read and mean I'd rather here it from the FWR board)! 24m of 680m and a 35k maintenance for the daughter's nanny and school fees… what's the problem That's a big number but it's a very small percentage and actually really not a big maintenance payment for wealthy people with regard to a nanny and private school fees…?
As for Robin Williams "An examination of his brain tissue revealed the presence of "diffuse Lewy body dementia". Williams' doctors reportedly believe that Lewy body dementia "was the critical factor" that led to his suicide"… is there something you know that they don't?
Shit, heather mills, how dare a woman stick up for herself. She should have been grateful to walk away with nothing. What a bitch to have some self respect.
Of course, Poor Paul was an exemplary husband.
"Unlike the men, who seem to carry on the same standard of living. Everyone seems to know of a woman who 'rinsed' her ex husband, but no-one can actually identify her. Funny dat."
The card is sexist and unfunny, but this is just not true.
Most of the divorced men I know have been worse off, most moving from a family home to a 1 bed or shared flat for several years at least.
As for the women, I know as many who have ended up back living with their parents as I do who've retained the family home, very nice one in some cases.
So I think it's ridiculous to say that the men carry on as normal while the women suffer.
laurief looking for further words on Heather Mills - here's the decision of the High court on the McCartney case - as to why and how the Judge arrived at a fair settlement. Seems well reasoned to me.
From scanning that I see Heather Mills represented herself in court and gave what the judge deemed to be an overinflated account of her financial position before the marriage and thwarted earning potential during the marriage, so ruled for a lower settlement. So why feel sorry for McCartney? He got a fair settlement and is still massively wealthy.
MrNosey Ridiculous to say that men carry on as normal while women suffer? Can you point out where I said that? I said 'of the women I know'. Are you calling me a liar? Do you know me, and the women I know? No, thought not. I take it from your tone, and your MN name, you are male.
laurierf Yes, he came into the short marriage, massively wealthy - that wealth having been built up prior to the couple even meeting and he exits the marriage also massively wealthy and certainly I'd have thought more than capable of abiding by the courts orders
Mills was clearly out of her depth in trying to deceive the Court as to the amount she also brought into the Marriage - but it seems to me - she did very well out of it too.
Whilst I think that HM does not come accross as the most likeable person, that is entirely separate from her entitlement to a reasonable settlement. I also suspect she had a lot to put up with from PM.
What would you call a reasonable settlement and why ?
It obviously rests on the individual case.
In the HM/PM case, the judge pointed out that the settlement had to be needs-based for HM for her to provide for their child in the way that a child of someone with PM's wealth would normally be provided for. Again, as pointed out by the judge, she is going to have the significant bulk of the child-rearing responsibilities for their child due to the young age of the child and the fact that PM is now 73 whilst HM is 47.
My mum was the main earner and when my parents divorced my dad ended up with our house despite my mum having the kids (my dad wasn't bothered about those).
As you say, PM v HM - being based on a short marriage of 4 years - was a ‘needs’ exercise for the Courts to decide on. HM put forward in evidence that her needs amounted to a total sum of £1.25 million per annum, included the following…
Seven fully staffed properties with full-time housekeepers in the annual sum of £645,000.
Holiday expenditure of £499,000 p.a. (including private and helicopter flights of £185,000),
£125,000 p.a. for her clothes,
£30,000 p.a. for equestrian activities (she no longer rides),
£39,000 p.a. for wine (she does not drink alcohol),
£43,000 p.a. for a driver,
£20,000 p.a. for a carer, and
Professional fees of £190,000 p.a.,
£542,000 p.a. for security,
£627,000 p.a. for charitable donations,
£73,000 for the cost of business staff
£39,000 p.a. for helicopter hospital flights.
These are what HM put as her needs. The Judge found that she had exaggerated. Going through each one in turn, in the end he awarded her £600,000.00 p.a on which to survive - although he did factor into this £50,000 pa for charitable work and donations– God knows how anyone can make do on so little, but poor HM was expect to do just that - but that’s the Patriarchy for you, eh?
As to their daughter, Beatrice, there were separate orders, the Judge said this:
[PM] has offered to pay periodical payments for Beatrice at the rate of £35,000 p.a. plus the cost of a nanny not to exceed £25,000 p.a. both sums to be index-linked. Nannies are expensive; good nannies do not come cheap. I consider that Beatrice, a child of 4 with a father as wealthy as the husband, is entitled to a generous rate of periodical payments. I consider £35,000 p.a. to be the right figure. However I consider that the nanny limit should be £30,000 p.a. Beatrice is entitled to a good nanny. However, I wish to make it clear that this does not give the wife a licence to automatically engage a new nanny or pay an existing nanny at the rate of £30,000 p.a. willy nilly. It is a maximum figure. The [PM] will also pay Beatrice’s school fees etc. as per his open offer. [PM] will also put in place security to cover his obligations to Beatrice in the event of his death prior to Beatrice attaining 17 years or completing secondary education whichever is the later.
These are what HM put as her needs. The Judge found that she had exaggerated. Going through each one in turn, in the end he awarded her £600,000.00 p.a on which to survive
Right, so the Judge worked out her needs and decided to award her half. Are you really suggesting that HM is the only person to go in with a ridiculously high starting point in a negotiation, only to walk out with a more balanced result. People do this all the time. The child is still going to be spending most of her time living with HM and it is reasonable to expect PM to provide HM with a set up for her and child that is not wildly inferior to his own, not least when he can easily do so without any discernible detriment to his circumstances.
God knows how anyone can make do on so little
Irrelevant. If you want to have a conversation about the crazy wealth distribution in our society, fine, but it's a separate question.
Here's an insight into the sort of life that Beatrice would have received had the marriage survived. This excerpt is from a statement given by Paul McCartney. I think this shows the reality of the sort of life they would have lead. I think £35,000 pa is more than enough for a little girl to get by on - don't forget this is on top of the £600,000pm her mother was getting. Even very rich girls only need to eat one ice-cream cone at a time.
My real concern with Heather’s demands for bodyguards 24 hours a day is our daughter. Unless on tour, my older children had very little security. They all attended local state schools. It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and, at times, ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages. I do not want this for Beatrice. I am rarely photographed with Beatrice. She needs as normal an upbringing as possible, and surrounding her with round the clock security is not the way to achieve this.
He sounds like a sensible father.
Join the discussion
Please login first.