Do you remember Heather Mills?

@Sparklingbrook no I had given up talking to you.

I thought you have given up @julieca?

Everyone on here can post whatever they like, nobody can prevent them from from doing so.

The thread has been strange because the title was 'Do you remember Heather Mills?' and yet it went off on a tangent. That's all.

Well, I don’t know why the OP didn’t return. There have been several comments about Heather Mills.

Here, I’ll make one linking everything together:

When Heather Mills went on TV and said she was being threatened by an underground organisation and that she had a box of evidence that would blow the lid on a secret that the world couldn’t handle because it was too sad, I think she was talking about John.

And what do you mean, ‘strange’? If you don’t work for Mumsnet, what business is it of yours who says what? Why comment at all if you find it strange?

What I have noticed is that the OP only posted once, and didn't return...

No, I don’t, but I’ve noticed you don’t say much except to try and put other people off commenting. Why?

I didn't 'instruct' you @EYProvider, and in any case you chose not to. This thread has been very strange in a lot of ways TBF, and no I don't work for Mumsnet, do you?

And it isn’t ‘tinfoil hat stuff’ unless you want to turn it into that.

It’s a series of events that don’t add up.

@Malibuismysecrethome

It has some kind of occult significance - I’m not sure what.

@Sparklingbrook

It wasn’t me who took the westerly trip; I’m just pointing out the significance of both John and Chapman doing it at the same time. You don’t have to read my comments, you know, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t sneer so openly at them either.

You’ve pointed out that it has nothing to do with Heather Mills and instructed me to start another thread, even though plenty of other people have expressed interest. Do you work for Mumsnet?

Re the Westerly voyage I think it is because most trips are East to West so you are going against currents and weather conditions. I don’t know the significance of it.

Joint custody means joint responsibility for the child legally, it has NOTHING to do with residence.
Beatrice lived with Heather and that seems to have always been the plan.

I remember Heather Mills. I remember what was confirmed in their divorce hearing too, which was in the public domain. She continued to bill his office for substantial monthly mortgage repayments on a house he had already paid off for her; she claimed to be a millionaire in her own right but she was in reality skint; she claimed to have donated all her money to charity and in reality there was no evidence to back this up whatsoever. It is OK to call someone a deceitful character, even if she is a woman and has a disability.

Can somebody please explain why people keep posting about trips in a westerly direction?

On the money thing, didn’t Paul and Linda have a particular ethos about not ‘splashing cash’ on their DC, eg sending them to state school?

maintenance etc of ‘only’ £Xm seems v reasonable IMO!

The settlement was absolutely right for a few years of marriage, with HM not being with him while he built his fortune and giving up work etc etc.

The money received was ample to bring up their daughter.

Sorry, I think I expressed myself badly. I'll try again. If McCartney had made his money with the Beatles while he was married to Mills I'd expect something closer to a 50/50 split.

Mills got much less because none of Macca's wealth was fruits of their relationship iyswim, and she'd not sacrificed her career so he could make it.

I think you've got to be careful to compare like with like. Imagine if they'd met 40 years before and McCartney made all the money while Mills kept house. She might have got half on the basis that she'd sacrificed her career for his extremely lucrative one. A lot of HWI cases will be like that.

But in this case Mills was basically wanting (and in fact got) a chunk of what McCartney made before he ever met her. The reason for that was lifestyle during the marriage. If they'd lived it up more, she'd have got more. For all I know McCartney was rich in assets more than income and perhaps preferred to reinvest his income rather than blow it on whatever Mills wanted.

In fairness, compared to the judgments made today against high net worth individuals, this settlement wasn’t even slightly generous. Has the law changed since 2006 or did he just have an excellent team of lawyers.

From the judgment:

In my judgment the wife's attitude in her Form E, her open offers, her oral and written evidence, and her submissions is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same "rate" as the husband and to be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage. Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of "me, too" or "if he has it, I want it too". I shall say more about this when I consider what are the wife's needs.

It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living.

The wife points to the husband's vast wealth including a very diverse portfolio of valuable properties, and to his expenditure in 2005, set out in the husband's Form E. I shall return to that when I consider needs. But none of this, in my judgment, in the circumstances of this case can found a reasonable expectation that the lifestyle the wife perceived she enjoyed during the marriage could or should continue after its breakdown in April 2006.

Tl/dr. I should get to bathe in Dom Perignon every day because you're rich and I was married to you for a bit.