This woman's divorce settlement sets back the cause of feminism.....

[mozhe]

.....£48 million for 28 years of marriage ! I wonder what she did for that...She stayed home and bought up 2 children,( now long grown..), gave some dinner parties, presumably shopped and enjoyed herself but as far as I can see she didn't actually participate in her DHs buisness dealings....so why has she got £48million ?

Answers on a postcard....

Touche hatrick

Why does it matter that this particular mother stayed at home with her children?

In fact, you don't know it wasn't because HE wanted her to. You don't know much At All about the case, it seems.

I don't think feminism would have come very far if the settlement had been £20k and run along dear, you were only a mum, not a big important career woman from the judge.

Do you?

(And guess whether I SAH, work full or part time)

Exactly Cylonbabe! If you believe that women are scheming and calculating, then yes, I suppose mozhe may start having a point.
If you believe that people are generally good, and are trustworthy, including your husband, you may well devote all your energies to his career, because after all, it is the familys money at the end of the day. What does it matter if a woman works separately or if they work as a husband and wife team, where she supports him. Its the good of the family and children that counts. Then to find out your husband sees all that money as <span class="italic">his</span>, must be a bit of a shock. If that had been spelt out very early in the realationship, Im sure any woman would start devoting time to their career and studies.
Sad story Aitch

Why did I just KNOW who started this thread...

You marry someone, you know the law. You get half (or thereabouts). Whether that's half of a shit semi in Noweheresville or half of a Greek shipping magnate's billions doesn't really matter. I say good luck to her.

Hatrick...I didn't say bringing up children wasn't hard work,( and fun too...). I said it isn't a job/career....it's important but don't believe it needs to take up all a mother's time,( or father's ? ).I think it can be detrimental to women and society as a whole if women see it this way.
Hunker....read the Times today, it says,'we decided one of us should stay at home to be there for the children...'.My queston is why her ? Why not him, or a combination of each of them..
Sakura...Why not devote your energies to your own career, rather than your husbands ? Although clearly it has worked out nicely for mrs Charman...well in terms of £££s anyway, but what message does it send out to girls ?

Perhaps ask yourselves how you would have received this story if it was Mrs Charman having to hand over £48mill to Mr.....

Actually she did not get half - she got about 38% of the assets. I think she should have got half. Marriage is a partnership and assets within the marriage should be shared. If the couple shows an inability to share then it is quite right that the courts should intervene with a 50:50 message.
Some of you on here completely miss the point about this message when you ask how much she might have earned in her own right. They were a couple, a partnership and their assets should be shared as such.
Sadly, for most people divorcing there are insufficient joint assets to divide and form two households of a similar standing so that a 50:50 split cannot be acheived because any children of the family need to be housed as a priority.

So if they both had less money but she had the same % share his wealth would it be ok? If he'd had £700 to his name and she'd walked away with £48 would we be having this discussion?

mozhe - any chance you're just jealous of a woman having £48mill? Doesn't sound very feminist to me!

Both the dh and the wife knew the situation on divorce when they got married, the bloke isn't totally helpless - if he'd thought she wasn't pulling her weight he should have sorted it out with her so if he was happy with what she was or wasn't doing then how is it for anyone here to say she wasn't doing enough?

mozhe - if it was mrs handing the same over to mr I'd be incensed, because it should be more (to make it 50:50). The sex of the person has nothing to do with it, if she'd be the working one I'd still say her dh deserved half for looking after the kids and home.

Haven't read the whole thread but I don't like it really.

Yes, marriage is a contract and all that but who really signs up to this kind of deal? Imagine if you had earned the money and your husband was a lazy layabout. Would you then think that he should get 50% if the marriage broke down? I'm sure she was a good wife and all that but it does seem excessive to me. Bringing up children is desperately important (obviously that's why we're all on this website) - as is being a good spouse - but £48m for that?

I know this view is contentious on here but I was brought up not to rely on anyone for money - just for my own self-preservation. My father left my mother and after that she made sure we never fell into the trap of financial dependence. It's just too much of a risk (unless as in this case there are megabucks to support two families in royal style and I don't suppose many of us are in this position).

In a marriage some people decide to make the sacrifice of their career and stay at home to look after the children - fine and if you do that and then split up you should be protected. But £48m????? That's gone beyond protection. £20m would have gone beyond protection.

Misogynistic sour grapes, pure and simple.

She should have got more, i.e. 50%. It has sod all to do with feminism, it's to do with what is fair in the eyes of the law.

Your points about what she should/shouldn't have done with her life when her children went to school are:

a) none of your business
and
b) irrelevant when working out what she is entitled to in a divorce settlement

I don't think OP understands the process by which people are awarded a share of assets in a divorce. Poor stuff

If your partner is lazy and does do anything to help the marriage then that's sad but its an issue for the 2 of you to deal with, you can't start doling out the finances based on the exact effort each of you has put in (the one bringing up the kids would win nearly all the time!!).

I'm absolutely disgusted.

Are your really saying that the courts should just work out her settlement on the basis of "back pay" as a personal assistant/nanny/housekeeper/ provider of sexual services plus a "redundancy package" to include making up per pension pot ?

Are you arguing that if a man doesn't want to be married to his SAH wife any longer then she should be regarded, financially, as if she were just the hired help of various types for the duration of their marriage ?

Please think a bit more deeply about your post of 00.31.

But it's been awarded as a proportion of the couple's assets, margoandjerry. What offends you is the sheer amount of money she gets. What about his wealth? Don't you find that a bit obscene too? If you do, then it's a whole different issue

It's so wrong-headed to think that she gets the £48m because that's the value of her work over the years - nobody is suggesting that!

Thanks Grrrr - that's what I was trying to say...

Agree with the posters on here who've said it is fair as she gave up her career etc etc.

But I also see it as a matter of equality between rich and poor divorcees.

Why should a bloke who earns £24K a year and lives in a £150K house, have to give 60% of that to his ex-wife, whereas a bloke with a £700m fortune only has to give a tiny percentage? It's not just about what she NEEDS, it's about making sure that a divorce has an equal impact on both partners.

Oh I love this "I'm sure she was a good wife" like the money is a pat on the head for giving good head or something....

If you're a crap wife you should get nada on divorce obviously.

I give up

I agree with you MissGolightly

I don't see what difference her financial contribution makes to anything. They were married. If he bales out she surely has a legal right to keep as near as possible the same standard of living that she had before. Otherwise you open up the delightful prospect of unwanted spouses being chucked out the door with nothing but what they 'earned' during the marriage.

I think he sounds like a truly selfish man.

And yes, totally agree that a wife (whether SAHM or not) is not just a glorified housekeeper on a contract that means you only have to pay her when you sack her.

Should she start factoring in x number of blow jobs and y number of shags over the years too? I believe you can get a prostitute for less than £50 down at King's Cross but perhaps she's more in the nature of a high class hooker?

Think about the disgusting implications of the "backpay" assumption.

Yes, and the same thing should hold true if she is the one who wants to bail out - and the law would uphold that I think

That was to OrmIrian

Yes Doggie. I agree. I was just thinking about this case in particular.