UK: Wealthy women using more pre-nups to protect themselves

Submitted by Broadsword on Fri, 2009-04-24 15:49

Article here. Excerpt:

'Contracts stipulating how much money each party would receive if a marriage collapsed have traditionally been demanded by successful businessmen wary of "gold-digging" wives.

But growing numbers of women – many of whom received large payouts from previous divorce settlements – are now turning to the law to ensure that their future husbands are not entitled to half their riches.
...
"There has been a surge of interest. With the recession hitting there is an awareness among women that men are going to take their money unless they protect it," she said.
...
"Many, particularly those who have been married before, have told us that they would very much like to find a partner but are cautious when it comes to what happens to their cash."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

'Miss Wood – whose firm handled more than 800 divorces last year – said: "It used to be that remarriage was about hope triumphing over experience. However, now it is a case of that experience introducing a level of common sense into relationships."'

It's only "common sense" when women do it. When men do it, they're being greedy, selfish, and showing a lack of faith and COMMITMENT to the MARRIAGE.

And so it goes.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mcc99 on Fri, 2009-04-24 16:20

in past years how many times have i heard some twat
say how she would NEVER date any man who wanted a prenup?
men trying to protect their assets from this band of robbers
were (and still are) looked upon w/ distain.

experiment: next time on a date w/ a really hot looking "lady",
mention that you would like a prenup if you ever, well you know...
just be prepared for the nuclear fallout. things may NEVER be the same.

but this could wind up being really good news for men, in general.

especially well off ones. in the past u.s. courts have ALWAYS
been ready to throw these things out at the first sign it didn't
reward women enough. that thing about "if finances changed considerably"
and others have been used repeatedly to enforce freebees for the privileged ones.
but then again, "equality under the law" is, unfortunately,
not a priority in u.s. courts, anymore.

it is also said that once kids come into the picture the prenup
isn't worth the paper it is written on, for men. something about
not having the right to decide the fate of childrens' (read womens')
finances ahead of time. that is the judge's job in a divorce.
i guess since he is soooo qualified on these matters.

on an interesting note, the other day some interviewer
asked Marie Osmond why she wasn't dating.
laughingly she replied that she could not find a guy who would sign
a prenup on the first date. they say she really got burned by that
last guy. welcome to the club. sucks huh?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Fri, 2009-04-24 21:47

before you try my little experiment

you may want to plan to bring this up AFTER sex,

rather than before. just a thot.

this could be VERY telling about HER intentions.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Fri, 2009-04-24 21:56

Gosh, have I been asleep for 20 years like Rip was?

Just when did any wealthy woman in the UK get financially burned in a divorce like Sir Paul did?

Was it in the papers, online?

Never heard of one!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Fri, 2009-04-24 22:17

nothing's ever a problem til it affects women. Or might affect them. Or possibly, maybe, perchance, in the future, could affect them.
-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Sun, 2009-04-26 06:58