The interview with Mrs Charman reported in The Times is fascinating for family lawyers in many respects but I only want to focus on her extraordinary comment on pre-nuptial agreements.
"The wife who secured the biggest divorce award in British legal history backed the Court of Appeal judges over the need for prenuptial agreements.
Beverley Charman, 54, told The Times: 'I would definitely have one now and I would advise my sons to have them. But at the time we married we had no expectation of money.' "
Let me make absolutely sure that I have understood this:
(1) Does Mrs Charman mean that she would have agreed to a pre-nup, if Mr Charman had wanted one, before they married?
(2) Alternatively, does she only mean that she would want a pre-nup if she were to remarry?
She says "now" so I think the answer to (1) is probably:
Well, who knows, but I am bloody glad I didn't because I would not have this megafortune in the bank.
The answer to (2) would then be:
Absolutely yes. Do you think I want some passing fancy to walk off with my megafortune in the bank?
She then refers to her sons entering into pre-nups. Perhaps she is concerned about them marrying women like herself who are "not greedy"?
She conducted the interview at her solicitor's office. She may have been advised what to say. Who knows?
Whoever wrote the script, the only keyword thhat sums up this comment and, indeed, the whole interview, is hypocrisy - of the breathtaking variety.
"The wife who secured the biggest divorce award in British legal history backed the Court of Appeal judges over the need for prenuptial agreements.
Beverley Charman, 54, told The Times: 'I would definitely have one now and I would advise my sons to have them. But at the time we married we had no expectation of money.' "
Let me make absolutely sure that I have understood this:
(1) Does Mrs Charman mean that she would have agreed to a pre-nup, if Mr Charman had wanted one, before they married?
(2) Alternatively, does she only mean that she would want a pre-nup if she were to remarry?
She says "now" so I think the answer to (1) is probably:
Well, who knows, but I am bloody glad I didn't because I would not have this megafortune in the bank.
The answer to (2) would then be:
Absolutely yes. Do you think I want some passing fancy to walk off with my megafortune in the bank?
She then refers to her sons entering into pre-nups. Perhaps she is concerned about them marrying women like herself who are "not greedy"?
She conducted the interview at her solicitor's office. She may have been advised what to say. Who knows?
Whoever wrote the script, the only keyword thhat sums up this comment and, indeed, the whole interview, is hypocrisy - of the breathtaking variety.
No comments:
Post a Comment