LONDON (Reuters) - Former Beatle Paul McCartney and his second wife Heather Mills have separated after four years of marriage, they confirmed in a statement on Wednesday, blaming media intrusion for the split.
She said we would contest the seperation but she hasnt got a LEG to stand on hhehehe
http//uk.news.yahoo.com/17052006/325/mccartney-blames-media-marriage-split.html
Just read for her divorce settlement she wants a arm and a leg .
Pity really.
They would have made a great team in a three-legged race.
How tedious that they had to blame press intrusion for the breakdown of their marriage. If it wasn't for the press he'd not sell so many records and she'd not get such backing for her charity work. I can't stand these whining little celebrities.
Evidently they haven't bee nthrough marriage counselling otherwise they'd be aware that the responsibility lies squarely upon them.
And more importantly - who gives a toss?
I think they would have received a lot more sympathy and compassion if they had just said they were seperating and that's it. He is the most famous songwriter alive and she is no slouch in the celebrity stakes herself. If they were bothered by the press then turn off the TV and dont read the paper..
McCartney's face is on the front of the AARP magazine with a smile on his face that looks incredibly smug at one look and arrogant at another look, and something else again at each look, but it never looks pleasant.
Why Sir Paul's 'genius' could save him millions - good lord, what will they think of next...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4993862.stm
As my hubby said last night.. who's gives a @$#$ about that rich $#%@$ :)
Guess money can't buy you love after all ....... :mrgreen:
He was a bit foolish not to have a pre-nup.
I have but the tiniest fraction of his fortune and I'd certainly get legal advice to protect my few assets - to hell with the romance and one eye on reality.
It might be interesting to see what transpires. My first impression is that she'll probably get a more than reasonable amount of child support but I don't think she should be entitled to a lot more on top. Four years is not a long time at all and I don't agree with this 'automatic right' to half the money - I think some sort of proof that the contesting partner contributed in some way should be required.
I recall that a neighbour some years ago was left by her successful businessman husband after quite a long time of marriage. He'd found someone else while setting up another plant on the other side of the country and tired of his family. I think he was quite shocked when his wife got quite a large settlement for all the work she had done in keeping his house and raising his children and I felt that was justified but I don't think this applies to everybody.
He was a bit foolish not to have a pre-nup.
Oh he's gonna to be out on a limb.......... :roll:
He was a bit foolish not to have a pre-nup.
I
It might be interesting to see what transpires. My first impression is that she'll probably get a more than reasonable amount of child support but I don't think she should be entitled to a lot more on top.
what percentage she gets depends on where the residence is some places have a community property law .
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/4...3655c.html
He was a bit foolish not to have a pre-nup.
.
Unless I am much mistaken, (and I don't claim to be a legal or a divorce expert) in the UK a pre-nup isnt worth the paper its written on, although its something the judge can consider in a divorce case.
he is still apparently worried about the size of the potential settlement. Only last month he bought her a new plane, although she still uses Immac on the other leg.
Agreed, they are not legally binding in Britain.
However, I understand that:
[list]they are often considered by a judge in a court and at least some of the terms tend to be recognised
many lawyers in Britain who work in family law are asking that pre-nuptial agreements be recognised by the British legal system
it is possible to circumvent the British divorce system and it's failure to recognise a pre-nuptial agreement by simply moving a marriage to a country that does recognise them and going through the legal process correctly there. It's not going to be possible for everyone but I would have thought someone like Paul McCartney might be able to do it. Nevada has pretty lax marriage/divorce laws and you don't need to reside there for very long to qualify for them. Even if a case is filed by one spouse in UK, the other spouse could then file in the sympathetic country and a British court may agree to defer the case there if they believe the pre-nuptial agreement was signed in good faith by both parties.[/list:u]
Anyway, that's just my take on it so perhaps one of real lawyers on here can put us straight on the realities?