So who is this then?

Although the couple cannot be named, the judge offered several clues about their identity. The husband’s ancestors accumulated great wealth and included prominent military commanders.

His family ‘made a large contribution to the life of the nation in the 19th century’, and his grandfather invested the proceeds of the family business into a ‘well-known merchant bank’.

His grandparents bought an Oxfordshire estate in the 1940s, with a 15-bedroom Grade II-listed mansion, 11-acre gardens and 1,500 acres of farmland.

The husband inherited the estate in 1983, when he was 25 and studying rural estate management at the Royal Agricultural College in Cirencester, and the couple married a year later.

They had five children but their marriage was said to have been unhappy for ‘some long time’ before they separated in 2010, and the husband claimed they had each formed ‘other attachments’.

Mrs Justice Baron said: ‘The wife learned of the husband’s relationship with a young artist/singer who the husband told me has no assets.

‘The husband is very enamoured of her and set her up in an establishment in Chelsea… At the end of this divorce the husband hopes she will move to the estate.

16 comments on “So who is this then?

  1. She was accustomed to leading a very cosseted life. She was not used to dealing with everyday matters of finance. She lived in a grand house with a housekeeper/cook; she had the use of an ironing lady and gardeners.

    “Parasite furious at being scratched off by host”.

  2. I kind of understand the divorce court decisions when a man has married when poor/average and made money afterwards, its arguable that without his wife’s input he couldn’t have created, run and grown his business the way he did.

    But in this case she married money. She absolutely nothing to help make the wealth, merely consumed it for 26 years. I see absolutely no reason why she should get a penny.

    Its laws like this that ensure there is zero chance of me ever even considering getting married.

  3. Jim, FWIW, I think in most of Europe each side keeps what it had at marriage, and splits everything acquired post marriage. Before you rush down some foreign aisle, IANAEuropeanDivorceL..

  4. Love how the Mail gives away as many details as possible. Shouldn’t be too hard to identify them:

    “51-year-old wife… Her ex-husband, 53…

    Although the couple cannot be named, the judge offered several clues about their identity. The husband’s ancestors accumulated great wealth and included prominent military commanders.
    His family ‘made a large contribution to the life of the nation in the 19th century’, and his grandfather invested the proceeds of the family business into a ‘well-known merchant bank’.
    His grandparents bought an Oxfordshire estate in the 1940s, with a 15-bedroom Grade II-listed mansion, 11-acre gardens and 1,500 acres of farmland.
    The husband inherited the estate in 1983, when he was 25 and studying rural estate management at the Royal Agricultural College in Cirencester, and the couple married a year later.
    They had five children but their marriage was said to have been unhappy for ‘some long time’ before they separated in 2010″

  5. “I think in most of Europe each side keeps what it had at marriage, and splits everything acquired post marriage”: that was the Scottish system, though maybe it’s changed. I think (not sure) that it was money earned after marriage that was split – inheritances didn’t count. Tough on gold-diggers, eh?

  6. What’s a Duxbury?

    “The Wife’s needs:
    House Purchase £6,500,000
    Stamp duty £ 455,000
    Purchase costs £ 10,000
    Furnishings *£ 300,000
    £7,265,000
    Debts *£ 293,469
    Car *£ 45,000
    Duxbury £3,628,215
    Total £11,231,684
    (42% of the net assets) “

  7. Matt Wardman: A quick google search suggest that means the lump sum payable to make the divorce a clean break, from a case called Duxbury vs Duxbury. More likely in cases like this where there is plenty of cash available, and the wife is closer to retirement age.

  8. ‘The wife learned of the husband’s relationship with a young artist/singer who the husband told me has no assets.

    Except those God gave her…

    ‘The husband is very enamoured of her

    Well, that I believe.

    and set her up in an establishment in Chelsea… At the end of this divorce the husband hopes she will move to the estate.

    Oh good. She’ll have assets soon then…

  9. Thanks for the steer, UKLiberty.
    Has there ever been a more omniscient judge. He appears to combine the wisdom of Solomon, the nous of Buffet and the accounting skills of (er) Richie

  10. Apropos nothing in particular, Mandrake in the Telegraph today asks after a man and his wife.

    I wonder if one day the Attorney-General might come knocking on Mandrake’s door.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>