Err, Rod?

There\’s a reason for this you know?

The point at issue, though, is much broader: the law suggests that she has a “natural” right to a slice of her exhusband’s fortune; even Paul has resigned himself to this. And yet what moral justification is there for such a claim? I dare say Mr Justice Bennett, with his long and noble legal training, will put us right on this.

" I thee with my worldly goods endow". Recognise the phrase?

What he should have done of course is go and live in the house on the Mull of Kintyre for the year before divorcing her. Under Scottish divorce law (so I\’m told) he would only have had to split any money that came in during the period of the marriage.

5 comments on “Err, Rod?

  1. Are you sure Sir Paul actually said that?

    AIUI, the only legal requirements for a marriage, are “Is there any reason why these two cannot be joined?” or words to that effect, and the “With this ring, I thee wed” bit, along with signing the register. Vows can be fairly free-form these days.

  2. ad:

    The endowing is a done deal. You can, under certain legal and religious restrictions, revoke “till death do us part”. At the same time, you can stop any future endowing, but up to that point, your worldly goods have already been endowed.

  3. Yet again the spectacular bias in British divorce law rears its ugly head. I find it appalling that people’s earnings before they even meet their spouse are somehow relevant in divorce cases.

    http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

    Tim adds: As I understand it, it’s England and Wales’ laws: Scotland is different.

  4. Yet again the spectacular bias in British divorce law rears its ugly head.

    What bias exactly? A man is just as entitled to a share of the assets that his wealthy wife brought to the marriage…

Leave a Reply

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 Your email address will not be published.