The Financial Times is reporting that the UK may be in for some divorce reforms, particularly with respect to prenuptial agreements. Right now, prenups are not enforceable in Britain. They are considered by the courts, but generally does not have the force of law.
According to the Financial Times, that may change soon if Baroness Deech, “chair of the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers,” has her way.
The Baroness will on Tuesday “hold up the European system where prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements are common as ‘an immediate and attractive model for reform in this country'”.
Right now, London is known as the “Divorce Capital on the World.” Back in April, we did this post http://www.divorcesaloon.com/have-londoners-gone-divorce-mad about the issue.
It seems the country is evolving as the place to go to marry a rich man and divorce him and live in the lap of luxury ever after due to the loose laws and loopholes that make it difficult for wealthy husbands to keep their wealth out of the hands of their money-grabbing, gold-digging wives.
The thing with Baroness Deech is that she is both right and wrong. She is right in that contracts should be enforced where two consenting adults freely enter into such contracts such as prenuptial agreements. But she is wrong in her insinuation that somehow there’s a crime in marrying a man of means. In other words, the FT article states that Baroness is expected to say in her speech next week that “getting married to a well-off man is an alternative career to one in the workforce”.
That is insulting. And a slightly lopsided way to think that needs to be rounded out. After all, a well-off man has to marry just like a man in pauperis has to marry. Correct? Whom, then, does the Baroness suggest the well off man marry in order that she not be considered to be using him as an “alternative career in the workforce?”………I guess the Baroness’s big thing is keeping the money in the family? She may well believe that it is quite okay for a well-off man to marry a well off woman. That way the money is not muddied by mixing it with the hoi polloi. It’s almost a class issue as much as it is a socio-economic one.
It’s the worse form of snobbery if you really think about it. And sexism too.