UK: London Supreme Court to legitimize the prenup?

The Supreme Court in London is said to be considering how much weight prenuptial agreements should be given in divorce cases in England and Wales. According to the Associated Press reports, the decisive case will be one involving German heiress Katrin Radmacher, and her investment banker turned biochemical engineering husband, Nicolas Granatino, and a prenup they executed more than a decade ago in Germany, even th0ugh they lived and were divorced in England. Seems the French born Granatino wants to set aside the prenup and Ms Radmacher feels it should be upheld.
The problem is that the current law in England is a little screwy with respect to prenuptial agreements. For some strange reason, the courts have treated most prenups as toilet tissue – and the agreement as basic manure that is not given any validity and is for all purposes, flushed down the toilet at the time of divorce. (Sorry to be so graphic, but that’s pretty much the truth.)
So in many of these high profile divorces (London, as we have said ad nauseum, is the “Divorce Capital of the World” because of the high payouts wives in particular get when they divorce – even if a prenup would have mitigated that in other jurisdictions) a prenup has been held “void for public policy.” But there is a movement in the country to bring England in line with the United States and other European countries who recognize that since marriage is increasingly become a temporary foray for most folks, premarital agreements just make sense for couples who are trying to safeguard their assets.  Crazily, even inheritances are on the table in a British divorce! So family property and heirlooms can be eviscerated with a single divorce in a marriage that did not even last a decade.
Why has the English courts been the last one to recognize that a prenup is a valid contract and is thus enforceable under basic contract law? Why this attitude that otherwise competent individuals do not have the capacity to enter a “contract” simply because it’s a contract that governs their marriage? How hopelessly old fashioned and arcane. But it is telling that it is a case involving a monied wife and not a monied husband, that could change the law.  Why are some of us still so hopelessly stuck in the middle ages with these preposterous beliefs that a man should be the main breadwinner in the family and he should slit his wrist rather than take money from his wife? Yours truly is not going to be a hypocrite and say that she doesn’t fully subscribe to this school of thought. But why? Where does it come from?
And is it necessarily contradictory to say that one believes the man should be the main breadwinner in the family, and that one believes a man ought to slit his wrist rather than take money from his wife (even in the context of divorce); yet to also assert that one also believes that premarital agreements should be ipso facto upheld by the courts? Because that is the position of yours truly. Yours truly believes the man should be be main breadwinner (and should take pride in it). Yours truly believes that a man ought to slit his wrist rather than take money from his wife. But yours truly also believes that otherwise properly executed premarital agreements should be held valid in a court of competent jurisdiction. Does yours truly contradict herself?
Get the Tshirt from our store!
Image credit: