Discussion About CP Frederik's and CP Mary's Prenuptial Agreement

[Incas]

Hypothetically, if there is a divorce, and Mary choose to challenge the post-nuptual contract (since they've been married for many years, I think it's ridiculous to call it a pre-nup now), can she use the language issue? I assume she would have had adequate legal guidance before signing this document. However, assuming her lawyer is Danish and everyone spoke Danish during renegotiation, can she claim misunderstanding due to language difference and nullify this contract?

[Laviollette]

Mary forced to change pre-nup

Days before flying to Australia for her recent tour, Mary agreed to remove passages from her original agreement that ordered Prince Frederik to pay for a "new, suitable house'' if they divorced.

article: http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegra...006009,00.html

[grevinnan]

Hypothetically, if there is a divorce, and Mary choose to challenge the post-nuptual contract (since they've been married for many years, I think it's ridiculous to call it a pre-nup now), can she use the language issue? I assume she would have had adequate legal guidance before signing this document. However, assuming her lawyer is Danish and everyone spoke Danish during renegotiation, can she claim misunderstanding due to language difference and nullify this contract?
One can perhaps assume that the Danish Royal Family and its legal advisors would not make such a basic mistake. To ask someone to sign such an agreement as is involved here and without having proper legal counsel (and both Mary and the lawyer would have to attest to that prior to signing) is grounds for malpractice if it at some point in the future costs the Royal family money. Not likely to happen. The purse strings around Mary are tightening.

[Madame Royale]

The purse strings around Mary are tightening.

I don't look at it that way, personally.

Its not so much a reflection upon Mary as it is upon the need for change within royal pre-nuptial agreements. It seems logical to assume that this adaption shall hence forth be recognised within all future marriages relating too, and within, the immediate Danish Royal Family.

[wymanda]

Personally I think that the whole thing being "leaked" is a gross invasion of privacy. It is obvious that the press, world wide, have learnt absolutely nothing from their hounding of Diana. IMO the main culprit, should Mary & Frederick's marriage founder, would be the invasive nature of the world press. I have to say that the Australian press have been the worst. If there isn't a story to tell & Leyton Hewitts daughter hasn't passed wind this week they make up a story about Mary being unhappy, unloved, abused etc etc etc!

[Incas]

I wouldn't compare the public knowlege of this document to press interest in Diana. After all, she was using the tabloids for her agenda, but that's for another thread. Since the revised agreement was lodge with the courts, and I assume that's necessary in order for it to be enforced, it does not sound to have been leaked. Unfortunately, anything that touches on divorce only gives some members of the press amunition for their speculation. The fact the couple appear to be very happy together and expecting a second child seemed immaterial to them.

[wymanda]

Having worked in the Courts system myself I know that there are rules & legislation which cover public access to such documents. This is a leak & I hope that the Danish courts are as vigilant as those here in Australia at seeking out the leaker & disciplining them.

[Lasse Pedersen]

Please keep in mind that this thread is dedicated to the "Discussion About the Prenuptial Agreement" of TRH The Crown Prince Couple of Denmark!

If you want to discuss Crown Princess Mary's education, please do so in this thread: Crown Princess Mary's Education: Subjects; Schools...

Thank you, and happy posting

Lasse
Moderator of the Danish Royal Family forum

[Jo of Palatine]

I thought about the information that only these two passages have been cancelled on the pre-nup of Frederick and Mary. That doesn''t sound good, IMHO.

But can''t it be that because Mary is the mother of the future king other stipulations, which are fixed in other contracts or rules kicked in and the lawyer only said: By the way, Your Royal Highnesses, these stipulations of your pre-nup are now void - maybe we should simply update the document?

And no-one thought of the chance that only these passages get public attention while the others never hit the media?

Just an idea - stranger things have happened, though!

[grevinnan]

I believe that in Denmark these documents must be registered and they are considered public documents. Most peoples agreements are not of any interest to anyone and therefore not discussed in the media. There may not be a leak - just some good investigative reporting.

[seto]

Did they publish the first prenuptial agreement. To me it is just part of the agreement it can be changed during the marriage I have heard of couples who change theirs every few years as the marriage goes on.

[Lady Bluffton]

So what was the legal consideration for the amendment to the original pre-nup? Can anyone give us a translation of the pre-nup amendment?

I am assuming something like "mutual benefits enuring to each party" or some such legal "term of art".

Any lawyers out there want to talk about this (as an attorney, I have a professional interest in this one).

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Laviollette

Mary forced to change pre-nup

Days before flying to Australia for her recent tour, Mary agreed to remove passages from her original agreement that ordered Prince Frederik to pay for a "new, suitable house'' if they divorced.

article: http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegra...006009,00.html

After much ado, I found the section 56 the article is referring to. (When they just say section 56 of Danish law... bad journalism. Do they have any idea how diverse the Danish laws are - and the law with the number 56 was something to do with railroads...)

Anyway, the section 56 of the law about entering into marriage and disolving one:

§ 56. If a spouse has had sole property, it can, if the married couple's fortune, the length of the marriage and the circumstances surrounding it, speaks in its favour, after a claim from the other spouse in connection with separation or divorce, be decided that the one spouse shall give the other a sum to ensure that the person is not in a bad financial situation after the separation or the divorce. This rule is also used for rights that cannot be transferred or of a personal matter, and which is not included in the splitting of joint property. http://www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOCI_/ACCN/A19990014729-REGL

Bad translation, but you may get the general gist. Hence, in one way it really doesn't matter if the two clauses were lost from the pre-nup, as Mary can "lean" on this law, should it, God forbid, be needed. The longer they are married, the stronger her position will be.

[Jasl]

Originally Posted by grevinnan

It was stated earlier in this thread that Mary is a law graduate. That is not correct. She has an undergraduate degree in commerce and law which is quite different. Although her education involved some law classes - common in many business related degrees - she is in no way a law graduate.

<Remarks re Mary's education deleted as per warning/Mandy>

(ooopss, I see that this has already been covered by others :)

Back to the pre-nup changes, yes I can imagine getting something else in return for the changes. But I think more than anything else, I think the reason she agreed was because (i) she believes that her husband and her would do everything not to be placed in that position (to be divorced), and (ii) she doesn't think that the ability to choose a house after divorce is necessary.

Personally, I think the reasons above are admirable (though of course I don't know if they apply in this situation). It shows more trust in the marriage, and indicates that she's not afraid of the risk of 'going it alone' (and not be dependent on handouts) if the unthinkable happens.

[adelaide]

This discussion is very complex because I'm sure that none of us are abble to analyse this agreemant for the all, whithout to know the total background.

But one thing seems to me unacceptable for Mary as the mother of the heir of the Crown Prince is the fact of the unqual treatment beside Alexandra' s position.

Only for that, you can think there is matter of litigation in front the Courts. In this conditions, and because there is no new events regarding the both parties at the contract, I find very strange that Mary could accepted some significant changes about her wedding contract of which the economy is quiet different because of that.

May be she has others insurances!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by adelaide

But one thing seems to me unacceptable for Mary as the mother of the heir of the Crown Prince is the fact of the unqual treatment beside Alexandra' s position.

Yes, that's what I'M thinking as well. But we have only the word of a mass market paper that the agreement was changed because poor Frederick couldn't give Mary what she is entitled to according to the agreement in case of a divorce.

Now that's really a PR problem IMHO for the Royal family. First of all the SHSG never lost their throne but are still sitting on the same throne their family acquired more than 1000 years ago. I can't believe they are poor. Maybe they are not as rich as the Windsors or the Oranje-Nassaus but still it should be enough to support a wife if in addition you are working and getting payment as the Crown Prince of a country of Europe. Prince Henrik isn't from a poor family either, so there should be some assets from his side of the family as well.

Nope, I can't believe that's the case. There must be another reason.

But it's interesting that following the original publishing of the document the case of Alexandra and her income comes up. IMHO it isn't too good for her either, if people start believing that due to the fact that she wants to live in style the equally popular mother of the future king has to cope with eventual dire circumstances. Mind, I'm not saying that it's that way, just that this seems to be what papers are implying, which can't be good for either of the parties of this story. It has already been said that Alexandra gets more than Mary and Joachim, while she does lately only a few Royal duties (see her own thread... Nothing new to be read there....)

I wonder if we'll get a statement soon, explaining the whole sordid thing?

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Now that's really a PR problem IMHO for the Royal family. First of all the SHSG never lost their throne but are still sitting on the same throne their family acquired more than 1000 years ago. I can't believe they are poor. Maybe they are not as rich as the Windsors or the Oranje-Nassaus but still it should be enough to support a wife if in addition you are working and getting payment as the Crown Prince of a country of Europe. Prince Henrik isn't from a poor family either, so there should be some assets from his side of the family as well.

It was pointed out in either the Ekstrabladet article or the News.au one that until Frederik is the king, he will have very little private property - he has his allowance from the state, and that is that, basically. Joachim has Schackenborg, which is his private property. Prince Henrik and Queen Margrethe has Château de Cayx & Marselisborg, as private property. The hunting lodge at Trend is held in a trust, for the descendants of Frederik IX and Ingrid. The rest of the palaces are state-owned, and "lent" to the royals for their usage.

There are jewels, but a lot of them are held in a trust.

[MargreteI]

Should she divorce they would most likely put her up in Sorgenfri Castle which has been vacant since late 90's and also suitable for the mother of the heir.

Besides I doubt we will have any statements from the Royal Family whatsoever regarding this matter. Total silence is more likely.