Prenuptials Discussion Topic

[Paty]

Can some member made us a summery of this article.
PRINSESSE MARIE: FÅR IKKE EN KRONE - Royalt - SE og HØR

I think talks about a new publised by Ekstra Bladet
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1...0c0dd60bc2.png

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Paty

Can some member made us a summery of this article.
PRINSESSE MARIE: FÅR IKKE EN KRONE - Royalt - SE og HØR

I think talks about a new publised by Ekstra Bladet
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1...0c0dd60bc2.png

I tried Google Translations and they translated it as saying that Joachim learned from his past mistakes, so other than Alexandra, Marie won't even get a farthing if she divorces Joachim - that's the main content of a pre-nup Marie signed the day before her wedding.

[Odette]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I tried Google Translations and they translated it as saying that Joachim learned from his past mistakes, so other than Alexandra, Marie won't even get a farthing if she divorces Joachim - that's the main content of a pre-nup Marie signed the day before her wedding.

If one is to believe what one reads in the newspapers, after Joachim's and Alexandra's divorce and very close to Christian's birth, Mary had to sign a revised prenup. Apparently Alexandra came out of her marriage a very rich lady and the Queen (supposedly) did not want to repeat this with any future (God forbid) divorces.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Odette

If one is to believe what one reads in the newspapers, after Joachim's and Alexandra's divorce and very close to Christian's birth, Mary had to sign a revised prenup. Apparently Alexandra came out of her marriage a very rich lady and the Queen (supposedly) did not want to repeat this with any future (God forbid) divorces.

And it's not as if the Danish taxpayers are not to fund divorced princesses - on the contrary. Alexandra receives an allowance, even though she remarried and in case of a divorce Mary and Marie would receive one as well. So what the DRF is obviously trying is to protect their estate (which is not very large) from divorces while the ex-wifes are properly cared for anyway. For me, this makes sense - as long as parliament is willing to foot the bill.

[Avicenna]

Prinz Joachim und Prinzessin Marie: Gerüchte um ernüchternden Ehevertrag - Panorama - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

The German magazine "Der Spiegel" published an article concerning the marriage agreement today. Obviously Alexandra went away taking a villa worth Mio. 7 DKK plus an annual allowance of TEUR 250. Whereas Marie will only be allowed to keep the gifts she/they receive during the marriage ... sounds a bit unfair to me.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Avicenna

Prinz Joachim und Prinzessin Marie: Gerüchte um ernüchternden Ehevertrag - Panorama - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten

The German magazine "Der Spiegel" published an article concerning the marriage agreement today. Obviously Alexandra went away taking a villa worth Mio. 7 DKK plus an annual allowance of TEUR 250. Whereas Marie will only be allowed to keep the gifts she/they receive during the marriage ... sounds a bit unfair to me.

Durch Schaden wird man klug = One lives and learns. QM must have been so horrified with what Alex got away with and angry with herself for being so careless in the first place that she 1) made Mary sign an updated pre-nup (you never know, just in case) and 2) offered a waterproof agreement only to the second wife (in case they divorce at least there is no financial blow).

Life shows that even royals divorce and QM has learned from her mistakes!

[acdc1]

So Marie basically gets nothing if they divorce?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by acdc1

So Marie basically gets nothing if they divorce?

As I already wrote, she will get an allowance from parliament so she is taken care of in case of a divorce. Alexandra really receives a generous allowance and as long as she didn't remarry, it was tax-free. I think the problem was (or so I read) that Joachim and Alexandra had no pre-nup and Danish law says that in that case the richer of the two has to take care that the ex-spouse lives in the same style she got used to. Which in Alexandra's case meant she had grown accostumed to living in "Royal" style and queen Margrethe had to see to it that Alexandra found adequate housing. Plus she probably had some rights to the Shakenborg estate, which were payed off with the villa. If it is really true that Alexandra wanted out because she had fallen for Martin, her new husband, then it's quite understandible that the queen does not want a repetition. It is unlikely, though, that they would let Marie or Mary stand outside in the rain but surely they don't have a right to their spouses respective private estate. If it is true that Marie signed such a pre-nup IMHO it tells a lot about her and her love for Joachim, because one should be careful on marrying a man who had already once married "for love" and divorced his wife. Good for her.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by acdc1

So Marie basically gets nothing if they divorce?

I haven't read the prenup, but judging by reports, if Marie and Joachim divorce, they will each get what they brought into the marriage, and eventualities that they personally acquired during the marriage. Gifts to the both of them will be shared. It seems like a logical agreement to me.

I can't really see the bad thing in such an agreement - after all, it's not like Marie was a pauper before marriage.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

As I already wrote, she will get an allowance from parliament so she is taken care of in case of a divorce. Alexandra really receives a generous allowance and as long as she didn't remarry, it was tax-free. I think the problem was (or so I read) that Joachim and Alexandra had no pre-nup and Danish law says that in that case the richer of the two has to take care that the ex-spouse lives in the same style she got used to.

It's not automatic that she will get an allowance from the parliament. Personally, I doubt the Danish state will hand out one more allowance to an ex-wife of Joachim, or any ex-wife of royals in general.

Joachim and Alexandra did have a prenup, which was the whole problem for Joachim. Dag T. Hoelseth has the text in Danish on his website: Marital agreement 14 Nov 1995 between Prince Joachim and Alexandra Manley

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Joachim and Alexandra did have a prenup, which was the whole problem for Joachim. Dag T. Hoelseth has the text in Danish on his website: Marital agreement 14 Nov 1995 between Prince Joachim and Alexandra Manley

Thank you for the information - okay, I guess they didn't realise just how much is costs to house a former Royal princess "adequately" in a place of her choice. They should be happy she chose Copenhagen and not, let's say Tokio!

[ashelen]

i understad in one hand that the QM wants to protect the family fortune, but i imagine that for Mary was a difficut situation to have to sign another pre-nup, after being married and having a kid, I will feel ofended, but i suposse she does not have a choice! i wonder how the QM handled with Mary?

[Lilla]

Originally Posted by ashelen

i understad in one hand that the QM wants to protect the family fortune, but i imagine that for Mary was a difficut situation to have to sign another pre-nup, after being married and having a kid, I will feel ofended, but i suposse she does not have a choice! i wonder how the QM handled with Mary?

It must have been pritty awkward.

[wiwaxia]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

As I already wrote, she will get an allowance from parliament so she is taken care of in case of a divorce. Alexandra really receives a generous allowance and as long as she didn't remarry, it was tax-free. I think the problem was (or so I read) that Joachim and Alexandra had no pre-nup and Danish law says that in that case the richer of the two has to take care that the ex-spouse lives in the same style she got used to. Which in Alexandra's case meant she had grown accostumed to living in "Royal" style and queen Margrethe had to see to it that Alexandra found adequate housing. Plus she probably had some rights to the Shakenborg estate, which were payed off with the villa. If it is really true that Alexandra wanted out because she had fallen for Martin, her new husband, then it's quite understandible that the queen does not want a repetition. It is unlikely, though, that they would let Marie or Mary stand outside in the rain but surely they don't have a right to their spouses respective private estate. If it is true that Marie signed such a pre-nup IMHO it tells a lot about her and her love for Joachim, because one should be careful on marrying a man who had already once married "for love" and divorced his wife. Good for her.

I don't think that an allowance allocated by the government is guaranteed, the proposal would be put forward to parliament, and subsequently voted on, and the result may not necessarily be a positive. As far as I can understand, Danish divorce laws are not quite so cut and dried as you explain, many criteria are taken into consideration when the spoils are shared between the two parties, and not just the richest giving to the poorest!

[sgl]

Originally Posted by Lilla

It must have been pritty awkward.

Exactly! I can't imagine what that must have been like, especially since they were already married. It shows that Mary is a very loyal and loving person.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by ashelen

i understad in one hand that the QM wants to protect the family fortune, but i imagine that for Mary was a difficut situation to have to sign another pre-nup, after being married and having a kid, I will feel ofended, but i suposse she does not have a choice! i wonder how the QM handled with Mary?

Mary couldn't have signed another pre-nup as both she and Frederik were most definitely post-nup by the time Joachim and Alexandra were divorced. From the very little which I read about her pre-nup it was predominantly concerned with the rearing and residency of future children if there was a divorce, which is not unreasonable.

My own view is that it's most unlikely that the mother of a future King would be consequently disadvantaged due to the divorce of her brother-in-law. If amendments were agreed to, most probably they would have been relevant to her impending change of status as a royal mother. I can't imagine that she would have been other than more advantaged, not less. Spouses, as distinct from betrothed couples, in most western countries have certain statutory rights which cannot be signed away. I'd be interested to know who has made this assertion and the basis for it. If it's not true, I can well believe that The Queen would be extremely cross.

Nor can I imagine that Princess Marie would be left homeless, particularly if she and Joachim have children. Alexandra's support may well have into account that despite her divorce, she was still the mother of the Queen's grandsons who had certain royal entitlements and expectations.

On a personal level, I really can't see that the ex-husband's private wealth (or wife's) shouldn't form some part of any equitable settlement. It certainly has in other Royal Families

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Polly

Mary couldn't have signed another pre-nup as both she and Frederik were most definitely post-nup by the time Joachim and Alexandra were divorced. From the very little which I read about her pre-nup it was predominantly concerned with the rearing and residency of future children if there was a divorce, which is not unreasonable.

My own view is that it's most unlikely that the mother of a future King would be consequently disadvantaged due to the divorce of her brother-in-law. If amendments were agreed to, most probably they would have been relevant to her impending change of status as a royal mother. I can't imagine that she would have been other than more advantaged, not less. Spouses, as distinct from betrothed couples, in most western countries have certain statutory rights which cannot be signed away. I'd be interested to know who has made this assertion and the basis for it. If it's not true, I can well believe that The Queen would be extremely cross.

Nor can I imagine that Princess Marie would be left homeless, particularly if she and Joachim have children. Alexandra's support may well have into account that despite her divorce, she was still the mother of the Queen's grandsons who had certain royal entitlements and expectations.

On a personal level, I really can't see that the ex-husband's private wealth (or wife's) shouldn't form some part of any equitable settlement. It certainly has in other Royal Families

IIRC correctly the problem was that Joachim's and Alexandra's pre-nup was not according to the general law about marriages in some points. They only found out when Joachim divorced Alexandra. As Frederik had an identical document, I guess they just legally revised it. The document I have seen on the net was hardly tough on the bride: it simply said that each of the partners keep their own wealth in case of a divorce, but that the husband would transfer part of his private estate to his ex-spouse in order to take care of her and that he would pay for a suitable residence.

[Madame Royale]

with the rearing and residency of future children if there was a divorce, which is not unreasonable.

Not forgoing a suitable residence for Mary herself, who in the event of a divorce would most certainly behold the title Princess of Denmark (or perhaps some other creation befitting the mother of the future King).

But I think hell will freeze over before F&M divorce...

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

IIRC correctly the problem was that Joachim's and Alexandra's pre-nup was not according to the general law about marriages in some points. They only found out when Joachim divorced Alexandra. As Frederik had an identical document, I guess they just legally revised it. The document I have seen on the net was hardly tough on the bride: it simply said that each of the partners keep their own wealth in case of a divorce, but that the husband would transfer part of his private estate to his ex-spouse in order to take care of her and that he would pay for a suitable residence.

There were family law lawyers in Jyllandsposten who've pointed out that both Mary and Frederik's and Joachim and Alexandra's pre-nup would not be legal according to Danish law, because the way it was worded.

Ekstrabladet first reported that the change in the prenup would make Mary come out of it with nothing, but BT later pointed out that the only real change to the agreement from the first one was actual wording, so that it would be judicially binding. An attorney quoted said: "The first prenup, which was made public, between Frederik and Mary, have always been a bit of a joke in judicial areas."

I would think that Marie and Joachim's prenuptial agreement reflects the change in Frederik and Mary's, to make it judicially binding.

[Odette]

I read that after the divorce of J & A and right before Mary delivered Prince Christian, she signed a revised prenuptial agreement, reducing her financial rights in case of a divorce from Frederick.
Sounded to me as if Alexandra made out pretty well (Perhaps they did not expect a divorce so the prenup was generous). However the Queen did not like the idea of giving away all that money.
I wonder what sort of prenup Marie has.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by Odette

Sounded to me as if Alexandra made out pretty well (Perhaps they did not expect a divorce so the prenup was generous).

Exactly my thoughts, Odette!
Noone at the royal court could imagine a divorce even in
their wildest dreams! However it did happen, and the DRF got caught
on the wrong foot.

The settlement was a blow to esp. Prince Joachim's economy, and
the Queen lost a family heirloom - the Alexandrine diamond drop
tiara - in the process. She gave it to Alexandra as a wedding gift.
In hindsight, the clever thing would have been to grant Alexandra
the right to use the tiara.

When we discuss the Danish pre-nups, don't forget the there is
no information about the DRF assets in the public domain. If there
were, you'd probably see for yourself that the DRF are paupers
compared to say, the British, the Dutch and the Swedish RFs.
I suspect that most of their assets are tied up in the property of
Marselisborg, the Trend estate and the French chateau Caix.

So for future reference: If you want a generous divorce settlement,
don't marry a Danish prince!

Viv