Should William and Catherine have a prenup?

[Leslie2006]

I think Catherine and William should have a prenup, simply because if God forbid they divorce, the Queen could step in and do whatever she pleased, since any children they have would be her great-grandchildren. I don't think Charles and Diana had one, and the Queen had the power to keep William and Harry from Diana if she was considered 'unstable'. It's not William I'd worry about doing anything like that to Kate - I high doubt he would, he loves her too much - but I wouldn't put it past the older generations of the royal family to try something like that. So they should get one, if anything to protect Catherine from losing everything, mainly her children, to William's family.

 

[segolen]

I don't see anything wrong with prenups. It would be actually wise for them to have one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Catherine and William should have a prenup, simply because if God forbid they divorce, the Queen could step in and do whatever she pleased, since any children they have would be her great-grandchildren. I don't think Charles and Diana had one, and the Queen had the power to keep William and Harry from Diana if she was considered 'unstable'. It's not William I'd worry about doing anything like that to Kate - I high doubt he would, he loves her too much - but I wouldn't put it past the older generations of the royal family to try something like that. So they should get one, if anything to protect Catherine from losing everything, mainly her children, to William's family.

Nothing can stop the monarch of the day taking total control of the children in direct line to the throne - pre-nup or agreement of the parents or anything.

The Queen had the power not only to take William and Harry from Diana but also from Charles.

I can't see that happening but no pre-nup will change that legal power of the monarch - who has to be consulted anyway over the upbringing of direct heirs and has to have access to them to do the training necessary for them to succeed.

As they children will probably be sent to boarding schools from age 8 custody doesn't mean all that much as the raising of the children is them largely in the hands of the school anyway - for 75% of the time the parents aren't directly involved in their upbringing at all.

 

[nascarlucy]

If the Queen had tried to take custody of Prince William and Prince Harry, Princess Diana would have fought this tooth and nail. There is no doubt in my mind that she would have. It wouldn't be good, I can tell you that.

Any monarch could take custody of their family members. All the monarch would have to say to authorities would be family member x or partner of family member x is a danger to the health, safety welfare and well-being of my children, my grandchildren or my nieces or nephews or my cousin ten times removed. Authorities would act quickly.

If a monarch had to take such a step (I would only think in instances where there was evidence of that the child was being physically or mentally harmed or neglected or endangered that this would be the only time that they would take such a step), one would hope it would be for the welfare of the children, not because they were angry with the ex-partner or ex-spouse or angry with their children and decided to do this to teach them a lesson.

I think there should be some type of pre-nup but not sure what it would be.

This is an interesting question but not exactly on topic. If the couple wasn't married to each other but the child was recognized by the royal household including the monarch, could the monarch take custody of that child if they didn't like how the child was being raised by the parents?

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Queen had tried to take custody of Prince William and Prince Harry, Princess Diana would have fought this tooth and nail. There is no doubt in my mind that she would have. It wouldn't be good, I can tell you that.

Any monarch could take custody of their family members. All the monarch would have to say to authorities would be family member x or partner of family member x is a danger to the health, safety welfare and well-being of my children, my grandchildren or my nieces or nephews or my cousin ten times removed. Authorities would act quickly.

If a monarch had to take such a step (I would only think in instances where there was evidence of that the child was being physically or mentally harmed or neglected or endangered that this would be the only time that they would take such a step), one would hope it would be for the welfare of the children, not because they were angry with the ex-partner or ex-spouse or angry with their children and decided to do this to teach them a lesson.

I think there should be some type of pre-nup but not sure what it would be.

This is an interesting question but not exactly on topic. If the couple wasn't married to each other but the child was recognized by the royal household including the monarch, could the monarch take custody of that child if they didn't like how the child was being raised by the parents?

Why would they? The only reason why a monarch has final custody of children in direct line of succession is to see that they are raised to know the role they have to play in the world.

Any other child is treated normally - so Sarah and Andrew had to work out their own custody arrangements but the Queen had to approve the custody arrangements for William and Harry and if she believed that Diana and/or Charles were unfit as parents then not only could she but she would have been required to for the future of the monarchy, the country and the children. It could be argued that she should have acted much sooner than she did to demand that they divorce for the good of the children.

 

[nascarlucy]

Perhaps the Queen hoped that Prince Charles and Princess Diana could work out their differences or perhaps come to some type of understanding. It didn't turn out that way, of course.

I think that as I said earlier than William and Catherine have some type of pre-nup. No one wants to get a divorce. However Catherine should have some type of protection for herself and any children they may have together.

 

[Opal]

I think a prenup would be a very good idea in their case.

 

[Island Princess]

I understand that the courts 'belong' to the Monarch but are we 100% sure that HM could have taken William and Harry from their parents??? This sounds incredibly unlikely - is there evidence for this couched anywhere?

 

[nascarlucy]

In the case of William and Harry, there was no issue about Princess Diana or Prince Charles's fitness as a parent when they divorced. There were other issues, but not that particular issue. If there was, it would have been adressed.

A monarch generally would not interfere in their children's divorces or issues concerning child custody or custody arrangements (it sounds like in the case of William and Harry the Queen had to approve their custody arrangements, but not in other divorce cases involving her children or other family members).

A monarch would have to have proof or a good reason why they thought that they needed to take custody of family members who are under the age of 18. At the very least authorities would investigate the situation. The court would probably rule in the favor of the monarch. If it was later discovered that this was done out of spite or disliking someone, then their reputation would suffer greatly.

I would think in any pre-nup that this issue would be addressed.

 

[Island Princess]

Agreed. However I don't believe a pre-nup would be beneficial to Catherine. Her value comes from what she will contribute to the marriage and the BRF and this can't be fully known yet.
How will her role evolve over time?
How many children will she produce?
How many charities will she patronise?
Will she be a hard-working royal with high EQ and a rapport with people from all walks of life?
Or will she just carry out the bare minimum of duties until the POW assumes the throne?
I think from a legal point of view it would be better for her to negotiate a settlement when the marriage breaks down IF it breaks down that takes into consideration her contribution in real terms. Rather than rely on an agreement drawn up before the marriage and children.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Terms of a pre-nup need to be updated through periodic post-nups. Like a will, a "nup" of either pre or post should be dynamic and needs to be updated as things go along. Generally, a pre-nup does not include the disposition of children only the financial aspects of the respective spouses at any given time. As Kate brings nothing to the marriage, financially, her "worth" in any updated nup can only speculative and at the whim of her spouse and the RF and their counsel. A pre-nup starts out by setting alimony at stages through the marriage, i.e., after 10 years of marriage, she would get $10,000,000; after 20 years $40,000,000 and so on. A pre-nup basically covers money and property, of which Kate has none of her own (her family's income doesn't count).

 

[lyndaW]

Also, a pre nup would address the case of any children not being removed from the Country on a permanent basis............

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Hey Lynda, how's things in the mountains? My prenup didn't address disposition of children, just finances. Of course, that was years ago.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Frederick and Mary had an initial pre-nup and then another update after Christian was born which stated very clearly that if they divorced and she decided to leave the country they children must remain in Denmark.

That wouldn't be a real issue for Kate as she is British as well.

 

[mgrant]

I think a prenup would be a very good idea in their case.

This is a learning experience for me! Yes, by all means, William and Catherine need a prenup.

 

[Island Princess]

Frederick and Mary had an initial pre-nup and then another update after Christian was born which stated very clearly that if they divorced and she decided to leave the country they children must remain in Denmark.

That wouldn't be a real issue for Kate as she is British as well.

Have the Danish RF publicised this? Do you have a source?

 

[Zonk]

I believe that was announced in the Danish press, I am sure one of our handy member can find this information in the Danish thread.

 

[nascarlucy]

Since Catherine was born and raised in England, it's not likely that she would move to another country if the marriage didn't work out.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Have the Danish RF publicised this? Do you have a source?

It was reported in the Australian press at the time.

Princess Mary 'changes pre-nup details'

Princess Mary 'changes pre-nup details' - Breaking News - National

 

[PrincessKaimi]

It could be said that truly noble people do not (ever) need a pre-nup. That's what it means to be noble. So, perhaps William and Catherine are aiming high. Perhaps each trusts the other to do the right thing, now and in the future. Perhaps they consider that's what a real marriage is. They will say their sacred vows in public, to love and honor - and that's all the "pre-nup" they need.

Works for a lot of people, actually. I think it will work for them - and I pray they never have to look back on their decision.