Should William and Catherine have a prenup?

[missmaggy]

Should William and Catherine have a prenuptual agreement? Such an agreement would specify how marital assets would be divided in the event of divorce. It might also specify custody arrangements of any children born to the marriage, as well as a post-divorce title for Catherine. What other provisions might such an agreement have?

I have read that Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and her husband Prince Daniel have one and so do Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark and his wife Princess Mary.

My question was inspired by William and Kate.

 

[Zonk]

I imagine that there will be a prenup to protect William's legacy from the Queen Mother, the late Earl Spencer as well Diana, Princess of Wales.

And quite frankly, I think the BRF has learned from the divorces of Andrew/Sarah (saying she didn't get enough money) and Charles/Diana (I believe the Queen loaned Charles the divorce money). Really its the best thing...everyone understands what is going on and in the even of a divorce, who gets what.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes, I believe they should have one.

 

[Rascal]

Prenups are the standard

It's my understanding that a pre-nup or "marriage contract" has been the standard among royals for hundreds of years. Obviously, they originated to protect land and real estate, but I don't know of any royal couples that have not had a pre-nup. Perhaps someone who is better informed could provide an example of when this has been the case.

Rascal

 

[Princess Agnes]

Just to clarify a marriage contract is a very ancient pratice but is a very different thing from a prenup.

In a traditional marriage contract it would be stated the bride's dowry, ie, what she would take would her from her family; what the bride should receive from the groom's family (it could include wedding presents as well as long time support) and what she would receive in case of widowhood (usually she was entitled to receive at least the value of her dowry).

So, a marriage contract plans a financial situation at time of the celebration of the matrimony and throughout the married life, a prenup prevents what happens in case of divorce/dissolution of said marriage. Nowadays a prenup includes lots of the things marriage contracts used to plan on, but they are still very different.

About the case it hand, I think William and Catherine should make a proper prenup. I think the problem with Sarah and Diana's divorce was the lack of a reference that forced difficult decisions to be taken when people weren't at their kindest (the money settlements, the HRH issue, the access to children, etc).

 

[Hopewell]

I'd be stunned if they don't. It may never be announced but that and an iron-clad confidentiality agreement should be mandatory!

 

[Skippy]

As romantic as a wedding/marriage is or is supposed to be, the business side is also very important to look at.

So yes, I think it would be very wise and recommendable to have a prenuptial agreement.

 

[segolen]

nothing wrong with a prenup.I believe they should have one.

 

[cd_1]

absolutely have one! who knows what the future holds? Don't take risks and sign a prenup! I'm surprised to learn they might be the first BRF couple to do so!
I read in the article posted that Princess Diana's secretary remarked that Middleton should get a good prenup. What does he mean by that? I'm assuming the prenup includes standrd things, such as custody of children will lie with BRF, no money for the outsider (in this case, Kate),no tell all books and interviews etc... Basically all in William's favour.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would expect the pre-nup to state what the financial arrangements would be for Kate on divorce - even depending on what rank William has at the time e.g. less now as 2nd in line but more if he is the heir and even more if he is the King.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

No, there's no need for one. The Royal family always retains what is theirs and Catherine of Wales would know what was rightly hers. The legalities of such royal marriages are already in place.

 

[branchg]

It was never a requirement for British royal marriages, but times have indeed changed and I believe there will be a prenuptial agreement.

The divorce of Diana and Charles was very expensive, contentious and hurtful to the image and standing of the monarchy. They will want to avoid any potential for conflict by settling many of these issues upfront before they marry.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Pre-nups seem to be so sad and cynical to me. It's a shame that they seem to be necessary in this day and age.

 

[wbenson]

It's unlikely that any past royal marriage involved a prenuptial agreement. Prenups have only been considered legally binding in English law at all for just a few weeks, and the courts have not yet determined how much they should be relied upon in divorce cases. A report on whether they should be formally allowed won't be made until 2012, and the law wouldn't change for a while after that. If William and Kate do enter into one (and I don't see anything wrong with prenups personally; they're perhaps not consistent with a fairytale view of romance, but reality usually isn't), there will be a good chance that it will be meaningless in the unhappy event of a divorce.

 

[Zonk]

Personally I think everyone should have a prenup if you have somethign of value.

Yes, its very unromantic but guess what...so is life...and love dies.

People wake up one day and don't want to be married anymore and might not love that person. And sometimes, the person you thought was the love of your life isn't so nice when you divorce. Its best to protect EVERYONE's interest.

In the past, I used to do a weekend shopping trip to NYC with some girlfriends. One year a friend was going thru a very bad divorce and her ex was suing to get money from stock options that she earned before and while they were married. Another said that it was unromantic. But guess what...the unromantic one is getting divorced and getting taken. She had a small townhouse she coudl afford when they married, now she has a house (with no equity cause she used HER CASH equity to buy the new house for the both of them) that she can't unload and they can't afford. But hey...he is moving in with the new girlfriend and she (and their daughter) is moving in with her sister.

Its unromantic but you have to protect your assets. Kate needs to get an experienced lawyer to make sure her interests are protected. No one hopes for divorce but you should always be ready.

 

[Jacknch]

The whole point of getting married is that you are sure of the person you are marrying and want to spend the rest of your life with them. If you are so unsure that you feel you need a pre-nup agreement then you have no business getting married in the first place. It simply diminishes the meaning of the vows you take, although I think it would be worse if you sign a pre-nup and are getting married in a church: -

"I promise to love, honour and cherish till death do us part and although I'm making these vows solemnly in front of God the meaning of these vows and the value I place on them goes only so far because I do not really trust my new spouse 100% as she/he might very well run off with someone and so to avoid her/him taking me for a ride we've signed a pre-nup"

"With this ring (which I might want back as part of our agreement) I thee wed, with my pre-nup I thee endow"

 

[Iluvbertie]

The whole point of getting married is that you are sure of the person you are marrying and want to spend the rest of your life with them. If you are so unsure that you feel you need a pre-nup agreement then you have no business getting married in the first place. It simply diminishes the meaning of the vows you take, although I think it would be worse if you sign a pre-nup and are getting married in a church: -

"I promise to love, honour and cherish till death do us part and although I'm making these vows solemnly in front of God the meaning of these vows and the value I place on them goes only so far because I do not really trust my new spouse 100% as she/he might very well run off with someone and so to avoid her/him taking me for a ride we've signed a pre-nup"

"With this ring (which I might want back as part of our agreement) I thee wed, with my pre-nup I thee endow"

Most couples go into a first time marriage beleiving it will last forever but statistics suggest that many of them won't make it.

Being prepared for that eventuality - particularly if family wealth is involved and one partner is a lot better off then the other is prudent.

After what happened with Diana and Sarah I am sure that the royal family will won't to ensure no repeats and a pre-nup can do that and stop the bitterness and anger that came with the negotiations over the settlements.

The pre-nup though would have to ensure that Kate was properly cared for in the case of divorce - to prevent another Sarah situation whereby the royal family didn't do the right thing in hindsight.

 

[wbenson]

The whole point of getting married is that you are sure of the person you are marrying and want to spend the rest of your life with them. If you are so unsure that you feel you need a pre-nup agreement then you have no business getting married in the first place.

But nobody would ever get married if that was how it worked. It's simply impossible to tell the future in that way.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The whole point of getting married is that you are sure of the person you are marrying and want to spend the rest of your life with them. If you are so unsure that you feel you need a pre-nup agreement then you have no business getting married in the first place.

If that is the point in marriage, why are there still divorces?
You cannot predict the future, and looking at the track record of most royal brides, a pre-nup is necessary.

 

[Skippy]

If that is the point in marriage, why are there still divorces?
You cannot predict the future, and looking at the track record of most royal brides, a pre-nup is necessary.

Agreed, as romantic as a marriage is supposed to be - the path of staying together until death do you part is today by no means a certainty. Times have changed, how unfortunate that may be.
It's nothing shameful to have your assets protected and I would consider it a very wise thing to do.

 

[Chimene]

Pre-nups seem to be so sad and cynical to me. It's a shame that they seem to be necessary in this day and age.

It is, but because we live in such materialistic world, not sure it was ever any different, it's necessary. That way, the terms are negotiated and stipulated to the agreement of both parties.

 

[Rascal]

Another consideration is how the "non-royal" spouse receives money during and after the marriage. I know that POW receives money from the Duchy of Cornwall and possibly other sources. But as AFAIK, Camilla, Philip, Sophie, and the spouses of other monarchies do not receive a salary or money from the Civil List.

Particularly in this time, most of the spouses who marry into a royal family must give up a career (and the funds they would have earned working in that career). Even the often criticized Miss Middleton would be working at some job at some point if she was not with Prince William. That alone would necessitate a pre-nup. If that spouse "gives up" their life, even for 20 years of fancy clothes, jewels, travel, etc., and then is widowed or divorced, there should be some agreement whereby they are compensated for the time - happy or troubled - they gave to the royal family. And there should be some (NOT excessive like Diana's multi-million payout or Alexandra's divorce house) settlement payment to provide for their future as anyone in that circumstance would have a difficult time finding legitimate work.

And the initial point of my posting...money recieved from the government, civil list, etc. should not be used for such things as alimony or a divorce settlement. The royals should have to delve into their own savings or sell off something of value to obtain the funds. The country should not be responsible for any divorced partner.

 

[nascarlucy]

No one goes into marriage believing that they will be divorced. I think a pre-nup would be a good thing.

 

[MRSJ]

I am sure there will be a pre-nup considering William's postition but if I were Catherine I'd want it to protect me too so I don't end up screwed like Fergie or something....

Now to argue the other side- William does seem like a romantic so he may decide one is unnecssary. but one may be required just because of his position....except are per-nups upheld in British law?

 

[MRSJ]

absolutely have one! who knows what the future holds? Don't take risks and sign a prenup! I'm surprised to learn they might be the first BRF couple to do so!
I read in the article posted that Princess Diana's secretary remarked that Middleton should get a good prenup. What does he mean by that? I'm assuming the prenup includes standrd things, such as custody of children will lie with BRF, no money for the outsider (in this case, Kate),no tell all books and interviews etc... Basically all in William's favour.

Maybe it's also to protect her- if they are married this long she gets this much $$$ if they divorce, or x amount if there are x children. Something so she can be assured that she won't end up like Fergie-

 

[qui mal y pense]

Not to get off topic- but how exactly do you figure Fergie was screwed?! Since the divorce she has been living with Andrew gratis, I'm sure there was never a questions about Andrew's providing for the girls. So why exactly after she embarassed herself and the RF many times over and over at the time and since then, should Andrew be picking up the tab for her extravagant lifestyle??

I think a pre-nup should be a requirement for every marriage because rarely does anyone think rationally when it comes down to divorce. But I do feel there is a huge difference when a marriage is broken up because one partner cheated on the other. Then the guilty party, male or female, should have to PAY!

Just because someone marries into a royal family, does that mean that they are entitled to live up to those standards for the rest of their life even if they divorce because they just want out of the marriage or the lifestyle? I think Countess Alexandra of Denmark is a prime example of Royal divorce done right. She still does occasional appearances for charitable organizations, lives quietly and respectably and not extravagantly.

 

[Zonk]

Let's not make this thread about Sarah's divorce settlement. Its has and can be discussed in the Sarah threads.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Another consideration is how the "non-royal" spouse receives money during and after the marriage. I know that POW receives money from the Duchy of Cornwall and possibly other sources. But as AFAIK, Camilla, Philip, Sophie, and the spouses of other monarchies do not receive a salary or money from the Civil List.

Philip is on the Civil List (as is the Queen). As the Consort of the monarch he will be provided for for the rest of his life from public funds (with the new agreement coming in a couple of years from the income of the Crown Estates).

At the moment Camilla is supported by Charles and that will continue until he is King and then they will make some arrangement using the income of the Crown Estates.

Sophie, like the Queen's other children is supported by the Queen directly as she repays any payments, except those for official government duties, paid to her children.

Until the early 90s or so the government paid Anne, Andrew and the rest of the adult royals from the Civil List as well but in late 1992 the Queen agreed to reimburse those funds from her private income. So since 1992 only The Queen, The Queen Mother and Philip have been on the Civil List.

 

[MRSJ]

Not to get off topic- but how exactly do you figure Fergie was screwed?! Since the divorce she has been living with Andrew gratis, I'm sure there was never a questions about Andrew's providing for the girls. So why exactly after she embarassed herself and the RF many times over and over at the time and since then, should Andrew be picking up the tab for her extravagant lifestyle??

I think a pre-nup should be a requirement for every marriage because rarely does anyone think rationally when it comes down to divorce. But I do feel there is a huge difference when a marriage is broken up because one partner cheated on the other. Then the guilty party, male or female, should have to PAY!

Just because someone marries into a royal family, does that mean that they are entitled to live up to those standards for the rest of their life even if they divorce because they just want out of the marriage or the lifestyle? I think Countess Alexandra of Denmark is a prime example of Royal divorce done right. She still does occasional appearances for charitable organizations, lives quietly and respectably and not extravagantly.

I apologize I didn't mean screwed like they screwed her I was just using the word liberally to mean a generalization- I didn't mean it to sound like oh the BRF screwed her, just she got a small divorce settlement- my apologizes for the confusion!

 

[Catherine Helvin]

I agree with Jacknch's comments about prenups and marriage. I also think that marriage should be for life, not just for when you feel like it and divorce should be made much harder to get, save in the cases of domestic abuse.