With weddings hitting an all time low, I wonder if a major cause for men is the thought of getting stung in the divorce courts, like Colin Montgomerie and Ray Parlour, whose ex-wives can continue to live in luxury for the rest of their lives.
Mind you, with some women earning more than their husbands, the boot can sometimes be on the other foot.
But now our divorce settlements are to face a major a shake up as they are regarded as being the most generous in Europe towards divorcing wives, with thousands of women flocking here to have their divorce heard.
This New Statesman article reports that while other European countries expect women to return to work and support themselves after the breakdown of a marriage, England has experienced a counter-feminist revolution in recent years. It has become normal here for women to lay claim to all the assets their husbands have brought to the marriage, and even future earnings, as well as being supported by them for the rest of their lives
Now all that is set to change with a massive upheaval being proposed from Brussels and due to come into force next year. The European Commission has put forward a controversial new legal framework to streamline attitudes to adultery and maintenance across Europe. It wants to end divorce “tourism” and prevent disgruntled spouses shopping for a court hearing in England. I imagine that is music to the ears of many divorced men. And how can men possibly afford to divorce twice?
The intention is to introduce greater consistency in the treatment of divorcees through out the European Union. Just compare how divorce settlements differ throughout Europe:
Maintenance is not common in Denmark, and when granted it does not normally last more than ten years. In England, chances of gaining maintenance for life increased after the 2006 McFarlane case, in which the wife received Â£250,000 for life.
Maintenance for the wife can be claimed if she conceived during the marriage; it is paid until the child turns three. But all maintenance depends on the obligated spouse’s financial ability to pay. Pre-marital assets and inherited wealth are excluded.
Most of Spain splits assets acquired during marriage equally. In Catalonia, however, these do not have to be shared. Maintenance depends upon factors including length of marriage, health, employment prospects and the parties’ skills.
In principle, all marital property is to be divided equally between the husband and wife. Anything acquired before marriage is subject to any pre-nuptial agreement. Ex-spouses are expected to support themselves, though maintenance may be awarded for a transitional period.
Often seen as “mean” for its 50:50 division of matrimonial property, regardless of the length of the marriage. Still, inherited assets and assets acquired prior to marriage are excluded. Also, maintenance is usually paid for only three years from divorce unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Harriet Harman, Minister for Constitutional Affairs, is keen to see divorce legislation amended and will be making regular trips to Brussels to search for common ground; it could well be a bitter battle.
I like the French and Scottish rule about inherited assets and assets acquired prior to marriage being excluded from settlements, it certainly seems very fair. I wouldn’t be surprised if pre-nuptial agreements are encouraged, I can see why those with vast wealth want to protect themselves against gold-diggers, but it does take the romance and trust out a relationship.
Then there is the issue over cohabiting couples and their rights when breaking up. That’s why staying single can seem such an attractive option for so many.
So how fair do you feel our divorce laws are? How should they be changed so both sides get treated equally and fairly?
I really don’t see why a woman, in this day and age, should expect an estranged husband to support her for the rest of her life. I do, however, feel sorry for older women who are “dumped” for a younger version; a man can have an entire restart in life, including having another family, whereas an older woman generally can’t – yet!
I think the current situation has just reached a point of who has the most expensive lawyers, wins. This does need to change but I am Irate that the poxy EU thinks it should have a say. Where is its Democratic mandate?
If we are to re-legislate then I would much prefer to see the law emerge from debate in our own parliament. The whole basis of European law is founded upon Roman law which is antithetical to Anglo-Saxon law.
Ellee, can you explain why you think a pre-nup ‘takes the romance and trust out of a relationship’ ?? You can’t just make an assertion like that without backing it up. To my mind, this is pure nonsense. People should have a choice in this country to have a pre-nuptial agreement if they so wish, without it being challenged as ‘not legal’. I don’t see why women being able to live in debt all the time, and expect a man who has saved for a rainy day, to have those assets scooped up in any divorce. Of course, the reverse is true – a a man could be completely irresponsible with his finances if he thinks he can be ‘repaid’ and have all the lawyers bills covered, from his wife’s assets when they divorce.
I don’t think it would be particularly romantic if a woman considered how much money I did or didn’t have as the reason to get into the relationship anyway. It isn’t particularly romantic either to make wills to cover what will happen if one or other partner gets run over by a bus, or take out life insurance in case both partners kick the bucket and the kids have to be taken care of. But this is just life and people deal with these sort of things every day.
The problem with you girls is that you want perfection. A man who is ‘all-powerful’ in work but a softie/new man around the home. Someone who will use any shenanigans to get on in work, but ALWAYS tells the truth at home. Someone who will work all hours god sends to be successful, but woe betide if he is not anything less than 110 % committed to you and the family.
And don’t even consider the idea that in the workplace women should earn less than a man. But yet you STILL insist on having a partner that earns a lot more than you ! Life is a package deal folks, and if you want everything, you may end up with nothing – so decide what is important.
Because as with so much else in our fractured western lives, if we want to know the answer to these problems we have to look in the mirror.
Pre-nuptials are the way to go, but as a man you need to be on record banging this drum before you meet the girl of your dreams.
Bedd, I can certainly see why Paul McCartney should have had a pre-nup, and others like him. I would be happy to sign a pre-nup if I was marrying someone that rich, it would be perfectly reasonable and also demonstrate
my feelings were genuine (hypthetically, of course, as I am married). My sentence on pre-nups does also say “I can see why those with vast wealth want to protect themselves against gold-diggers….”, but on the other hand some women might find it offensive, that was the message I wanted to convey, to put both sides up for discussion.
It’s deciding how ordinary couples like myself can go down this pre-nup path that I am not sure about, I don’t know if it happens, but it could well be part of the EU discussions. It’s interesting how the article mentions our divorce laws as a backward step for feminists, and to see the comparisons with other European countries. The report I have quoted states that prenuptial agreements are still not recognised in England, but are binding in countries across Europe from France and Spain to Poland and the Czech Republic.
The tide is going to turn, and soon, and it will be up to Harriet Harman to state the changes she feels should be made in the UK. Why don’t you contact her if you have strong views about it? It would be helpful if the govt had an online forum where subjects like this could be discussed, it happens in one American state, Ohio, I believe.
Your comment about women wanting perfection may well be true too. I have a friend who runs an Introduction Agency called Tempting Fate and she says people’s expectations are unrealistically high. I believe we are all flawed individuals in some way. I would personally not be attracted to a perfect person, it sounds far too dull. And yes, very few of us look into the mirror with our eyes wide open.
Welshcakes, I would be interested to know what the marriage/divorce rate is in Sicily.
CU, The new regulations will be known as Rome 111.
The pre-nup should be standard _ they should be selling standard forms in WHS, they should be giving out draft agreements to both parties when a civil marriage is booked _ it needs to become as integral a part of the wedding preparations as choosing the wedding invites.
With regard to the EU intervention, it looks like this is one instance where the EU will actually lead to an improvement in English law _ altho, I agree that it would be more appealing if it was an English Parliament deciding to sort out this mess.
As a Roman Catholic, divorce would be a minefield for me if the situation arose, since I could not actively seek it and would be duty bound to oppose it if it was forced upon me.
I spent almost two years of my life preventing an engagement reaching it’s logical conclusion partly for this reason.
Marriage seems too much of a headache in this day and age- one sees so many fail.
I would say that I have enough respect for the institution not to attempt it myself.
Thank goodness for the EU. Yet another issue upon which it makes absolute sense!
Bring on the Euro…
Joe, I do sympathise with your views. I have two brothers who are both divorced. As a result of their experiences, I do not see them ever remarrying, men are often badly hurt from divorce too, and not just financially.
I think the other point here is that all finances need to be separate. Too many women have ended up with no pension provision because they assumed they would still be with their husband. And we know what happens when you ass-u-me.
Giving a clear signal, from the outset, that ALL parties need to be savvy about their finances is a sensible one. Okay, it would be a bit extreme to still be going dutch on one’s ruby wedding.
But if the woman is giving up work to help look after the children, which she is quite entitled to do, she should make sure that hubby/partner is putting some money aside for her in a separate account, not because they think they are going to split up, but there will be some sort of reserve ‘if the worst happens’, whether that be illness or worse, or if they do decide to go their separate ways.
Before I sound too dull, I should point out that I have been taking a ‘career break’ and haven’t opened my bank statements for weeks.
But luckily I had a bit of a reserve to fall back on, and don’t have dependent children.
‘How you do money is how you do life’, though, and we do need to discuss these things with our nearest and dearest, just like going to the dentist, so that we can then out and enjoy more exciting things, smiling merrily !!
Cohabiting seems to be the norm now, and so many are afraid to be more committed.
Great post, Ellee and very close to home in my case. I really believe men just don’t want to be trapped. Whether it is the fear of costly payouts, I don’t know. I don’t think that comes into it for the young man. I think it’s more that with sex on tap [young women saying ‘yes’ these days], there’s no incentive to lose one’s liberty.
There is another factor apart from the cost of divorce – your headline concern is “…fewer marriages”:
You no longer need to get married in order to have regular sex. In fact, marriage often means less regular sex for many people (certainly less variety of partners for sex.)
Division of wealth after divorce for childless couples is not an important social issue – abandonment by one parent of children is.
I feel that conception outside wedlock ought to be stigmatised again. Divorce should be harder. Marriage vows should be permanent and a test of commitment before the advent of children. And if you can’t commit to solemn vows (religious or civil) then you shouldn’t be having kids.
Added to all you’ve said is the staggering cost of many weddings and the removal of tax incentives for married couples. All we’re left with is a delay by one life of the inevitability of inheritance tax…
I’m afraid to say James Higham speaks the truth. electro kevin also highlights truth in his second paragraph.
I’m sorry to have to admit that my own experience of ‘committed’ relationships has led me to abandon the concept completely as an unnecessary hindrance.
Of course, I’m aware that in another ten to fifteen years,prospects will be bleaker for me, but in the meantime I- and many of my friends- enjoy the benefits of not being attached to anyone, without ever being truly single. And when we can have life like this, why would we want to marry?
I don’t intend to shock, but while you can always find a woman if you want one (and often really nice people with it), no strings attached, why ruin a good thing?
I don’t say this in any sense advocating this, merely explaining why young men of my generation are quite happy with the idea of never committing and settling down.
It would reduce our quality of life.
Well James and Joe, I wonder if you would walk down the aisle if you wanted to have children, would that make a difference?
Are you saying women should play “hard to get” to win over men like yourselves? I do appreciate your honesty, it’s a very topical subject as the demise of family life has been blamed for many of our society’s ills.
Ellee, since we are being honest here, I’ll put this to you.
I have a rule that I don’t sleep with any woman I have just met. There are a number of reasons I have this rule, which I need not detain you with.
I am always adamant on this rule, but- surprisingly- it is often women themselves who try to persuade you to relax the week’s probation period.
I probably enter the numbers of six or so new women into my phone every month. One or two of those will lead somwhere- I won’t say romantic, but I’m not sure how else you describe it. Within two to three months, I will in most cases have stopped answering their calls. One or two a year will become a permanent part of my life.
I’m used to this, I’m happy with it.
More importantly, I never pretend to any woman that I mean anything more than I say. I’m honest from day one that I don’t do commitment or fidelity.
I understand that from a societal point of view, this is hardly to be advocated.
But I do know I will pay the price one day. I can do this now because I’m young(ish), relatively handsome and reasonably charming. I won’t be by 2020 and then Microwave Lasagne for one is looming.
It is a dilemma isn’t it?
I suppose there’s another spanner in the works, Ellee.
Of course I’d like to carry on the family line.
Joe’s lifestyle choice can’t be argued with and that’s his prerogative given that women are as sexually predatory as men nowadays.
This is storing up trouble for society though.
When I was single I couldn’t bear one-night-stands – the women I attracted were always the more serious kind and the trauma of trying to make clear that there was nothing in it destroyed any ‘benefit’ from the night before. Getting married was a huge relief for me. My children are now my greatest joy – and my greatest concern. Life is now bitter sweet but never shallow (not saying yours is Joe)
I just wish to impress upon people looking for the perfect partner to forget it – they rarely exist.
…Just try to find someone who means well and is as equally forgiving as you are.
My use of the expression ‘one-night-stand’ pertains to any short-term sexual relationship.
Well how annoying I seem to miss all your best posts Elee , you have certainly touched on a hot subject here. It is obviously not going to be fair to have prenuptial agreements on an voluntary basis which will leave the husband , generally , in a lottery . Clearly divorce does not happen when the feelings that pertained to the marriage are still current so if there is a decision at that time it will, be sheer lucjk as to whether it was the right one . If there is going to be such a thing it would have to be compulsory or better still part of the law as it related to marriage.
I `m mot sure there are iot two different subjects here . The end of marriage as predicted in the Press this week does not seem to have stopped all of my friends getting married .. It does stop young girls who are hoping to collect the maximum benefits and accommodation even admitting to a relationship.
This single piece of ham fisted benefits and welfarism must be responsible for about as much woe and misery as any ,and Frank Field foresaw all of this before he was ambushed by Gordon Brown and the old Left.
Higher up the income scale there is problem about an imbalance of power in the relationship that is inherently destabilising . The woman can at any time decide she has had enough of the marriage and , once there are children , walk off with an assured income and a family .The man will walk away ruined with little prospect of restarting life and separated from the children he , for the most part, will have centered his hopes around. It is know wonder that as in many cases the mans will be blameless ( as many as visa versa), men are simply refusing to cooperate with this manifest injustice and are not paying the money due .If the courts actually enforced access it would help but generally the woman eventually starts a new relationship and the children will become part of that supported by the law.
My brother is currently in a settled relationship with a woman with whom he has two children and a house. She has recently divorced, after a long separation obviously, and my brother and partner look after her daughter from the previous marriage . We have both noticed how inevitable it is that the father slides into the background with all the best intentions . Often there will not be best intentions.
I saw David Cameron`s silly remark about stigmatising fathers , you have to treat fathers fairly for them to accept there is a guilt to be had and at the moment they are treated disgracefully in the divorce courts. I put this favouring of women down to the strange quirk that women vote on womenâ€™s issue whereas men vote of national issues . Women are more likely to change their vote and this voting a s a huge interest group has slowly put men in the position of a being an embattled farm animal expected to work and sacrifice but treated as having no value whatsoever.
. Thanks for your comparisons Ellee they are interesting and conform my long held suspicion that there is a serious imbalance in this country .I wish I could think of an answer but it is less politically possible now than ever with both parties competing for the â€œWomenâ€™s voteâ€?. Will men have to start voting on â€œMen`s issuesâ€?
There used to be an advert by a leading washing machine maufacturer – I can’t remember which one – was it Siemens?
The line was “The average marriage lasts for 11 years. The average washing machine lasts for 12 years. Choose your washing machine carefully!”
I read of one lawyer who when approached by his wealthy male clients telling him that they were going to get married, he had one piece of advice – “Dont!”.
I am 35 years old and male. I could not marry someone as I would effectively be writing a blank cheque. It’s as simple as that. Until the settlements on divorce are completely overhauled, I think we might find that marriage goes the way of other ancient customs and in 50 years time, it could become an entry in the history books.
Hi Elle, I wanted to make a comment but I couldn’t find an address or phone number to do so. Would you prefer that I just hand it all over to the authorities? I don’t mind waiting but my wife has asked me to make some pickled onions today,
Paris, Rome, Vienna, Dorking
Ps: one small type just in from off Harriet Harman Q.C.
Electro-Kevin: “I feel that conception outside wedlock ought to be stigmatised again. Divorce should be harder. Marriage vows should be permanent and a test of commitment before the advent of children. And if you canâ€™t commit to solemn vows (religious or civil) then you shouldnâ€™t be having kids.”
It is too easy to get divorced, “commitment” seems to be a feared word and concept for many of those who have commented here.
Newmania, I think this post has touched a raw nerve with some, it’s an issue for both men and women.
Tom sums up the cynical view which is perhaps becoming more common in our society today, hence its breakdown and the fractured families.
I think we sometimes put the cart before the horse – my thoughts are still in development on this though.
Marriage is easier to get out of now, therefore it requires less consideration to get into. That is why I think divorce rates are higher. The ‘commitment’ is emotionally cheaper in the first place and divorce is often seen as plan ‘B’ and is quite likely in mind when walking down the aisle. (I did this I’m ashamed to say – luckily I grew up during my marriage)
I can’t yet reconcile this with what Tom (21) said about the lawyer, this alludes to the fiscal risk rather than the spiritual. A benefit of not having much money is that I have not had to think of this one !
Keep up the good work
(thanks Dave Allen)
As an oldie with two marriages and two divorces behind me. i find it amazing that we don’t do pre-nups here. In France its compulsory before you are allowed to marry you have to agree on the division of assets, most choose 50/50 but it is still a concious legal choice.
A small joke that I picked up on a blog relating to this is the accountant aged 56 who left a note to his wife saying he was running of with his 18 year old secretary. His wife dropped by the husbands office saying that was fine and she was going off with the 18year old lad next door and as an accountant he would know that 18 goes into 56 many nore times than 56 goes into 18!
In the real world, try the cost of housing.
In my experience if the Bride’s father pays for a white wedding they have one, if not they don’t bother.
I think marriage is simply becoming less relevant because;
a. The nuclear family model is passing in to history as did the extended family and the clan system before it. (It is surelty related that family businesses are an increasingly rare feature of the economy).
b. DNA testing and the pill have made monogamy serve no practical purpose.
c. The religous/moral argument for marriage is irrelevant to many.
d. With women having been liberated from the social stigma previously attached to active female sexuality, we don’t have to pretend that it is only men who naturally seek to be promiscuous.
e. The way most marriages end these days is hardly a selling point.
I was talking to a really nice woman last night about an hour after my last post. She was talking about a man she had stopped seeing because- to her eyes- he was getting too serious. I was refreshed to hear that her ideal was simply the ‘friends who also have sex’ thing- mainly because I had gone to the pub specifically for her. It made me reflect on what I had written earlier and made me appreciate all the more how much easier life is for those of us who have no commitment and do not want commitment. I will certainly be seeing her again.
I’m a romantic, old-fashioned girl and I find it disappointing that you guys don’t seem to talk about love and commitment.
And how do I advise my two teenage sons about the ways of the world? I always tell them to respect women and not to hurt them. Is that a level playing field today?
But look at the facts,Joe. Things which have arrived at about the same time as sexual liberation (if you want a list):
a, the state of our streets
b, the fact that our country is worst for kids
c, our pensions are knackered
d, the highest rates of drunkeness
e, levels of crime
f, teenage pregnancy
g, illiteracy …
Then there’s Ellee’s point about commitment.
The list could go on and on. Don’t you think that our European neighbours have a better idea ?
I agree, Electro-kevin. I’ve never said I condone this state of affairs. Paradoxically, I would wholeheartedly agree that there was a lot to be said for family values and from a theoretical point of view, I would oppose divorce as I would oppose abortion and even contraception IF we had a society geared up for monogamous relationships and nuclear family units.
We clearly don’t.
Most people follow the path of least resistance. A hundred ago that meant most people got married, because they believed life was better that way.
Nowadays people like me don’t because life clearly would not be better for people like me to marry.
The real issue is how to make marriage better than the alternatives and I don’t really see how that can be done any more.
Ellee, I’m sorry to have to tell you, I believed in that romantic ‘one love for life’ stuff once . I once believed in Santa Claus as well.
The only thing I know about love and commitment is that they are hard, messy and ultimately hurt you badly. Life’s too short for that.
I respect women, Ellee, and I try not to hurt them. I never mislead or pretend I can offer things I can’t. I respect women the most who play by the same rules. Fair surely?
Hell, deep down I probably do see that romantic archetype as appealing, and of course I’d love it to be true.
But it doesn’t correlate with my experience of reality.
Well then the question is a very simple one indeed, Joe (I see where you’re coming from).
Do we, the English, stop breeding ?
(I infer that you agree with me that children out of wedlock is undesirable. Correct me if I’m wrong.)
Joe … you mean Santa Claus doesn’t exist ???
I think, electro-kevin, we as a society really need to look at finding a way we can find a successful framework for bringing up children which utilises all that was best about nuclear family units. There weould seem to be some urgency that we do so.
But I think we have to accept that will have to be done in a different way to previously. How that is to be done, I cannot say. But is certain that is undesirable for children to be brought up without a loving family around the, just as it is equally certain that lifelong monogamour relationships would seem to be heading for the dustbin of history.
Myself, I think I can see a way through the quagmire, but I think we will see a couple of generations of social turmoil before the slotion which I think would ultimately suit everybody will emerge.
Oh Joe – I like you very much and suspect that we could share a few pleasurable ales together.
This was really a one-word-answer. Why does thou prevaricate so much ???
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ …
… does Santa Claus exist ????
I hope to restore in everyone that humour, sensuality, compassion and individuality does indeed transcend marriage.
E.K. Surely you can still be all those things – if you are married to the right person and feel truly happy in yourself.
Interesting article Ellee, and some interesting comments as well. I was going to write a rant about the law commissions proposals on cohabitation but may well now include some of the material here.
Just a comment to Joe, “we as a society really need to look at finding a way we can find a successful framework for bringing up children which utilises all that was best about nuclear family units.”
That would be in a nuclear family, preferably with some extended family nearby. Statistically speaking there is no better way than to bring up children in a married stable household of both biological parents.
Electro-kevin, Santa Claus is a confused mixing of St Nicholas with the central figure of miedieval Xmas cheer, the Lord of Misrule, himself a hangover from the pagan Green Man.
His red clothing was donated to him by Coca Cola.
With his encouragement of the festival of commercial greed which has taken over from celebrating the greatest event in the history of mankind, I hope to God he doesn’t exist.
But I’ve not searched Baffin Island thoroughly, so it’s possible.
Ellee, I hope I haven’t come across on this thread as thoroughly amoral- I like to think I do have strong morals- even if different to other people.
By the way, I checked that Lobster Blogger chap out. His site is quite bizarre. (there is a very strange thread about the Nazi flag), but there seems to be some mudslinging going on re guido. Maybe that explains something?
Electro-kevin, if you’re ever in the Birmingham area, mine’s a Tetley’s
Benedict, I noticed your comment had gone on just after I posted mine and I don’t want to look like I posted the above ignoring you.
Problem is the genie is out of the bottle and you won’t get it back in.
The sexual revolution happened and things can never go back the way they were.
I think relationships can be made to work- as long as neither party imposes sexual exclusivity on the other, and I think that is where we will end up eventually.
Couples will live together, create children together and raise them together, but not have to be sexually exclusive.
Contraception and Paternity testing make this an entirely viable system.
Realistically, I can’t see any other solution that can work- now.
Marriage can then reemerge to give the true benefits of a nuclear family, pruned of the outmoded possesive sexual jealousies of the past.
Sorry if that all sounds a bit radical.
I have just spent the evening watching Bridget Jones Diary with my mother, I do so enjoy this film and can totally empathise with many of the characters. I love the music too.
I can empathise with Bridget turning up at the fancy dress party as a bunny girl when no-one else dressed up, that happened to me once at a Halloween party when I was the only witch in costume! This film is such a good laugh, but what does it say about our society today? There are no real baddies, as such, eveyone has different needs, and different pressures.
I empathise turning up at a party dressed up as a bunny girl too.
Woe is me.
Overintellectualism – my new word, at last I am thankful for a bog-standard education which wields a sythe through over-educated bullshit.
The bane of modern Britain.
Joe, can I point out that sexual exclusivity has it’s advantages. For example, I never have to worry about catching any STD’s at all. Neither does my other half.
I would also say that there is something comforting about being part of a two person team who will stand by each other to take on the world. That said we need as a society to nurture the idea that is what marriage is about.
Electro-kevin, how can you call modern Britain overintellectual?
It’s DEPRESSINGLY dumbed down. Finding decent intelligent conversation is not easy as it should be, and like yourself, I just had a bog standard education.
Benedict, I take your point about STDs- In fact it is a point I had forced upon me some years back and I hope never to repeat that trauma.
Unfortunately, Benedict,I take little comfort in being part of a two person team, I’ve been there.
I take comfort in continuously attracting other people, there is no thrill greater than when you hold someone’s eyes and know they find you attractive. It’s very addictive. It took me a long time to realise that I actually derived more satisfaction out of that than actually existing relayionshps, but it took a lot of heartbreaking and hard relationships for me to admit that to myself.
In fact, it was a woman who told it to me about myself in the first place. I’m grateful to her.
Sure, a two person team could work. It could even work for me- but not with the mutually exclusive caveat.
Oh Gawd. Sorry to sully your blog, Ellee.
Two films which exemplify modern Britain:
– Snatch (Guy Ritchie)
– Sex Lives of the Potato Men
There was also a BBC film about urban youth which I can’t remember the name of but which impacted on me because it was the truth.
The elite ARE woefully over-intellectualised and have such a disconnection with the likes of me that there is about to be a massive shock.
Do I sound like an unreasonable person ??
No, I am not. I am a nice person.
But I am about to withdraw my consent for the Govenment to govern me.
The prisons are full and the threats are empty.
My name is:
Did I really say that ? (46)
As visitors to the excellent blog Islington Newmania will already realise, I am subject to to extremes of romanticism. I start early morning shifts highly charged with eroticism (this seems to displease my shunter for some reason – I am a train driver BTW). And when I go out on the squirt, as I did last night, I come over all “I am Spartacus !” and seem to glow incandescently with righteous indignation which seems to come from nowhere.
My humble appologies to Joe who was not the target of my ire, my appologies to Ellee who, in sobriety, I still maintain is an English Rose – and my profuse appologies to the most excellent Ms Smack whose blog is worthy of visitation by even the most priggish gentleman or laddette in need of respite from boring sex.
An abject lesson as to why one must unplug the modem before going down the pub. 46 was me at my worst, folks – leave it be Ellee…
(best Swiss Tony impersonation)
…I shall suffer it worse than any admonishment.
(BTW Joe, for such an errudite man about town you seem to spend an awful lot of time on the old ‘pooter.)
E-K, Absolutely no need to apologise. I hope you don’t have a sore hangover.
Though erudite I’d hardly how I describe myself.
Reality is that due to the old demon of working nine to five, I only go out properly (as in pure hedonism) one weekend in three and then have quiet weekends the other two. (If you folow my blogging patterns, you will notive when.)Aside from that I only go to the pub two or three nights a week and never drink more than three or four pints. I can’t risk hangovers, as I have to be bright, breezy and people focussed in the morning. Therefore I have hours of time many evenings to comment at UK Polling report and pop in to quality blogs like this. It’s partly that I enjoy decent conversation, and I gave up watching telly a couple of years ago. (Though I do have the Politics show on now.)
Certainly I am no member of an intellectual elite- far from it.
Hello Ellie, I have lurked on your blog a little in the past and would like to add my two penneth to this discussion, albeit belatedly. Like you I am saddened at comments about ‘sex on tap’ when considering whether it is worthwhile getting married – that or the pros and cons of a pre-nup! How sad is that? Am I completely out of step to believe the contentment that comes from a monogomous loving relationship is something to aspire to? I’d also like to challenge the notion that some couples who live together are any less committed than those who have married. I’m not married but my commitment to my partner and children is absolute. Oh hang on, we’re only not married because we haven’t found time and I don’t fancy the prospect of the wedding pictures much. (Too fat!) We are loving and caring parents and even venture to church some Sundays – though I have never told anyone there that we aren’t married – I’m paranoid the vicar will think the only reason we go is in a bid to persuade him he should be the one to marry us! And just to throw in some obvious anecdotal evidence, some of my peers, those married women who had children around the same time as me, who live me, now find themselves as lone parents, as their husbands have left them, one while she is still pregnant.
Bit of a long comment this, I’ll have to blog about my thoughts myself sometime. Best wishes.
Sorry Ellee, I have a friend called Ellie! I hate it when people call me Lynda!
I’m a bit of an absolutist when it comes to divorce. “All my worldly goods with thee I share” is an absolute – it doesn’t allow for pre-nups or exceptions.
So in the unhappy event of a divorce, my starting point is a 50-50 split, with ongoing joint responsibility for raising any children.
Similarly, in the case of cohabitation, no commitment has been made by either party. In the absence of children, my starting point is that all property owned by one individual remains the property of that individual, and all property owned jointly is divided 50/50.
If there are children, add an ongoing joint responsibility for the raising of any children of the couple. In the absence of marriage or adoption, you don’t acquire formal responsibility for your partner’s children.
Out of interest, how do you reconcile the fact that you claim to be Roman Catholic (and serious enough about it to avoid divorce) with your admitted unrepentant fornication. Doesn’t the Church rather frown on that, too?
It does indeed, Sam.
But it’s less of a sin than Adultery would be.
You’d be surprised to know I attend Mass most weeks.
I’m honest enough to admit that marriage just isn’t in me.
But I still have driving instincts which need assuaging from time to time.
And there’s a lot of temptation.
What would you have me do?
I try to show love in all cases- even if that’s not exclusive- nor eternal- is that so bad?
We all take different paths to salvation.
Sam, Are you married, out of interest? I quite like your views, I’m still not convinced about pre-nups for people like myself, but can see why it is necessary for millionaires, does that make sense?
Linda, I’m so pleased you shared your views, I’ve seen your site and your twin daughers are beautiful. Men seem to be very cautious about commitment and their financial losses should they end up divorced, I can understand it to an extent. At the end of the day, it is up to couples to decide in advance.
[…] Ambramovich, footloose and fancy free By Ellee So billionaire Roman Abramovich is now footloose and fancy free following his costly divorce, which we could be hearing much more about from his ex-wife. I wonder which country they divorced in, how many zeros are on the end of the cheque. […]
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply […]
Well this is a nice Blog on most important facts. I am happy to read this. But I am looking more and more info. Please add some thing more. I shall link from my blogs to this blog to day itself.
More than 2000 searchable profiles are there in the data base and since this is free nothing for you to lose. So act now and start to find with a suitable person to share your life.
How are you? Are you looking for a free and absolutely apt matrimonial web site to register your profile for free as well as to search and find apt partner to share life. Here is matrifind matrimonial for you. Free to join, free to search and find apt person for you. Whole service is free. Logon to http://www.matrifind.com
Later come and search for suitable profiles. We are going to promote this new service heavily so millions will login to the site all will see your profile free. So act now and visit the site to register now.
[…] with most comments: 60 comments on the subject of the cost of divorce. It must have struck a raw […]