Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pre-Nups and non-disclosures ?  (Read 6863 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« on: December 31, 2017, 09:04:43 PM »

Given the rate of divorce and the dirty laundry dished in the previous generation, does the Queen insist on a prenup and a NDA for all who marry into the family ?
Logged
Olya

Large Member
******

Reputation: 392

Offline Offline

Posts: 1249





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2017, 09:19:59 PM »

Pre-nups and post-nups have no legal validity in Britain. A judge might take it into account and make their judgement accordingly, but generally those type of contracts don't have any value. I am sure if you are connected and have influence and power you can find any judge who'll do your bidding (ie be someone like a Windsor and you'll find a judge who'll judge in your favour and keep to any pre- or post-nup).

London isn't called for nothing the capital of divorce
https://www.theguardian.c...usband-london-english-law

That's also why it was said that Kate didn't have to sign a pre-nup, which is most likely true.
In any case, with money usually held in trusts and similar, a divorce wouldn't skin a Windsor as it did with Diana imo.

NDAs are a different matter. Some of the most influential use those for their staff, and the Windsors are likely one of these.

So, pre- & post-nups: no; NDAs: yes, very likely.

PS Pre-nups are I believe very American, I never hear such a thing being signed, excpet when it's about US celebrities or influential people and dynasties.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1209

Offline Offline

Posts: 4574





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2017, 09:58:07 PM »

All the Swedish Royals have prenups that say that everything that the couple owned before the marriage and everything that they subsequently inherit, receive as gifts or earnings through work while they are married would remain separate property in the event of a divorce.  Only items purchased for their home would be considered in the division of property.

All that seems logical I found a UK Law website (https://www.family-lawfir...elp/prenuptial-agreements) that talked about prenups.  At the end of the article they said:

"At present a prenuptial agreement does not carry the same weight as a Court order and will not ‘automatically’ be upheld or enforced by an English or Welsh court in the event of a divorce and/or disagreement.

The courts do however take them seriously, as a prenuptial agreement is evidence of your intentions to one another in the event of your relationship breakdown and one of the factors that a court may consider when looking at all the circumstances of your case.

The Court will carefully consider things like:

Did the party with the most to lose understand the nature of the prenuptial agreement?
Did he/she have independent legal advice?
Was he/she under pressure to sign?
Was there full financial disclosure?
Would an injustice be done if the prenuptial agreement were upheld?"

It's hard to say with the British royals as the royal spouse has always been the one with more assets but it wouldn't be a bad idea in terms of a starting point in the event of a divorce.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2018, 03:56:56 AM »

Pre-nups and post-nups have no legal validity in Britain. A judge might take it into account and make their judgement accordingly, but generally those type of contracts don't have any value. I am sure if you are connected and have influence and power you can find any judge who'll do your bidding (ie be someone like a Windsor and you'll find a judge who'll judge in your favour and keep to any pre- or post-nup).

London isn't called for nothing the capital of divorce
https://www.theguardian.c...usband-london-english-law

That's also why it was said that Kate didn't have to sign a pre-nup, which is most likely true.
In any case, with money usually held in trusts and similar, a divorce wouldn't skin a Windsor as it did with Diana imo.

NDAs are a different matter. Some of the most influential use those for their staff, and the Windsors are likely one of these.

So, pre- & post-nups: no; NDAs: yes, very likely.

PS Pre-nups are I believe very American, I never hear such a thing being signed, excpet when it's about US celebrities or influential people and dynasties.

The UK does not have prenups ?  Shocked.

In the US apparently there are people who do prenups if they are in a second marriage to protect investments and against debt they brought into a marriage. It may spells pet custody.  Roll Eyes. So in case Will and Kate don't work out they could even decide who gets custody of Lupo if there was a prenup.  Tongue
Logged
erinoco

New Member
*

Reputation: 3

Offline Offline

Posts: 2





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2018, 10:43:08 PM »

Pre-nups and post-nups have no legal validity in Britain. A judge might take it into account and make their judgement accordingly, but generally those type of contracts don't have any value. I am sure if you are connected and have influence and power you can find any judge who'll do your bidding (ie be someone like a Windsor and you'll find a judge who'll judge in your favour and keep to any pre- or post-nup).

London isn't called for nothing the capital of divorce
https://www.theguardian.c...usband-london-english-law

That's also why it was said that Kate didn't have to sign a pre-nup, which is most likely true.
In any case, with money usually held in trusts and similar, a divorce wouldn't skin a Windsor as it did with Diana imo.

NDAs are a different matter. Some of the most influential use those for their staff, and the Windsors are likely one of these.

So, pre- & post-nups: no; NDAs: yes, very likely.

PS Pre-nups are I believe very American, I never hear such a thing being signed, excpet when it's about US celebrities or influential people and dynasties.

The UK does not have prenups ?  Shocked.

In the US apparently there are people who do prenups if they are in a second marriage to protect investments and against debt they brought into a marriage. It may spells pet custody.  Roll Eyes. So in case Will and Kate don't work out they could even decide who gets custody of Lupo if there was a prenup.  Tongue

Basically, traditionally, pre-nups were generally disregarded in English courts. Traditionally, because the courts thought that agreements based on the assumption that a marriage may be temporary were contrary to public policy, that held that marriages must be permanent unless they were invalid from the beginning, or one of the parties was at fault. More recently, the concern has been that the weaker party could assent to disadvantage without proper information or legal guidance, and without knowledge of what might happen later in the marriage. But, in the current decade, they are increasingly taken into account as long as it can be demonstrated that the weaker party did have the right advice and information.

I don't think a malleable judge would help - it would be easy for an appeal to take place.
Logged
getafix

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3616

Offline Offline

Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, British

Posts: 19613


Bye-Bye MEDiana Who!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2018, 05:47:38 AM »

Given the rate of divorce and the dirty laundry dished in the previous generation, does the Queen insist on a prenup and a NDA for all who marry into the family ?

what is a NDA please?/


tak

G Smiley
Logged

ANDREW DENTON: Yes. What did... When you first met, what did you see in each other? CROWN PRINCE FREDERIK: What did we see in each other? We saw... Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit blurry, in a way, because it was just after the Olympics had started and it was one of those evenings where...
valentine14

Micro Member
**

Reputation: 58

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 117





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2018, 05:51:48 AM »

Non disclosure agreement
Logged
little k

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 12

Offline Offline

Poland Poland

Posts: 13





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2018, 06:34:23 PM »

 probably stupid question but how can BRF execute a NDA if for example someone leaks to a friend and that friend leaks to a press? and what kind of consequences might be in place of someone breaking a NDA?
sorry for a stupid question (and probably one that might be without an answer) but I'm really curious
Logged
rosella
Banned
Banned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 840

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3339





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2018, 08:25:35 PM »

probably stupid question but how can BRF execute a NDA if for example someone leaks to a friend and that friend leaks to a press? and what kind of consequences might be in place of someone breaking a NDA?
sorry for a stupid question (and probably one that might be without an answer) but I'm really curious

I think they would definitely get sued in both cases (and friend) but there would be a lot of discreet communication with lawyers first.

Different kettle of fish, but both Paul Burrell, (Diana's ex butler) and the housekeeper at Highgrove who published books on Charles and Diana, went to live in the US for years where their books were first published. When the housekeeper years later wanted to come back and live in the UK because a family member was desperately ill, she got assurances from Charles's lawyers that she wouldn't be prosecuted. ( Her book, which dealt with Charles and Di's private life and the War of the Wales) was banned from Britain and still might be.) 
Logged
Ellie

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1923

Online Online

Posts: 7143


proud moron thx Scooby Doo




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2018, 09:37:58 PM »

If anyone is interested you can find the book online. It is a bit tragic.

I’d imagine anyone who works for them signs an NDA after the Burrell mess...
Logged

writing angry fauxminist letters in the Lesbaru
luvcharles

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1149

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2989





Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2018, 09:54:47 PM »

The book was not banned in the UK. It was decided not to publish as she, and any publishers, feared they would be sued. There is a difference.

I was able to buy the book in the UK at a second-hand bookshop in 2015 and there were many other copies there at the time. They had been published in the US, bought by Brits who wanted to then sell them years later.

Burrell's books have all been available for sale in the UK and he lived in both the US and UK after the publication.

Neither the housekeeper or Burrell were asked to sign NDA's as they weren't done at the time for personal staff - only for the official staff such as the private secretaries. Now there are some of the more senior household staff signing them but the majority still aren't - my friends for instance have never been asked to sign such a document and they work for the royals and see many of them on a daily basis at BP or Windsor (and Sandringham and Balmoral when the Queen is there). They aren't 'senior' enough in the household for that ...
Logged
Little_star
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 3019

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 29589



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2018, 08:13:40 AM »

I would hazard a guess that royal employees would be asked to sign the Official Secrets Act.

http://researchbriefings....Briefing/Summary/CBP-7422
Logged

(img)http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/Little_stars/2017-03-07%2023.04.19.png(/img)
Helena

Small Member
****

Reputation: 171

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 485





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2018, 04:28:16 AM »

IMO, the housekeeper's book was more credible and she seemed to be more objective in her observations than any of Burrell's nonsense.
Logged
jolene

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 243

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1082





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2018, 04:54:59 AM »

You can check out the book from www.archive.org
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: