Another guy put through the divorce court mangle


——————————————————————————–

24 July 2006

Divorce ‘costs 600-year-old home’

William Williams-Wynne’s family have occupied the Peniarth estate at Tywyn, north Wales since Henry V’s time.

But he says he will be homeless after judges dismissed his bid to appeal over his ex-wife Veronica’s settlement.

Let’s see what this guy has been forced to hand over in the divorce settlement:

£500,000 to his ex-wife, cash
£158,000 to buy her out of his family’s farming partnership
£250,000 from the Family Trust

On top of all that he’s had to cough up £125,000 to his ex-wife’s lawyers to cover her legal fees! This is even worse than having to fork out money to ex-wives, having to pay their filthy lawyers, actually having to pay to have some scumbags financially rape you.

Her ex-husband, Mr Williams-Wynne ends up with the house and some assets – including a light plane – that he’ll have to rent out or sell in order to survive. These will give him an annual income of up to £50,000. That’s quite a bit more than average, sure, but it’s not much compared to the wealth he and his ancestors had built up over twenty-generations. All that wiped out and stolen in one generation of the Matriarchy.

Note, of course, the usual double-standard justification for this:

Mr Justice Bennett, who dealt with the case in March, had taken the “realistic view” that, in order to retain a reasonable lifestyle “in proportion to the advantages enjoyed by her husband”, Mrs Williams-Wynne needed an income of £60,000-a-year.

Why, why, why should women be entitled to have the same level of lifestyle to an ex-husband? Note the preceeding two letters in ex-husband. Ex! No longer a husband. Finito. Marriage over with. Kaput. She’s no longer married to him. He’s no longer married to her. She doesn’t have to fulfill any wifely duties like the housework or having sex with him; she’s under no obligation to do them whilst married, let alone afterwards. It’s only fair that a man shouldn’t have to support his wife or ensure she has whatever lifestyle she feels entitled to.

Also, bear in mind that this guy’s ex-wife has:

…”free capital” of around £1.5m, providing an index-linked income of £60,000 a year for life, the court was told.

So that’s actually more than her ex-husband is left with! Just thirty-years of marriage and this bitch has got more than half of a fortune built up over six-centuries, all because she “needs” £60,000 to continue living her life of luxury.

A woman is no more entitled to any financial support from an ex-husband than she is from a man she has never met, especially given that women are oh-so independent and great at multi-tasking, careers, etc, can do everything men can do but better, yadda yadda.

Of course, one of the main reasons this double-standard exists is to ensure large businesses can continue to sell their crap, because women are far more materialistic than men. A recent study showed 80% of young women spend more than they earn. It’s therefore better for large businesses and corporations to ensure money is kept flowing from men, who are invariably ‘boring’ and save and invest money, and instead to have it stolen and handed to women, who merrily piss money away on all sorts of crap at a horrifying rate, in particular a man’s money.

Divorce lawyers also love divorce for obvious reasons too; this woman’s legal fees are £350,000 in total! No wonder the legal profession are pushing for co-habiting couples to be treated like married couples, and to legalise gay marriage; the Marriage Strike is starting to worry them as it naturally leads to few divorces, and so less money for parasitic lawyers as well as their gold-digging whore clients.

The article doesn’t say if the ex-wife initiated the divorce, but it’s more than likely she did. Take this for instance:

Lord Justice Thorpe said the baronet had suffered “two great misfortunes” – heavy losses on the Lloyds insurance market and the contested divorce.

Hmmmm, that provides a slight clue as to a possible motivation for divorce. He lost quite a bit of money, so wifey decided to cash out before he lost a lot more. That’s only a theory, but it’s certainly likely; you hear so many women talk about how their marriages became “rocky” or how they and their husband “just grew apart” when hubby became redundant or suffered financially in some way. It’s cash-out time!

Also note how the judge is equating divorce (for a man at least) with suffering heavy losses in a poor financial investment. Quite a revealing comparison really!

The only bit in this article that made me smile was William Williams-Wynne’s whacky name, not to mention that fact that, despite being a 59-year-old aristocrat, he’s young at heart enough to enter Beavis & Butthead lingo and declare “The whole thing sucks” after the court ruling.

It sums up divorce laws for men perfectly though; it fucking sucks. Totally dude.

Men; protect yourself, protect your assets and ensure your own financial security. Don’t marry, don’t co-habit, don’t even have kids with Western women in a Western Country. It doesn’t matter if you’re a wealthy aristocrat, a high-flying businessman or an average office or factory worker. If you earned it, a wife can take it, and then some too.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:15 PM
——————————————————————————–

At 7:16 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

This is infuriating, to be sure. But sometimes I temper my fury with women and the corrupt legal profession with my frustration with men….men who won’t listen. I have counseled men for years on the ramifications of marriage, and most of them have ignored me. As one fellow bachelor friend put it, “Men are stupid”. For the most part, I agree. One could have warned this poor fellow in the article about what his future might hold, but he would never have listened. As Esther Vilar maintained, men just never wake up from their dream. A few of us do, but for the most part men are fools. By the time they wake up, it’s just too late.

Christopher in Oregon

——————————————————————————–

At 8:36 PM, voloohaar said…

“On top of all that he’s had to cough up £125,000 to his ex-wife’s lawyers to cover her legal fees!”

When I see stuff like this, I always remember this scene from this movie (the title escapes me right now). It went something like this:

EXTORTIONER (in his last attempt to save his arse as The Bad Guy’s goons point their guns at him): “This was not what we agreed on! What are you doing?”

THE EXTORTED (aka The Bad Guy in the movie): “You pushed it too far. It’s just not worth it. It’s simply cheaper to just hire somebody to kill you.”

Eheheh. Bad Guys always seem to cunningly know what’s the most profitable option, don’t they?

Anyway, I would rather spend the rest of my life being a beggar in the gutter after I destroyed all my assets, than finance ex-wife and HER lawyers whose only objective is to to steal those assets from me anyway and destroy me. No fucking judge can change that, he can make a ruling like that a thousand times, but NEVER would I just stand by and see my rabid opponents being financed with my money. What a sick fucking society.

——————————————————————————–

At 9:48 PM, Anonymous said…

He knew what he was getting into when he got married. Serves him right. Glad the lawyers got the cash, they deserve it more than either of them do. At least they earned it, rather than inheriting/whoring themselves for it. His wife ended up with £1.5 mil and bills of £350,000, if his were similar that’s a large chunk of their assets done to a more deserving party.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:00 PM, playboy said…

Why would any guy get married much less a guy with lots of money?

This guy (link below) blew up his house killing himself rather than let his ex-wifey get it. A wealthy Manhattan doctor – those years he was married he could have been shagging hot socialite chics but instead he spends years and years putting up with b!tchy wifey and finally ends up in divorce court.

Guy blows up house lost in divorce court

——————————————————————————–

At 10:16 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

To Anonymous at 9:48

Actually, no guys getting married back in the 1970s knew what they were getting in to; back then women, at least in the UK, couldn’t rip a guy off to this extent.

It’s also only in the last few recent years that women have been able to obtain long-term maintenance based on the principle that a woman is entitled to a standard of living equal to that of when she was married, with it only being earlier this year that it was ruled that women could obtain an amount of settlement inversely proportional to what they contributed to the marriage (i.e. stay-at-home wives get more because they “sacrificed” their career…one they invariably hated in the first place.) Granted, men getting married now are not deserving of much sympathy when they get fucked over, but most guys being divorced and fucked over now and in the past got married without realising how bad it would be for them.

Furthermore, anonymous, you must either be a lawyer yourself or just having a laugh in trying to imply the lawyers deserve this cash. They don’t. Divorce lawyers are worthless scabs on the prolapsed rectum of a dying society. They deserve nothing but contempt.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:48 AM, Happy Bullet said…

See, this is what is so stupid about feminism. Males of the current generation of youths have been basically educated that doing what women do, and freeloading off hard working men is the way to go.

Why work hard, when it is taken from you in tax and in divorce court and be treated with contempt, when you can get laid a lot, spend money on crap and do zero work by going on welfare, then claim to be a victim of the system and get sympathy … LOL.

I’m at work while writing this, but I’m doing it because I enjoy it, rather than for the money or to be a “proooviiidddeerr”. I will however attempt to dodge taxes as much as possible and god knows never get married. Also I slack off at work.

Provider is to be pronounced in a whiny voice. I can’t believe I bought into that bullshit when I was younger. I’m just lucky that I had enough forewarning to see marriage for what it is.

——————————————————————————–

At 4:17 AM, Anonymous said…

I don’t think it’s stupidity, but rather biology. When a man sees a beautiful female (translation: young, healthy, fertile) his pupils dilate, his heart rate increases, and brain functioning shifts from the neo-cortex to the reptilian part of his brain. This is called the Mating Response. It is automatic and other than always looking down at the ground (and not at any females) there’s not a whole lot he can do about it. It’s automatic like breathing. His rational thinking and reasoning ability is almost crippled at this point (“heads over heels in love” is the equivalent of being lost in a fog). And WOMEN KNOW THIS. And they use it. After the mating has been consummated (usually with the demand of marriage by the female) then he “sobers” up and reality sets in. “Oh shit, what have I done?”

——————————————————————————–

At 4:37 AM, Anonymous said…

Duncan,

How about this? Divorce Insurance. Since (too) many men feel compelled to get married, and women won’t sign a prenup, then Divorce Insurance should be required. There is Homeowners Insurance. There is Auto Insurance. There is Health Insurance. Why not Divorce Insurance?

It would be a dual premium policy. Each party would have to pay a premium for a policy equal to what they would receive in a divorce settlement. The woman would have to pay for the policy equal to what she would receive in a divorce settlement. The man would have to pay for a policy equal to what he would receive in a divorce settlement.

Actuaries could review data to determine what the face value of each policy should be based on earnings, net worth, and divorce decisions.

Since the payout to a woman in a divorce has been historically much higher than what the man has been paid then her premiums would be proportionally higher (she is the greater risk).

This way the marriage could proceed forward with the confidence that a dissolution will not financially destroy either party.

If a woman will not agree to insure the marriage then the man should not get married.

If the women finds the premiums too onerous then she can cancel her policy, but then forfeits ANY rights to financial compensation during a divorce (i.e., she was married without being insured).

This way he could say to her “If you love me you’ll insure our marriage.” 😉

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: