The Student Room Group

stephen fry getting married

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Skip_Snip
That's not hyperbole.


Whatever. Exaggeration... All bloody same words to mean same thing. Blah blah blah....
Original post by Birkenhead
Even if they were, pre-nups are not legally binding here.
http://www.terry.co.uk/pre-nuptial.html


Pretty much correct - but the key word is "traditionally". Attitudes have changed, are changing and in some cases, pre nups can carry quite a bit of weight in divorce proceedings.

But hey - hopefully they wont have to worry about this! Best of luck to them.
Original post by Uncouth body
He's a horrible fat pervert. He has serious mental health problems as discussed in a recent BBC documentary. He has bipolar disorder too.

Having found out that his husband to be is only 27, I've now lost all respect and empathy I had for Stephen.


You have a funny interpretation of 'empathy'.
Reply 23
Avatar for Thuggee
Thuggee
1
to man or woman?
Original post by Drewski
You have a funny interpretation of 'empathy'.


Blah blah blah... U mad?
Original post by Birkenhead
Even if they were, pre-nups are not legally binding here.



http://www.terry.co.uk/pre-nuptial.html


Original post by clh_hilary
Legally-speaking the court does not need to respect that.



So there's no kind of contract people can draw up in the UK? Everything gets split no matter what? Bizarre.
Original post by InnerTemple
Pretty much correct - but the key word is "traditionally". Attitudes have changed, are changing and in some cases, pre nups can carry quite a bit of weight in divorce proceedings.

But hey - hopefully they wont have to worry about this! Best of luck to them.


I really don't understand why we can't have pre-nups which are absolutely legally binding.
Original post by Birkenhead
When he has so much more to lose financially, and it isn't really necessary it just seems a bit foolhardy. Marriage is usually partly for mutual financial benefit but here he stands to lose a vast amount of money if they divorce.


Pre-nup, bro.

*EDIT: Just seen pre-nup posts above... depressing.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by robbo3045
Pre-nup, bro.


Read through the thread.
I suppose it's progress of a kind that instead of people being wound up about the concept of a gay marriage they're getting wound up about the age gap.
Original post by Birkenhead
Read through the thread.


No.
Original post by Birkenhead
I really don't understand why we can't have pre-nups which are absolutely legally binding.


You might be interested in this: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/publications/matrimonial-property.htm

I have not read it fully. But I suspect that the general approach taken to ancillary relief (i.e. no hard and fast rules, just striving for fairness etc) has been the reason for pre-nups of the sort you describe not really taking off in the UK.
Original post by e aí rapaz
So there's no kind of contract people can draw up in the UK? Everything gets split no matter what? Bizarre.


The court can take that into consideration but it's not a must and not necessarily a major factor.

Marriage is not a contract between two persons but also with the state. You cannot have another legally-binding contract imposed on to the marriage contract without this third party's consent.
Original post by Birkenhead
I really don't understand why we can't have pre-nups which are absolutely legally binding.


Because marriage is a state-sanctioned contract. You cannot have another contract without this third party's consent.
Original post by clh_hilary
Because marriage is a state-sanctioned contract. You cannot have another contract without this third party's consent.


This doesn't make a meaningful point. Pre-nups are already approved by the state, it doesn't affect their bindingness. What I was asking InnerTemple was why the judiciary doesn't take pre-nups as gospel; he seems to think it is because circumstances change and courts think it more useful to adjust accordingly.
Original post by Birkenhead
This doesn't make a meaningful point. Pre-nups are already approved by the state, it doesn't affect their bindingness. What I was asking InnerTemple was why the judiciary doesn't take pre-nups as gospel; he seems to think it is because circumstances change and courts think it more useful to adjust accordingly.


Maybe because marital contract has a different set of laws altogether and that set of laws does make this the way it is?
Original post by clh_hilary
Maybe because marital contract has a different set of laws altogether and that set of laws does make this the way it is?


I increasingly get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about, despite a stellar effort to convince otherwise.
Original post by Birkenhead
I increasingly get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about, despite a stellar effort to convince otherwise.


Are there no laws specifically only for 'marriage' but not other contracts? :rolleyes:
I think it's weird that he's getting married to someone 30 years younger than him. The guy's dad is the same age as Stephen Fry ffs. Imagine getting married to someone the same age as your dad...
My guess is the same as a bunch of other people's tbh

Stephen Fry - in love with someone younger, totally mixed up as well due to long term mental health issues
His husband to be - gold/fame digger

Of course it's good that people are allowed to do what they want in terms of love/marriage and not get stoned to death or beheaded.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you