is entitled to half of Paul McCartneys fortune?
Even assuming that every allegation that she has made about him is true, should she really be awarded 50% of a fortune made almost entirely before they met and were married?
I don't mean legally, I mean morally?
2006-10-19 01:28:05 · 42 answers · asked by Little Bo Peep 3 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Graham B - not wanting to be pedantic but his fortune is nearer £800m, which with a 50/50 split would leave her with nearly £400m. Even considering that they have a child together, as others have mentioned, does she deserve/need that amount of money?
2006-10-19 01:49:33 · update #1
Why bother to reply to my question with "Who cares/why should I care?"
If you really don't care then why waste your time answering?
2006-10-19 20:08:51 · update #2
Absolutely not, even having had his child.
I think provision should be made for the child and perhaps some money given to her if she can prove loss of earnings during the time they were together.
There are too many women like Heather who marry rich (and, in this case, vulnerable, men) and then walk out thinking that they can take a goodly amount of the money that the man has. For what, I ask you? Four years? Hardly a lifetime of moral support from a loyal wife who has given up a career to raise several children. In the latter case, I can understand a court giving the ex-wife a decent maintenance.
I think it is more likely that she will get pretty much what I have stated above, with some concession to the fact that she had 'grown accustomed' to a certain standard of living and that the child should be raised in a similar manner.
As for her allegations, her ex-boyfriend (to whom she was engaged and left without even a note to move in with McCartney) stated in an article in the Sunday Times earlier this year that the woman is a liar and a fantasist. His family breathed a sigh of relief when she vanished out of his life.
2006-10-19 02:22:02 · answer #1 · answered by Sun is Shining ❂ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No she is not and assuming that the allegations have some truth she should only be awarded 50% of his earnings from the period of their marriage. Heather should be aware that Maccas vast fortune was built up over many of the years he was married to Linda - so what right does she have to lay claim to it?
Ever heard the saying ' there is now fool like an old fool' ? well
think old Macca has been one of these! Did he really think that
Heather filled the huge gaping hole that his beloved Linda had left in his heart? - probably not but bet the s*x was so good he fell into the trap of thinking that love would follow - ah yes an old fool once again! Heather & Paul should divorce quietly and both should return to their professions - Paul a musician Heather.....ummmmmm
I
2006-10-19 01:52:13 · answer #2 · answered by random 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morally or Legally it makes no difference. If you have as much money as Paul McCartney, why go through all of the hassle of a messy divorce. Its OK if you are trying to hold onto a few hundred thousand or even a couple of million, but how much is he worth? 200 mill? OK 175 mill, you can still live pretty well on 88 million and not have any stress or heartache, your kids are not gonna be accosted in the streets by the press. I have been through a bad divorce and I know what I would do, give her half and get her rid of her once and for all, then get on with the rest of my life in relative peace and dont be that stupid again.
But to answer your question, in my mind, morally, No she does not deserve half of his fortune. Its his amassed over decades of work and investment, not only from him but Linda. Heather is a relative newcomer and its quite easy for a woman to plead the cruelty bit and get sympathy without a shred of evidence, not that i am suggesting that she is lying, but there are only ever going to be 2 people who know the truth, lets not judge.
2006-10-19 01:37:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i don't think she should get half maybe a little i always thought from the start she was just after his money and it didnt last long she is an evil cow money grabber and trying to get every 1 onside now by throwing allegations around so people feel sorry for her nasty piece of work if you ask me,she knew exactly what she was doing the 1st time she set eyes on him he was stil grieveing for his wife,
She prayed on it anyway iv'e changed my mind the cow should get nothing at all he was a star in his own right i hope she gets no work but no doubt she will have a book out soon giving every 1 all the details of living with "sir paul mcartney" poor fella i wish him all the luck in the world mwa xxx
2006-10-19 01:44:42 · answer #4 · answered by robertboozychic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morally she should only get a percentage of whatever was earned while they were married,however, you seem to have left out the fact that there is a child in the marriage and that must be taken into consideration.
All the leaks of her grounds for divorce to the press will not help her case LEGALLY.
2006-10-19 01:35:10 · answer #5 · answered by Tws 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody needs 200 million. She was only married to the guy for 4 years, he made the bulk of his fortune himself long before he met her. If she takes half of Paul's money, she'll prove to the world she's a shameless gold-digger. Kanye West was right.
2006-10-19 01:30:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This woman is a devious behatch. Linda looked awfully content all those years for a battered wife. In no way did she contribute to macca's beatles/wings/apple fortune so she's entitled to nothing more than what Bea needs to be brought up happily.
2006-10-19 01:55:14 · answer #7 · answered by peeve 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, they were here in Newfoundland sometime ago..and on Larry king..she challenged out Premier at the time..It has been noted that Paul at the time (on Larry king) seen a side of heather he hasn't seen before. Not so classy then. So do i think she should get 50%? NO
2006-10-19 01:33:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legally, goodness knows, but morally, no, she isnt entitled to and shouldnt get half of his fortune which as you say he made entirely before she came into his life.
The way lawyers deal with divorce is dreadful, i think. They have no morals!
2006-10-19 03:28:12 · answer #9 · answered by Caroline 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they have been married for four years, his wealth has been built up over 40 years, she should only get 10% at the most.
And he should sue her ar*e for these slanderous claims, reducing her payout even more.
She's just a silly little girl who fell in love with a pop star and it all went wrong for her as she wasn't able to lead the fairy tale life.
2006-10-19 01:32:38 · answer #10 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋