" Joey, how did U2 sound last night? "
http://web.mac.com/paul_mccartney/macca_report_news/latest.htm" July 6, 2011 -- Huffington Post
Why Sir Paul McCartney Might Be Justified In Not Having A Pre-Nup
News that Sir Paul McCartney is to marry again should not come as too much of a surprise, bearing in mind that he has been dating Nancy Shevell for four years.
Of course, given the acrimonious and costly end to his marriage with Heather Mills, the former Beatle could have been forgiven for avoiding any exchange of rings or vows this time around.
What might be even more surprising to some is that, having proposed, Sir Paul has apparently not insisted on a prenuptial agreement to limit any claim which his third wife-to-be might potentially have on his £495 million ($813 million) fortune. Although not officially confirmed by either his lawyers or publicists, there was been extensive media speculation that the couple merely have what has been described as "a simple document" to protect the trust funds established for his children.
This does beg the question of what such "a simple document" may be if it isn't a pre-nuptial agreement.
However, while not having a pre-nup might simplistically be seen as a triumph of hope over very bitter experience, it is easy for a British divorce lawyer to understand why Sir Paul may have taken such a decision, even allowing for the painful and all too public nature of his divorce from Heather Mills.
The current status of pre-nups in England is one thing he may have taken into account. According to an interview Nancy Shevell gave to a columnist on the New York Post, she and Sir Paul plan to divide most of their time after the wedding living in his homes in London and East Sussex.
Any separation, therefore, might end up in London's divorce courts. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in favour of German heiress Katrin Radmacher last October interpreted as a further step towards making pre-nups binding, their position in law remains in a state of flux. Since that decision, there is now a legal assumption that a couple intend to be tied to such agreements, although they are still not legally binding in England.
Sir Paul and Nancy might agree the terms of a pre-nup only to find that one of them challenges its terms within divorce proceedings, possibly leading to the very aggravation the documents had been intended to avoid. While the documents might provide the basis of a resolution, they do not entirely remove the possibility of court hearings to bring marriages to a financial end.
In my experience, British people are also notoriously squeamish about discussing their finances to the degree pre-nups require, regardless of how rich they may be. We Brits may feel comfortable talking about the value of their homes but clam up when asked about our salaries or investments. Whilst many husbands-to-be take legal advice on pre-nuptial agreements, they often choose not to enter into one as they cannot face the prospect of discussing its terms with their fiancée. What price can they possibly put on their bride?
Away from legal and cultural perspectives, there are other reasons why Sir Paul may feel that he doesn't need a prenuptial agreement. Miss Shevell, who is a divorcee and a vice-president of her family's New Jersey trucking company, would already appear to be a relatively wealthy woman in her own right and not need Sir Paul's cash to maintain a decent standard of living should their marriage fail.
Judging by press coverage of their relationship, their relationship also appears to be a solid one, having been given a chance to blossom without the sort of constant pressure from paparazzi which seemed to be a feature of his time with Miss Mills, a former topless model and television presenter.
It could be argued that the planned civil ceremony which Miss Shevell is supposed to have outlined to reporters is further evidence of the low-key approach. The wedding would also have echoes of his first marriage, to Linda Eastman in a London registry office in 1969.
That Sir Paul loved Linda is without question. It may be that a strong devotion to his new wife-to-be is enough to convince him to say 'I do' for a third time without needing to agree a pre-nup.
In an age of falling marriage numbers and eye-catching divorce payouts, it is perhaps easy to be cynical about the motives for getting wed. However, lengthy professional and personal experience of dealing with those contemplating marriage has demonstrated to me how some couples simply don't believe they need the sort of protection which a pre-nup might provide for relationships to succeed.
After all, I don't have one and I've been happily married for years. You may think that I'm unusual, but I don't know of any other English family lawyers who have one either!
Andrew Newbury is a partner at Pannone LLP, one of the UK's most renowned divorce law firms. A published author on a range of legal topics, he heads the firm's Family, Private Client and Wealth Management Division. "
Pages: 
The all Macca thread (Read 203,158 times)
