She's against a prenup, I won't marry without one, are we doomed?

[RayKay]

Problem is, people change.

Worse still - who's to say a prenup you signed when you got married at 25 will be seen as fair when/if you divorce at 42?

I'd highly doubt it'd still be 100% relevent/fair....

So perhaps a prenup should be a reviewable/renewable thing (maybe marriage should be also)?

 

....contracts for romance....

 

People are making post-nuptial agreements these days. I read of one couple in the paper recently whom made one after 20+ years of marriage. He had bad debt and some gambling problems...she felt worried about financial security if things did not work out. They made a post-nup where he actually signed the house over to her as she had raised their children and not had a career, but he put their money at risk. This way should something happen, she had the home.

 

They said their marriage has improved since they did it, as some of the fears that were causing problems, dissipated.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Okay, you want her to stay home and raise the children...you don't want her to go out to work and be able to better her earning potential in the long term...and yet all you talk about is me, me, me with regards to your fabulous career. Sorry buddy, but raising children full time is indeed a difficult job and if the two of you split, she should be compensated financially for the sacrifices she made to raise the kids the BOTH of you created. Just because she wasn't there WITH you when you made that amazing business deal, doesn't mean she wasn't part of it...by staying home and you not having to share as much of the burden in child rearing, she made it possible for you to be a success because you could focus more attention on your work. She would be the woman behind the man...doing the things behind the scenes that facilitates his life. Having a supportive role and making the man's life easier so that he could pursue his glory should indeed be financialy compensated...not nickle and dimed.

[RayKay]

I agree with that. So would the courts too. If they saw a prenup that dismissed her contribution to the running of the home and child rearing, they would not likely enforce it.

 

The fact is that if you split, she would be extremely disadvantaged by being out of the workforce for however many years, particularly if she still has young children to care for.

 

Her staying home, at your mutual agreement, IS work, and it DOES contribute. She makes sacrifices so you can do better, etc.

 

If you were single sure you would be able to do "more" but the point is in a marriage you both suffer disadvantages and gain advantages from the partnership and you can't "nickel and dime" the contributions. A court won't either.

[heavenearth]

I see your side too, you want to protect your possessions.

 

I do see his point, too. Whether it's a man or woman, once you turn 40 and things fall apart and lose half or all possessions and securities, it would be extremely difficult to recover.

[Batya33]

First - thank you RK and COD for your posts about the value of working in the home with children and the sacrifices a woman makes to do that to her earning potential, career, you name it. No nickel and diming, I agree.

 

Second - I am "for" pre-nups might not be for me, personally, but I have come to see especially in the last 10 years or so that they might be a very good idea in certain cases.

 

But.... OP, as I read more of your responses it's sounding to me that you might not be a good candidate for marriage - based on the reasons you give for wanting a pre-nup, your views about failing marriages and the aftermath. While much of it is "technically correct" and you have certainly done your homework - I'll assume all your statistics are correct - well, as much as I can get a vibe from typing, I get the vibe that you might not be a good candidate for marriage in the first place. Part of that is the (to me) extreme way you're trying to manage the risk - I know, "just" the financial risk but.... sounds like it runs a bit deeper.

 

So, my advice is find someone who either wholeheartedly agrees with a prenup or live with someone in a non-common law marriage place, keep everything separate, keep property in one name only, have children, etc. and I think that way you get the benefits of the prenup. I wouldn't say that to most people who wanted a prenup, I'm just seeing a subtext here that led to this opinion. My two cents (which I get to keep no matter what happens to this thread, lol).

[heavenearth]

Next time wait until you are about to pop the question to bring up the pre-nup.

It's not romantic in the first phase of a relationship to start thinking this way.

If you ( or your family ) has considerable assets, your ex wife is going to make out well with or without a pre-nup.

This is the phase where you think " am I in love?" " do I want to spend my life with this person" . It's way too early for a pre-nup talk.

 

All romanticism aside, I think confused_guy has the right mindset (that suits him). It's a pain and not something romantic to say to someone you've just spent less than a year with but coming from a more mature point of view this is a wise decision which benefits both parties in the end (if they agree, otherwise it breaks the deal for both). Also to be honest, a woman that's self-dependent and confident are far more attractive. I'm more than willing to be a shoulder to lean on for anyone who try their hardest to stand on their own two feet first.

 

I don't think confused_guy goes around telling every women he meets and possibly wants to spend his life with that prenup is a must. But like he said, marriage came up during a conversation then this is what he found out. I respect his honesty in brining it forward rather than keeping quiet about what he already knows he wants.

 

Anyway, it is what he wants, doesn't mean it's suitable for us all. And like the post above says, if you find someone who totally agrees with you then it's going to work out. For me, it's not important. If I choose to spend the rest of my life with a person then I already trust the person enough.

[RayKay]

I too don't see what is so wrong with discussing it earlier. Not doing so is exactly the kind of thing that makes it taboo! Would it be better to wait two years to find this out and then break up as its a deal-breaker?

 

There is a difference between talking about marriage with THEM five months in (that can be a bit soon!), and sharing your general views on marriage and other important issues.

 

I was reading about a couple the other day for example who had a very compatible, loving, relaxed, fun and enjoyable relationship with one another for three years. They had discussed marriage and both wanted to take that step. She always assumed for example that children would come when they were ready. Then he said one day he had no plans to ever have children. That for her was a deal breaker, and he was set in his way too and they parted. Would of saved a lot of time and pain if they had both known in first few weeks/months they were completely incompatible in that respect!

[d24]

You've got me wrong crazy*, I don't care what my future wife does with her life or her career - I'm not going to be telling her what to do as I'm not controlling and I can see the case for being a stay-at-home mum, and the case for working. I merely said I'd prefer it if my future wife were a stay at home mum, because growing up in care I wish I had had that. Even though I never had it - do I think it's worth 50%? No way.

 

But on one side it is completely about me. 110% about me in fact.

 

No offense, but as great a role as stay-at-home mums provide, I can get all the support I need to fulfifll my career ambitions from friends, family and a live-in nanny/maid (au paire?). Child-rearing doesn't have to be done by the mother, but granted I did say I'd prefer it. It's just as easy for me to leave my child with a carer as my wife, so this argument holds little water.

 

Thing I'm trying to point out is :

Will a nanny or maid going to expect £5m pay for 10years work? No.

But

If I had a broken marriage and my ex-wife claimed 50% (£5m) for essentially the work of a Nanny - there's every chance I'll be screwed over. Fair? No.

 

I agree, she should be compensated - perhaps the rule of thumb should be "what would you have earnt" subtracted to the cost of childcare. If it's the 200k to 70k split - a £130k settlement seems fair to me with child support payments that'll keep her and my kids financially soluable till she can get back to working (if that's what she wants). Add any loss in earning potential for taking 10yrs off work (i.e. I earn £20k instead of £30 if I'd kept working) then it makes it fairer.

 

Thing it it was OUR decision to make a family, why should I get punished for it?

[BeStrongBeHappy]

This is actually a simple question because if she refuses to sign one, and you refuse to marry without one, game over.

 

I personally would have no objections to a pre-nup as long as it was fair to both parties. There are good pre-nups, and pre-nups only a fool would sign. It's about negotiation, and a good pre-nup can protect both parties and prevent large sums of money from flowing to lawyers in a bitter divorce.

 

I would not object to one at all as long as it was fair. It can be a good talking point as to what people's expectations are and how they view finances and fairness. If the future spouse was ruthless and trying to claim most of the assets in a pre-nup, i would walk, but mainly because he has proved himself selfish.

[RayKay]

You are not compensating her for "taking care of the children". It's not just about giving her what a nanny would cost. Don't get married if that's your view!

 

It's about you BOTH having advantages and disadvantages from the marriage and the choices you make in it, and evening it out. If she stays home (I did not say you would make her at all....) it's still a choice you make together that SHE sacrifices for. You do too in different ways. It's about realizing what you accomplished is due to joint efforts. You can't expect her to go from a household income of millions to a settlement of $130K and be able to get on her feet after ten years off in a couple years for example. That is not how it operates here at least.

 

Anyway, it does not matter what *I* think, but the courts believe the same thing.....they don't enforce arrangements that are unfair in that respect.....

[BeStrongBeHappy]

I agree with RayKay in that your wife ISN'T just a nanny at home at your beck and call. Sure, your kids can be totally raised by nannies, but your wife ISN'T a nanny!

 

Countless men have become very successful because they have a wife at home taking care of ALL the family/home/life responsibilities while the man devotes himself to work. So she is the nanny, the accountant, the chaffeur, the nurse, the sex partner, the therapist, etc. etc. She is your 24x7 support system who ALLOWED you to work and succeed.

 

I work with a group of about 100 men where there are only 2 women in the group. The men never worry about getting home on time, and can work ridiculous hours because their wives are at home taking care of ALL of life's normal responsibilities, all the while loving and supporting the men and suffering quite the life of deprival because they are lonely and frustrated because their husband's are never home.

 

So a truer 'cost' of the woman's contribution is adding up ALL her functions, including giving the man freedom to pursue his career without worrying that the nanny is at home snogging the gardener while the kids play with matches in their bedrooms.

 

Tux, you are showing how little you value the concept of a partner and loved ones, if you think she is just the nanny. That is fine if you hold that opinion, but please don't marry until you recognize what a true loving partnership means.

[summerpeach]

I'm all for prenumps.

But I also would not leave someone I love because they don't want one.

You'v eonly been with her 5 months, wait until the real issues come about, then this prenup thing will seem like nothing.

 

But I am all for protecting your assets

Marriage is a contract and not really all about love. Whomever thinks that is fooling themselves

[d24]

I'm sorry if it frustrates you guys but I honestly don't value the contribution of a stay-at-home partner (in a breaking up situation) beyond that of a maid/nanny (provided she did do cooking/cleaning).

 

Bear in mind we're talking about an eventual collapse of a relationship here... so obviously you're going to have some aspects of negatives. Sex can decline or disappear. Love can diminish or disappear. People can change (which is the point of this topic). The company and love (when it's there) is great but who's to say companionship will last? Everything you've listed about how much a wife can support a husband is true - but how can you put a 50% price tag on that? I could have Britney Spears supporting me with absolutely everything she was, and I could still fail in my pop-career (Kevin Federline). There's more than support here - there's talent and drive to succeed involved.

 

These roles could be provided by anyone, the fact that your SO is (or was) giving you those things doesn't mean that they can expect to be compensated for it all as it was presumably all done willingly. When you get married you both agree to be basically subservient to eachother so you can't expect to be compensated if it goes wrong. At the end of the day, a husband/wife can do everything they're 'meant to' do and I do not believe for a second that the contribution to a couple's lifestyle/fortune is anywhere near the 50% mark. Not a chance.

 

When the love is gone and one person wants out how can you keep a straight face and say "yes, Melinda Gates (Bill Gates' wife) was as instrumental in the rise of Windows and deserves a 50% share in his life's worth".

 

Not that they're getting divorced - but can you imagine?

[Excalibur]

The possibility here is that you're talking about a potential actual financial loss/liability prevention...while she's talking about her actual "feelings" about the topic in general.

 

A prenup is intended to protect the assets you have upon entering a marriage, it's not a way to protect or ensure retention of assets accrued in one.

 

So people talking about prenups who have no significant funds or assets, what they do appear to be stating is that they want the benefits and conveniences of marriage, but they want to ensure no negativity in the event of marriage failure.

 

That's going to sting to the rational and emotional perception of the person having this discussion.

 

If you have assets, if you stand to inherit significantly and it is not protected by the method of inheritance against comingling.......then it makes total sense to have a prenup. Heather Mills & Paul McCartney jump off the page for that.

 

If you have nothing, anything acquired in marriage is joint, and everything will be split in accordance with the laws of your state in the event of divorce.

 

Marriage might be about love - but divorce is about "money and financial security".

 

In reality, marriage is a legal contract for partnership of financial option/obligation. Which means you should carefully scrutinize the ethics, standards, values, goals, and success of the person you're with - to determine if association with them legally is a risk.

 

Otherwise, just live together in a state that does not recognize common law, and there is nothing to split in the event of a split.

[RayKay]

Tuz,

 

Honestly, I really suggest you don’t get married then. Not to be dismissive, but because if that is really what you want, it is not going to happen if you get married and do split. Because again, it is irrelevant what I think, or what you think. The courts do NOT see it the way you do and they are NOT going to sit there and determine how much “value” should be put on her efforts to care for the children and the home while you were working, and they will NOT nickel and dime it. What is brought in DURING the marriage, regardless of what you decide for assets BEFORE the marriage in a pre-nup IS divided evenly unless it would be EXTREMELY unfair and most courts are not going to see it as extremely unfair to divide it equally. Remember, it does not mean she gets the business for example, it means she would be entitled to the VALUE of that ½ the business.

 

Staying at home and taking care of your children is not just about being a nanny. If you feel it is, then I think instead you and your partner should determine to hire a nanny so that your wife would be able to ensure she is completely self sufficient when you split up and did not have to make any sacrifices. And I agree with whomever said you should not get married, and live somewhere where common-law marriage is not recognized.

 

I live somewhere where common-law is recognized and if my partner and I were to part today everything we brought in since we have lived together would be split evenly by law unless we have agreed otherwise. We have both gone through different financial changes in our time together. Initially, I contributed more financially in proportion to what we were making as he had more debts. Now, he contributes more as I went back to school. I still do however pay part of the mortgage, bills, do the bulk of the housework and I know absolutely my partner considers my “unpaid work” just as valuable to the maintenance of our home and life together. In the future if he were to be a stay at home father and I worked, and we DID part, there is no way I would consider his work as a stay at home father as being “just like a nanny/maid”. One of which being they are HIS children too. That I also know he would be taking care of the home, finances and making sacrifices so I could work longer hours or focus on my career. If we were to part ways (and I do support prenups by the way) there is no way I would reduce his contributions to being a “babysitter” or nanny. If it were the other way around, I know he would be just as recognizant of that. We are not going to sit there and nickel and dime one anothers contributions DURING the relationship. They were made with an intent to benefit one another even if you cannot put a "value" on it. And nor will a court nickel and dime it. If you got it during marriage/common-law...it's shared.

 

Again, if you honestly feel that way, you should not get married, not live somewhere where there is common-law and make all the money you want without worrying and ensure you keep everything VERY separate. Because no court will agree to what you think would happen. I would hope that your partner also realizes in your relationship that you feel this way, so she can ensure to make choices that are about herself only too, rather than considering the family unit. Does she know the value you place on a “stay at home” partner as being a “maid/nanny”? I am curious, because I sure as hell know that even though I am not a stay at home parent and even if I chose not to be, there is no way I would be comfortable being with someone whom had that dismissive view of it.

 

I almost think it would be better for you to be single AND actually hire a maid honestly with that attitude about it.

 

The point is that there are economic advantages and disadvantages to BOTH partners during marriage, and courts seek to recognize that. They are going to look at the impact staying at home made (even if voluntary), the burdens of having small children to care for after a separation, the factors of being out of the workforce/education for so long and their ability to become self sufficient, the life they have had for the last few years (for example, they are not going to expect a man/woman whom has been in a certain standard of living for so many years to then be forced to go on welfare because of a split), choices you BOTH made, how you benefited not just from “saving money” on not having to pay a nanny but having the ability to work longer hours, having someone to handle finances/housework/children whom is NOT being compensated for it (like a nanny is). Does not matter what the pre-nup says, if it’s unfair given the circumstances at the time it was made OR at the time of the separation they are not going to enforce it.

[Pegasus]

Ok, let me preface this by saying me and my girlfriend are no where near marriage, we've only been together 5 months. But we've talked about marriage and are both in agreement that we can see ourselves being married some day, when we're ready. However, the issue of a prenup came up and thats where the problems started. She is fully against a prenup. She thinks it dooms a marriage from the start, and if you really love eachother you shouldn't need a prenup etc etc.

 

What she says is just a bunch of crap induced by fairy tales. I remember my ex gf saying the same and I found out few days before engagement party that she's cheating on me for the last 3 months. Nice.

 

A lot of women act based on current feelings and that is not something you could rely on specially not long term.

 

I would never accept marriage without prenup after what I experienced.

[ghost69]

would i make a prenup? of course i would. i have things that i would like to keep to myself regardless of anything bad happening. i have a historic truck. u think i want to part ways with that cause some girl wants it to screw me over? heck no. but in a divorce (which will not happen) i really don't want anything she has probably. just half of everything we have built. if some girl can't understand that, then hit the road.

[shikashika]

Why do people think someone is always going to screw someone over? Yeah there are jerks out there, but by going into marriage with the attitude i see, I wonder why people still want to get married

 

What i'm getting from this thread is that it's all about ME ME ME, this is MINE this is YOURS. I love the posts that talk about "Oh , but it's about protecting BOTH parties" It's really down to the fact that people don't want to share anything they think they deserve.

 

I just don't agree with prenups.

 

 

What's the point of saying 'till death do us part' if you know you have a pre-planned out??

 

I have a good job, zero debt and more savings than most people I know. If I didn't want to be open to the possibility of sharing that, I wouldn't get married in the first place!

[ghost69]

Why do people think someone is always going to screw someone over? Yeah there are jerks out there, but by going into marriage with the attitude i see, I wonder why people still want to get married

 

What i'm getting from this thread is that it's all about ME ME ME, this is MINE this is YOURS. I love the posts that talk about "Oh , but it's about protecting BOTH parties" It's really down to the fact that people don't want to share anything they think they deserve.

 

I just don't agree with prenups.

 

 

What's the point of saying 'till death do us part' if you know you have a pre-planned out??

 

I have a good job, zero debt and more savings than most people I know. If I didn't want to be open to the possibility of sharing that, I wouldn't get married in the first place!

 

i don't get marriage anymore either. it's lost it's luster. if i DO ever get married it will be once. without a prenup, people can take pets too. yes, pets you owned even before the marriage if they wanted to. it's like stealing your heart and soul.

[ghost69]

also, i just want to add if you are so in love a prenup wouldn't bother you.

[RayKay]

It has nothing to do with thinking someone is going to screw you over. It’s wanting an arrangement between you that is not determined by the court itself that probably takes into account more so your concerns for one another.

 

Another benefit is you are discussing it while things ARE good between you. Not arguing about it when it is bad and fighting over it in court. It is going to HAVE to come up at some point. For me it seems more sense for it to come up as a pre-nup (and far less expensive emotionally and financially) where you BOTH have some control and say over it, than in the courts where who has the better lawyer or is a better witness does better...

 

As another poster pointed out (CAD I think) “I know whom I am marrying, I don’t know whom I might be divorcing”.

 

I certainly plan on being with my partner the rest of my life. I am committed to him whether there is a pre-nup or not, but I cannot guarantee what will happen in the future. If I can ease the trauma of separation/divorce even slightly by having some issues already agreed upon (such as concerning me having agreed to waive spousal support if I am working and not home taking care of kids for example, or agreeing to an amount if one of us has stayed at home with kids) – why not? I love him and plan to be with him for the rest of my life. However, I cannot guarantee what might happen in the future and I think we should both care enough NOW to plan for the future. I certainly do not think he is going to “screw me over” but I do think that we are both going to change a lot in the years, and we are both going to make sacrifices and choices that affect the other and ourselves because of our relationship, and while I am in it “til death do us part” no matter HOW well you know someone else you NEVER know what they may or may not do.

 

If my partner suggested the prenup himself, I would not be at all offended by it or think “he does not trust me”. I would simply ensure we both had our own lawyers review it and would ensure it was fair for us both. In fact, the process can more readily show if someone DOES really have that attitude as they are going to be very uncompromising and unfair in the process – what better time to find that out then BEFORE you sign it and get married so you can take the time to rethink the relationship.

 

Pre-nups are NOT just about taking care of ONE of you, it’s both of you. You can make arrangements that are MORE generous than the courts would allow even. I share everything with my partner now; we are common-law and if were to split we still would. But I would like to ensure that we both can ease through a split if were to happen fairly to one another. If he were to stay home with the kids for example, I would want to ensure that he is cared for appropriately as well, such as agreeing to maintain life insurance for him, or pay for further schooling so he can become self sufficient.

 

And, in cases where partners marry later and have more assets I see it as even more imperative. I have seen where for example he or she has significant assets at say, 45 or 50 they are planning on using for retirement and to provide in future to children. If they come into the marriage and keep it all separate, great. But say they buy a cottage for them both with those assets or put it in a shared account. Say the other spouse whom came in with nothing decides to leave in a year. Everything he worked hard for in order to provide for his retirement and to pass onto his children is now shared even though they have only been together a year. Instead, in a prenup, they could of agreed that if the marriage lasted less than so many years, they would share these unequally for example.

 

I see it no differently than for example making a will. Sure, you can leave it to go intestate and the courts will distribute it to your successors. But, it does not allow for variations that YOU would like in order to provide for specific people, or non-family members.

 

And again, those whom make prenups seem to have LESS divorces. And I am going to say it is less about being in “fear” of what would happen if they divorced (as they often are quite fair, or else they are not enforceable) as it is about the fact the two have actually DISCUSSED the tough issues about “what if” and what they really own, owe or feel about these tough issues that MANY couples skirt over or ignore because it’s “unromantic” to discuss debts, finances and spending habits for example. Or maybe, some going through the process see their partner IS being selfish/greedy and uncompromising and realize “this is not the person for me”. In my eyes, that’s a pretty good reason too to have one!

[Mun]

I know how you can say that and keep a straight face.

 

I have a friend who was married 13 years. In that time they had 4 children which she stayed home to raise. She did not go to school nor worked much because she took care of the home so that her husband could work and go to school. She made sure meals were cooked, laundry was done, doctor visits were on time and she was a loving partner to him for those 13 years. He built himself a great career and moved up quickly at his job. Once he had established himself he decided to leave her for someone more suited to his new financial status.

 

How can you possibly say she should not get half when he will be, for the rest of his life, banking in on her dedication and sacrifices?

 

My friend now works as a customer service rep. at a cell phone company. She only has a high school diploma and 4 kids to raise, one of which is in college and dad no longer helps financially because she is legal age. She cannot afford to go back to school.

 

To the OP, I think if this is a deal breaker for you then you know what you have to do. You shouldn't change your views if it will make you extremely unhappy to do so. Why enter a marriage already on bad footing? Best to find someone who agrees with your point of view, you may have a better chance for success.

[melrich]

Thing I'm trying to point out is :

Will a nanny or maid going to expect £5m pay for 10years work? No.

But

If I had a broken marriage and my ex-wife claimed 50% (£5m) for essentially the work of a Nanny - there's every chance I'll be screwed over. Fair? No.

 

I agree, she should be compensated - perhaps the rule of thumb should be "what would you have earnt" subtracted to the cost of childcare. If it's the 200k to 70k split - a £130k settlement seems fair to me with child support payments that'll keep her and my kids financially soluable till she can get back to working (if that's what she wants). Add any loss in earning potential for taking 10yrs off work (i.e. I earn £20k instead of £30 if I'd kept working) then it makes it fairer.

 

For God's Sake you are not employing someone when you marry them!!! Why not add holiday pay and termination entitlements....LOL.

[shikashika]

Prenups just sound very negative. Saying you want a prenup I agree is basically saying: DIVORCE IS AN OPTION.

And yea.. it sucks, but that's life. It's something which CAN happen. I always find the ones who have less assets in the relationship are the ones who are appose to it. I could be wrong of course.

 

 

 

Neways, I wouldn't want an ex husband walking away with money I earned, after years of hard work and studying. To me that's a free ride. A free ride in a fancy car lol.

I would willingly give money to him though.

 

 

I guess I am sayng that the friend would be banking in on HIS years of hard work, studying, school money, time, effort put in all those years.

 

this is probably where we disagree. In my opinon, when you get married, everything you bring to the marriage is shared... whether it's savings, a house, a car, a sports car, property, etc. By having a marriage contract you are saying 'What's mine is yours and vice versa'

 

By having a prenup, you are negating the marriage contract.

 

It seems like many people are happy to share their wealth and debts until they realise that they don't like the person anymore, then they want it back. how convenient.

 

I don't think it's those who have the least assets. Every guy I've dated has had debt. I don't. I also have more in savings than most guys i've been with.

 

Still, I'm opposed to prenups. Marriage is a contract. If you don't want to have the possiblity of sharing, and want to keep separate bank accounts, then don't get a marriage contract.

 

As the poster above mentioned, what about non-financial contributions.

 

I think about my parents, my mum who stayed home for 11 years to look after kids. She sure as hell was making contributions to her family, just not monetary. She didn't have any assets. And, according to some posters on here, she was 'just the nanny or maid'

 

I don't know why you would get married if you think your husband is going to walk away with your hard earned money. I don't see the 'us' in that relationship.. just a me me me me.

 

I may go into a relationship with more savings than a man and no debt... and by marrying someone I accrue his debt...but that's what happens when you sign a marriage contract.

 

You take them for everything they have and don't have. What's yours becomes theirs and vice versa.

 

That's the way I see it.

[ghost69]

paul mccartney and his ex wife recently. nuff said.