Law and Conversation

May 6, 2011

Royal weddings, prenups, and hats

I couldn’t resist posting last week about Will and Kate’s excellent wedding, including a reference to UK freelance writer Alex Aldridge’s 3-part series of royal wedding posts on Above The Law. In one of those posts, Aldridge quoted speculation on both sides of whether the happy couple had a prenuptial agreement in place before they tied the knot.

After the wedding, the Telegraph reported that they did not: the newspaper quoted an unidentified friend as having said that Prince William held firm against legal advice to do so, saying he loves and trusts Kate completely. We don’t actually know whether this report is true, though I think we can assume that the Telegraph wouldn’t have printed this story if its editors weren’t pretty confident that the information was reliable.

As a lawyer, when I hear stories of a person’s disregarding advice of counsel or not bothering to seek it in the first place, I usually roll my eyes at the person’s folly and poor judgment. Every rule has its exception, though, as lawyers and judges well know. If the Telegraph’s report is accurate, I think William got it right.

Many people like to punt the responsibility for their decisions to their lawyers–and uncritical spectators or reporters often enable them to get away with it. I’ve seen plenty of news stories that quote people as saying that they’d just love to do something, such as explaining some questionable behavior or testifying in their own defense, but their [impliedly overly cautious, mean, nasty, insensitive, and/or moneygrubbing] lawyers won’t let them.

That’s just not correct. Lawyers don’t make those decisions:  the client does.

I can imagine that Prince William might have been under some pressure from other members of the royal family or their staff to insist on Kate’s signing a prenuptial agreement. (A spokesperson denied it, in which case, good for the royal family.) If he had been, his easy course of action might have been to cave and tell Kate “Darling, I’m so sorry, but The Firm insists that you sign a prenup. Our lawyers have drafted something and they told me that we just have to sign it before we can be married.”

But think about it: nothing says “I don’t/my family doesn’t trust you, and I’m going into this marriage with the idea that there’s a decent chance we’ll get divorced” like “I want you to sign a prenuptial agreement.” Could anyone have blamed Kate if, had she been presented with such an ultimatum, she had thrown her sapphire engagement ring back at William, canceled her fittings with Sarah Burton, and moved out?

If the royal family’s lawyers advised William to require a prenup, they were unquestionably doing their job. I’ve written about prenuptial agreements before for the Illinois Bar Journal, and many experienced lawyers and formerly married people alike believe it’s foolish to marry without one, at least when one member of the couple has substantially more property or earning power than the other, and in the case of subsequent marriages where one or both spouses want to protect their children’s inheritances. New York magazine ran a piece a while back with some coaching on some less blunt, yet completely clear, ways to approach this sensitive subject with the love of your life.

Still, even lawyers may disagree on the advisability of prenuptial agreements in particular situations. Though I agree that there’s a place for prenups, it seems to me that in the context of a first marriage with no kids, more often than not, trusting your intended without exacting signatures on a legal instrument is the right course of action–assuming that you’ve acted with due care and diligence.  That means getting to know each other over a reasonable period, fully disclosing your respective backgrounds and positions, meeting family and friends, and perhaps living together. (And being in love, yes.) Will and Kate did all of those things. Nothing’s ever certain, but I’d wager that their union will endure with no regrets for no prenup. Why marry someone you don’t trust? Especially in the 21st century, even royals can always wait until they’re sure.

The Blueness of Tara Palmer-Tomkinson absorbed much of my attention during the part of the wedding that I watched–far more than Princess Beatrice’s Medusa-like hat (as characterized by an old friend of mine), made (and defended) by the same designer, Philip Treacy. How about you? Do you think she’ll ever wear that stunning ensemble again?

Advertisements

4 Comments »

  1. Helen – Really enjoyed this thoughtful piece and all the links. I agree with you that it’s reasonable that Catherine actually loves William and wanted to marry him, rich or poor. She will probably very soon be the mother of his children–the future queen mother. To be baldy practical, even if there is a divorce, she will deserve a certain level of support for the rest of her life.

    Penelope Trunk was a find. Thank you! I will follow her now too. But to the most important question: Will Princess B wear that smashing ensem again? You know me, not a cynical bone in my body I like to say- 😉 – but I think she and her sister were sending a message from their uninvited mother. Phhhhtttt! We’ll upstage you by dressing in the most ridiculous outfits possible. If you can’t pull off the best-dressed, it’s a sure bet you can pull off the worst-dressed and score some press. The fact that they were both so outlandishly dressed for such a high profile event could not have been a casual mistake. All the $ in the world and no class. Warms the heart. 🙂

    Comment by Pat Downs — May 7, 2011 @ 10:56 am | Reply

    • Hi, Pat! I actually thought Princess B’s dress was lovely. But just about everyone was distracted by her hat! I heard some announcers disparage Tara P-T’s monochrome blue outfit, but even with its unusual hat, I liked it. You won’t catch me wearing heels like hers, though!

      For me, a day without a new post from Penelope Trunk is just not a good enough day!

      Comment by Helen Gunnarsson — May 7, 2011 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

  2. […] marriage in connection with the recent wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Last week I wrote that I fully expect theirs to be a long and happy union, though, of course, nothing in this life is ever […]

    Pingback by Read this: more Jane Gardam, on marriage « Law and Conversation — May 9, 2011 @ 12:06 am | Reply

  3. […] I couldn’t find any fictional stories containing prenuptial agreements to accompany my recent post on the royal wedding and prenups.  But fiction abounds in unhappy marriages, as the Guardian recently […]

    Pingback by Miserable marriages in literature « Law and Conversation — May 13, 2011 @ 12:34 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: