Nigella Lawson hounded by Vanity Fair for a hard-hitting article about her divorce: rude?

Charles Saatchi

We haven’t talked much lately about Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi. It was kind of nice that way. I was glad that Charles had stopped threatening suicide because Nigella wouldn’t pay attention to him after filing for divorce. Of course you remember that he choked her in public, but Nigella was strong enough to GTFO and never look back.

Then Charles swiftly found himself another pretty woman who inexplicably wanted to be with a choker. These are pictures of television presenter (and sometimes fashion designer) Trinny Woodall on 10/3. She was leaving a date at Scott’s restaurant with Saatchi although they departed the restaurant separately. Yes, this is the same restaurant where Saatchi choked Nigella. Someone wrote “I love Saatchi” on Trinny’s dirty car.

Trinny Woodall

Trinny Woodall

Now I’m wondering if Trinny and Charles have gone south because he’s pestering Nigella again. He’s so very obsessed with how Nigella failed to defend him, and he’s threatening to sue over it:

Charles Saatchi’s lawyers have sent a letter to solicitors representing his ex-wife Nigella Lawson threatening legal proceedings against her.

The letter makes a series of allegations about the TV cook’s behaviour and will apparently depict their notorious argument outside Scott’s restaurant in London in an “entirely different light.”

According to the Daily Telegraph, sources report that Mr Saatchi could issue a writ against Miss Lawson, 53, as early as next week. The case could lift the lid on what the advertising tycoon says are the true reasons for their divorce.

Sources claim Mr Saatchi is “determined” the reason they were arguing becomes public. A source close to him told the newspaper: “Charles has been portrayed as the villain in all of this, but there is far more to it than meets the eye.

“Nigella has not given her version of what caused the argument and her silence speaks volumes. He has just been damned by the photographs, her silence, and his acceptance of a police caution — which he did only to protect her from a lengthy probe by officers. But he has never been able to explain the truth about what was going on.

When she and Charles got together following the death of her first husband, John Diamond, she gave him certain assurances and on the day they argued in the restaurant he found out she had not stuck to those assurances. Since then information has come to light that Charles sees as confirming the reason that he was upset with Nigella in the restaurant.’

A source close to Miss Lawson said the allegations in the letter were “untrue.”

[From Daily Mail]

Saatchi doesn’t get it, does he? The bloke believes Nigella is to blame for not standing up for him, but he doesn’t realize that he was the one squeezing her neck. Not the other way around. Saatchi is so upset that Nigella hasn’t come forth with her version of events, but why should she have to … now or ever? Maybe she’ll talk about it in the future, but it’s up to her when and if it happens.

Here’s an interesting twist on the story: Vanity Fair promises to “probe” the real reason why Nigella and Saatchi split. The Mail says Nigella refuses to cooperate with VF, which will go ahead with the exposé regardless of Nigella’s position:

The 53-year-old celebrity chef is at the center of a new report to be published by the magazine in January that will detail the alleged truth behind the breakdown of her marriage – after her multi-millionaire husband was pictured with his hands around her throat.

MailOnline can reveal that writer Kevin Goldman has been flown to London to interview associates and friends of both Nigella and her ex-husband Saatchi, 70.

However, Nigella has refused to take part in the article – following in the same vein as Gwyneth Paltrow – and has advised friends to steer clear.

And speaking about the Nigella piece, a source said: ‘No stone has been unturned, Vanity Fair wanted to get to the bottom of such an abrupt breakup and why the end of the marriage was agreed so quickly.

“Kevin has spoken to a lot of associates of both Nigella and Charles.”

The report will be published as it has been revealed noted art dealer Saatchi is threatening to sue his ex-wife for $800,000 in an explosive court case where he wants to reveal “the truth” about their break-up.

After being photographed with his hands around Nigella’s throat outside an exclusive restaurant in June, the advertising guru accepted a police caution and then went through a divorce from the ‘Domestic Goddess’.

[From Daily Mail]

This is a similar tactic to how Vanity Fair is treating their upcoming Gwyneth Paltrow scandal story. In Goop’s case, I find it amusing that VF is hitting so hard because she’s so smug and looks at the rest of the world (outside of Beyonce) with such contempt. When it comes to Nigella, VF seems really cruel to try and demand she cooperate with an exposé about her very recent divorce from an abusive man. I get that Vanity Fair wants to rebuild its rep after we all made fun of them for several dead-celebrity cover issues, but leave Nigella alone.

Nigella Lawson

Nigella Lawson

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

94 Responses to “Nigella Lawson hounded by Vanity Fair for a hard-hitting article about her divorce: rude?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Anna says:

    Saatchi’s side are going to argue that Nigella and her children used cocaine regularly. His PR maintains he was checking her nose for signs of powder when they were photographed.

  2. danielle says:

    I very much hope vf isn’t helping an abusive man harass his ex…

    • Liberty says:

      History is your friend —

      http://www.alexanderisley.com/news_resources/pc_metropolis0406.php

      ….re the long friendship of Saatchi and Graydon (if in a hurry, skip to last line):

      Back in the early 1980s two Time magazine writers, Andersen and E. Graydon Carter, began discussing over lunches the idea of a satirical magazine based on a lot of things Time was not —“Smart. Fun. Funny. Fearless,” as Spy’s manifesto-cum-sales blurb characterized its content in 1986. After finding a business partner in Thomas L. Phillips Jr., Andersen and Carter’s “larky” idea became a proposition, start-up funding was raised ($1.5 million), and issue number one—designed at Drenttel Doyle Partners and featuring a shot of Chris Elliott and the cover line “Jerks: The Ten Most Embarrassing New Yorkers”—was launched in October 1986.
      Spy’s downfall was not crushing litigation. Many of its targets threatened to sue, including Gore Vidal, in a Borgesian twist, after the magazine characterized him as obsessively litigious………….. In 1990, however, just as the magazine had begun to break even, recession kicked in and Spy lost half of its advertisers within six months.

      Phillips, Andersen, and (Graydon) Carter sold the title to Charles Saatchi and Jean Pigozzi in February 1991, and Andersen stayed on as editor for another two years.

      There you go.

    • gefeylich says:

      Yeah – I’m sure Carter and VF want to help Saatchi vilify Lawson. The Goopy business aside, VF is turning into a platform to whitewash their buddies – their “oh, the poor genius, exiled from the US because he raped had sex with a ‘willing’ 13-year-old” exoneration of Roman Polanski being the most recent example.

      I hope Nigella has good lawyers. Saatchi is vile and a textbook example of an abuser.

  3. Amelia says:

    That’s a really low blow by VF. Really tactless. Horrible stuff.

    • bluecalling says:

      so…. everyone is ok with VF going after goop and possibly destroying her marriage and family (with 2 children) but now they (VF) are suppose to have a conscience because nigella was abused (horrible) and then embarrassed into doing something about it? we being okay with their salacious attempts before allows them to push the bar now…

      • bluhare says:

        Actually, yes. You live a public life, you die a public death. Being abused is a totally different matter. If Chris Martin abused her I’d be on Gwyneth’s side as well. However, all she’s done is pretend to be perfect, and be sanctimonious about everyone else while selling her “I’m better than you” website.

      • gefeylich says:

        Totally agree. Paltrow has set herself up for mockery with her “Learn From Me, Lowly Peasant” routine; Lawson is a victim of spousal abuse. They’re both public figures and as such can expect inordinate scrutiny from the media.

        Both can also sue VF if they wish.

  4. LadyMTL says:

    Good lord, leave Nigella alone. She doesn’t have to cooperate with VF or any other magazine, they can still write their precious story even if she doesn’t give them a quote or three. *Shakes head, goes back to work*

  5. Frida_K says:

    It doesn’t matter what she was doing or not doing. He was squeezing her neck.

    Even if he was concerned about coke use, if that’s his latest excuse, there is still no cause to grab her neck in public. If he were truly concerned about coke use, he could stage a private intervention. And the fact that he was threatening to commit suicide speaks volumes.

    Let’s see. A concerned husband, desperately frightened about his wife’s drug use…

    A). Grabs her neck in public; shoves a finger at her nose in public; threatens suicide when she leaves.

    B). Quietly stages an intervention; works around the clock with his army of solicitors to expose her drug dealers; ultimately decides to either leave the marriage or go into therapy himself in order to deal with the fallout from the addiction

    Pick one.

  6. CTgirl says:

    Only in England can you get sued for not defending someone. Wow, that is quite a legal system.

  7. QQ says:

    Really Trinny? Really?? this scuzzy ass guy?

  8. goldie says:

    awww come on guys…yes nigella can be abit cheesy and tacky with her bedroom eyes and seductive cooing in the kitchen but she’s adorable! I admire that she’s managed to keep such a dignified low profile since the choking incident. I hope VF and Saatchi back the F off Nigella and her kids.

  9. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    He just doesn’t get it. It doesn’t matter what the argument was about. You can’t choke someone just because you’re angry with them, period. Now he wants to drag her through the mud because she didn’t “defend” him for abusing her by saying that the argument was her own fault. Vanity Fair should be slapped, too. They pretend to be serious journalists, and act as though she has some obligation to discuss her private life with them, just as she’s trying to move on with her life.

  10. Another Ann says:

    Vanity Fair has become a tawdry tabloid at this point. Instead of intelligent, insightful stories they are going for cheap and sensational headlines. Which is not all that shocking when you realize that the dude that owns them, Jay Penske, also owns HollywoodLife.com – one of the most ridiculous, inaccurate gossip sites there is.

  11. lady mary. says:

    This vile man!honestly nigella should get A lawyer who is ,10 times more twisted than Saatchi ,and stuff those cocaine accusations back up his nose ,

  12. mkyarwood says:

    Yeah, Vanity Fair may have its beginnings from the novel but that book was classy about its, uh, hard-hitting.

  13. KinChicago says:

    I hope he gets with Naomi Campbell next. Naomi will beat him senseless!

  14. ojulia123 says:

    So he wants people to know what they were arguing about because….why? Does he really believe that the public will then side with him and find the choking justified?

    This man is delusional and dangerous.

    • Hautie says:

      “This man is delusional and dangerous.”
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I have said this many times. Nigella should never be near him again. Never be left alone with him at all. Not even sitting in the attorney’s office together.

      Unfortunately, he would do great harm to her, given the chance. This is the man that has to have the last word. Has to be the one who leaves. The one who destroys.

      By Nigella being the one who walked away and has refuse to speak to him. Or give any kind of recognition to his sh*t. Has just made him more dangerous to her.

      And why is it there is a release date for this hit piece. But the one for Gwyneth is still just a rumor. I am beginning to think that Vanity Fair has dropped the one on Gwyneth.

      • bluhare says:

        If they drop the Gwyneth story (which wouldn’t surprise me; she’s got lots of connections) and publish this egomaniac’s deluded effort to destroy his ex wife (which wouldn’t surprise me; *he’s* got lots of connections), their credibility will never recover. Not for me anyway, and I always liked Vanity Fair. And I’ll say the same thing even if his allegations are true.

  15. Regina Lynx says:

    Sucky baby is sucky.

    Suck on that, Saatchi.

    I swear, the man is the Devil incarnate.

  16. EmmaV1 says:

    Double standards. Nobody knows what went on behind closed doors. What if Nigella had beaten him before or choked him as well? Remember the Emma Roberts case? Didn’t really get that much press attention whereas if some other not that famous MALE actor/athlete/singer beat up a woman, it would be EVERYWHERE. I tend to believe that while Saatchi may be the more abusive one, Nigella probably wasn’t an angel either.

    • Feebee says:

      You have a small point. But it’ll take a century of men getting regularly verbally, mentally and physically abused and raped along with their children being used as pawns to keep them compliant before the pendulum swings their way.

      Regardless of Nigella’s actions, she was the one looking terrified and being grabbed by the neck in public. You have no proof of Nigella being abusive to cast Saatchi as the “more” abusive.

    • gg says:

      No evidence though, whatsoever. The fact that he’s bullied the hell out of her via the press and reportedly incessantly privately since the choking, and when that didn’t work, tried to guilt her again through the press via his daughter, then by himself threatening suicide (really? How old are you, Saatchi, 17 instead of 71?), and then her behavior, pictured looking frightened on the street, not giving interviews, clearly, no reports on her except trying to flee and escape the abusive crap he’s put out there, tells us who the real drama queen is and it ain’t her.

      Classic narcissist bullying behavior from him. Classic abused wife behavior from her. Evidence is overwhelmingly in her favor.

      Vanity Fair is aiding an abuser to publicly abuse a victim. BOYCOTT VANITY FAIR.

      Also, Trinny wtf?

    • bluhare says:

      Last I heard two wrongs don’t make a right, and throwing another story out there to try and make yourself look better is a coward’s way out.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      She “wasn’t an angel.” That’s what you “tend to believe.” Oh, ok. I’m so sorry I thought he was a classic abuser because he choked her in public and takes absolutely no responsibility for it. I guess she deserved it. Because of what you assume she did “behind closed doors.” I guess every woman who gets beaten in this country, and by the way, it’s one every 15 seconds, deserves it, too. Because they aren’t angels. Thanks for clearing that up.

    • Amilie_E says:

      This is a spurious argument which shows your complete lack of understanding of the nature of domestic abuse and characteristics of abusers. It is tragic that you regard physical abuse a commensurate response to any domestic issues Saatchi and Nigela may have been having. It does not matter what Nigella had done previously, it was simply unacceptable for Saatchi to put his hands around her throat. Worryingly, your statement implies that she may have deserved this physical abuse and this is exactly the type of control used by abusers to keep their victims trapped. When my ex-husband abused me, throttling me until I passed out and punching me repeatedly in the face breaking my nose and teeth, he too had a justification for what he had done it (as if it was somehow something he had to do regrettably). Abusers always have an excuse for their actions, the abuse is never their fault. My own ex-husband launched an ‘image rehabilitation’ campaign for himself once I left him and I can not begin to express the pain this re-victimisation caused me. Opinions such as yours help abusers perpetuate the cycle of abuse keeping victims trapped in dangerous relationships. Please take the time to educate yourself, this should make for an enlightening read: http://www.mvwcs.com/mindabuser.html

  17. Jacqueline says:

    That is especially low, going after the abused. Judging from those pictures, he’s a sorry SOB and she’s lucky to be a free woman. It’s none of our business what happened AND no clarification of their argument that day would change my opinion of him. Maybe the fashion in which they keep going after the living is why VF can only score dead-celeb covers.

  18. Sarah says:

    Vanity Fair seems to have left the insightfoul, well researched and checked stories inside of Hollywood behind and is now trying to be a supermarket tabloid

    this sentence:
    “The Mail says Nigella refuses to cooperate with VF, which will go ahead with the exposé regardless of Nigella’s position”

    People were already pointing this out with Paltrow: If you like her or not, this is BLACKMAIL.
    imagine your husband abuses you, all the people know about it and a journalists wants you to speak about it but you dont want in anymore in public and instead of RESPECTING AN ABUSE VICTIM they go hard on her because she didnt jump when VF said “Jump!”

    this is disgusting beyond words. blackmailing an abused woman, how far journalist these days will go is mindblowing.

    • bluhare says:

      I agree, except I don’t think the situations are the same. They aren’t blackmailing Paltrow. They’ve just got some dirt on her she’d like to keep in the garden. This Lawson/Saatchi situation is not the same. Saatchi is trying to use his dirt to defame her and resurrect his image. Not to mention, psychologically abuse her again.

    • tc says:

      Yeah I agree with you. People are letting their dislike of GOOP cloud their judgment. The posters who are trying to thread the needle to make VF’s actions against either of these women okay are revealing something ugly about their own characters.

  19. Francesca says:

    I can’t get past that wax figure valet!

  20. lucy2 says:

    I say leave her alone. She went through something very difficult and unfortunately had to do so in public, but has tried to move on. It’s one thing to write an article about it, but if they’re trying to dig deep into her life and harassing her friends and family, that’s not cool.

    That guy is such an a-hole. Why didn’t he just say he was sorry and that they were going to both try to move on, and leave it all alone? His giant ego is only making his public image even worse, which is quite a feat after being caught choking your wife in public.

  21. klue says:

    @emmav1
    I can’t reply directly under your conment..but..
    YOU SUCK!!!

  22. Feebee says:

    Ha ha what a bitter twisted man Saatchi much be. This is driving him nuts, absolutely bonkers with seething rage beneath the surface that this is happening to him and so unfairly too. Poor baby. Suck it Saatchi.

    As for VF and Nigella, they better be very, very careful. The Paltrow scam/tack takes on a different face when you’re talking about a woman apparently in an abusive relationship and finally breaking free via divorce. Any perception of them bullying an abused woman isn’t good for them.

    • littlestar says:

      You know what I’m thinking, that if Vanity Fair has any brains at all, they’ll write the piece to be completely sympathetic to Nigella, and make Saatchi out to be the loser that he is. Because you are completely right, VF is treading on dangerous waters if they go the other route and bully an abused woman.

  23. Rabia says:

    No, Trinny, no! I used to like her on What Not To Wear. That’s the same Trinny, right?

    And Vanity Fair’s tactics here are disgusting.

  24. louise says:

    Is VF afraid of losing advertising $$ or something? Why on earth would they do this, they must know it makes them look horrid.

  25. Daz London says:

    My friend used to work for him and tells me he was an abusive a**hole

  26. Cazzee says:

    He doesn’t seem to understand that that doesn’t matter. Nigella could have been banging the entire Manchester United football team behind Saatchi’s back – that is still no excuse for choking someone.

    If, in the restaurant, Nigella had admiited to using cocaine after promising Saatchi that she wouldn’t, he had the right to storm out of there angrily, leaving her embarassed and alone to pay the bill.

    You don’t have the right to strangle people who displease you! Why is that so difficult for this man to comprehend?

  27. Lucy says:

    Nooooooo, not Trinny!!! You’re WAY better than that!!! Please stay away from him!!!

  28. Jayna says:

    I call bull. Take a grain of truth and then use it to spin your story by innuendo and try to ruin her because you area an abuser. Your actions afterwards truly show how bizarre you are, never feeling guilty for your abusive action and justifying it every time.

  29. Ruyana says:

    Saatchi is still abusing Nigella. It’s just long-distance abuse now.

  30. Tiffany :) says:

    Two things:
    1.) NOTHING would justify strangling your wife. Nothing. Trying to explain it away makes him look even worse, as if he thinks there would ever be a justifiable reason to choke your wife.

    2.) VF trying to dig into “why” they divorced so quickly is completely awful! All they need to do is look to point #1…he choked her! You don’t need to dig to find that out!

  31. JJ says:

    Vanity Fair come across like some shady and nasty bully rather than a respected journalistic magazine. But than on the other hand not surprising in a time where stupid celebs like Miley Cyrus, Chris Brown and Kim Kardashian dominate the headlines.

  32. Welldun says:

    Loves me some Nigella and Trinny but they both need better taste in men. This old fart needs to go away and count his money.

  33. Minty Freeman says:

    Trinny has a well known history of drug abuse so it’s doubtful that Saatchi is all that anti drugs.
    Also his face has that sodden look of a heavy drinker. They move in the same circles so it’s no real surprise that they’ve got together.
    Nigella can do no wrong in my book. She appears to me (I don’t know her) as a good sort.

    I suspect though that both Trinny and Nigella have problems in the self esteem area and that Saatchi is attracted to women he can feel feel superior to. He’s clearly a piece of work and no gentleman.