Will Meghan Markle & Prince Harry get a prenup? Eh, probably not.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Nottingham Academy

One of the most American of traits is our love of talking about money. We friggin’ love to talk about money. We love to talk about salaries, we love to talk about how much we paid for this and this, we love to talk about how much someone is worth, and we love to talk about prenups and divorce settlements and alimony and child support. I feel like Meghan Markle is probably trying to tamp down that American-ness, but I also hope she and Harry feel like they can talk about money openly, and they figure out who pays for what and what happens if it all falls apart. Americans also love their prenups, especially Americans will assets. I suspect that Meghan – a working actress for years, someone on a successful cable show – has money saved. She probably doesn’t have the $5 million net worth I see quoted in the British press, but I bet she’s carved out a nice little nest egg and emergency fund for herself. But she’s marrying a British prince, and princes (and most British people) don’t do prenups. Plus, Harry is actually worth a lot of money – he has a significant trust left to him by his mother. So, what does happen with the money?

First comes love, then comes … a prenup? Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are set to be wed next spring and despite his royal worth, it’s unlikely there will be a prenuptial agreement in place, U.K.-based family law attorney Julian Hawkhead told Us Weekly.

“No I don’t think they will,” Hawkhead told Us. “If there was any drive to do so it would have come from the senior members of the royal family. There has been absolutely no such direction to do this and in fact, I’m reminded of when Prince William and Kate Middleton were engaged to be married, the Palace made it quite clear that they had no expectation that there should be any such prenuptial arrangement made. The precedent has therefore been set by Harry’s father and brother, neither having entered in prenuptial agreements before they married.”

Hawkhead further explained that prenups are not as common in England as they are in the United States: “They do not have the same weight as the Hollywood prenups and divorces you may read about all the time nor will they include penalty clauses for bad behavior. The English courts rarely consider the behavior of the parties as relevant when dividing up assets. [In case of divorce] I think it is very unlikely that Meghan would get as much as half. Her financial claims would increase over the years though not through any formula or incrementally year by year, but one would expect a wife in Meghan’s position to have greater financial claims after a 10-year marriage than after a two-year marriage.”

Us also asked Hawkhead if Markle would get any of the royal family heirlooms, including her engagement ring that includes diamonds from Harry’s late mother’s brooch, in the event of a split. “I would expect that Princess Diana’s jewels may be owned by a Trust and that the diamonds in Meghan’s ring might not therefore belong to Meghan, even though Prince Harry has given the ring to her on their engagement,” Hawkhead said. “There is a presumption in English law that the gift of an engagement ring is unconditional unless it was made clear that it was only conditional on the marriage going ahead. If any items now belong to Harry then he is free to give them to Meghan and they would be hers to keep even in the event of divorce although their value would be taken into account when dividing up assets and working out how much Meghan would have.”

[From Us Weekly]

I agree with this – Meghan’s position, financially, will be less precarious the second she gives birth to a kid, and even then, there’s not a lot that she could claim as community property. But honestly, I’m not worried about the worst case scenarios with these two. They’re both in their 30s, they both know what they want and don’t want and I see this marriage “sticking” for a while, if not forever. That being said, I do hope they’re talking about money and figuring out all of that stuff.

Please enjoy this video of a dude asking Harry how it feels to be with Meghan “as a ginger.”

Prince Harry Meghan Markle Nottingham

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Nottingham Academy

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

76 Responses to “Will Meghan Markle & Prince Harry get a prenup? Eh, probably not.”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. perplexed says:

    I thought that question was phrased strangely, to be honest.

    • Bettyrose says:

      The ginger question? But so important. I <3 gingers.

    • Jennifer says:

      The guy who asked it was a fellow ginger. It was meant in a warm way, not as a slight.

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      I think it was based in the widely held myth that gingers are not attractive to others, and that she is beautiful, therefore, how could she be with him?
      Disclaimer: 50% of my immediate family are gingers/ strawberry blondes; very attractive people.

      • Bettyrose says:

        The love of my life is a ginger, but even before I met him, I’d dated and crushed on several. But yeah I’ve heard more than one male redhead express doubt that women find them attractive.

    • Princessk says:

      I really hate all the ‘ginger’ jokes. I can’t even imagine how many red headed people are hiding under dyed hair.

      • Royalsparkle says:

        Gingers are gorgeous!

        Leave it to her childhoid friend – Princess Sparkle may have moved on since filming in Toronto but Piddi sure cashing in from her friendship from DM photos from 2 – 22. Beautiful grown mature Princess Henry to be with Sparkle from childhood.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It was strange, but then I understood. I have an outlier child with strawberry hair, and it seems gingers bond over it. Other gingers comment on it. It is a deep ginger gold and unusual looking, but we both have ginger genes it rarely appears.
      It will be interesting to see how their genes mix.

  2. Nicole says:

    That video is hilarious. And I hope they have a solid financial plan (not sure all the UK laws). But I’m not surprised by this.
    Nonstory IMO

    • dodgy says:

      In the UK prenuptial agreements aren’t recognised by the courts over here. Markle would get a bit of money, and her children would be looked after by the RBF. As long as she isn’t feckless like Sarah Ferguson was (and is) she’ll be fine.

    • Ky says:

      In their case considering she is American, they might get a prenup. Because if they have kids, it should be stipulated somewhere that the kids remain with the RF. And other such things. Anyway, if they divorce, she will probably get half of what he makes from now on not half of what he already has before marriage..

  3. Jillian says:

    I’ve never been married or engaged. Is a prenup good or bad?

    Let them take their time to have kids

    • Yup, Me says:

      A pre nup is wise- especially for women who often end up being significantly financially impacted by divorce because of their roles as primary caregiver to any children. Get a pre-nup to protect what you have AND to make a clear (read- not driven by emotion) plan for how to move forward in the event of a divorce.

    • Lynnie says:

      I haven’t been married either, but my general understanding is if you have assets/money that you hold very near and dear to your heart it’s best to get one, so that in the event of a divorce if things goes sideways fast the other person can’t be vindictive and try taking those things away from you. It acts as a sort of baseline to ensure that if you have to leave you at the very least get out with what you came with.

      Where all the negative hype comes in is that if you are the one making the demands for a prenup (man or woman) your partner might take it as a sign that you don’t trust/love them enough which imo is guilt-tripping at it’s finest. Sometimes there are people that take all the rules/agreements within the prenup too far which is not ideal as well. Then there are those who are gold digging and just don’t like having a roadblock to any potential “marry rich and divorce quick scheme.”

      Please feel free to correct me if I said anything misleading I’m basing my knowledge off of family info and reality tv wedding specials lol.

      • Andrea says:

        I stand to inherit upon my fathers death. I am not married but my parents have always hoped if I did, I would get them to sign a prenup. My best friend me didn’t and now is broke and going through a financially messy divorce. His wife also ran up debt in their name. At the end of the day, you have to protect yourself from financial ruin.

      • Izzy says:

        @Andrea, same here. I’ve seen way too many divorces without prenups get way too messy and expensive. Plus, now I have my own earned assets to protect. I have two cousins – siblings – one married without a prenup and her ex ended up involved in some of our family holdings. It cost over $100K just to extricate him from them. Ridiculous. The other cousin had an iron-clad prenup which his ex STILL tried to challenge (using the same lawyer that originally negotiated it for the ex); she ran up over $300K on their credit card, and in the end, the judge took it out of her settlement. Her lawyer blew a gasket. I had a good laugh.

        Ladies, get a good prenup that ensures you are fairly compensated now and in the future, and that any assets of yours, now or future, are protected. Men have always been allowed to protect their financial assets. Equality time – we can too.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Prenups are a good idea if there are assets that one spouse has that they want to make sure stay within the family.

        We did a sort of not really prenup, and it was because I wanted to keep my apartment that I own and inheritance including family heirlooms for my children. My parents had one because of the disparity in backgrounds, and it wasn’t exactly seen as a great match in the beginning.
        I have seen nightmare scenarios when a couple thinks they don’t have enough assets to matter and love will carry them through and regret it when they divorce. My attorney advises women who own their homes to make it a part of the prenup even if the house seems like nothing special. Make it an investment, rental and put the money in a retirement account so if a split happens when she is older, she has the option of living there or selling to move into something else.
        It doesn’t have to be just for rich people but anyone with something they never want to part with in a divorce.

    • Royalsparkle says:


      But why is she not mentioned on the Circular. Married or no, the event was a newly engaged WalKabout Event -…even ‘ accompanied by his fiancee ‘ …

  4. namasta says:

    Royals in other European countries do sign prenups.

    • Kimble says:

      My ex husband and I married in Paris and although we didn’t have one, it’s more common than not there.

  5. LizLemonGotMarried says:

    This comment is not meant to be snarky, as I find this impressive.
    She’s extremely aware of her angles, where the cameras are, projecting to the crowd, the physical space she occupies…I think it might contribute to why some people feel like she’s calculated, but to me it simply means she’s comfortable and confident in a public space, and knows what image she wants to project, and does so deliberately. If this is followed by solid work and dedication to charities and causes, she’ll easily become my favorite Royal.

    • Digitial Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      She’s an actress, being aware of the physical space/camera angles/projecting to crowds etc.. are a core part of what an actor does esp if they are performing in front of a camera. She is comfortable with this as it comes naturally to her.

    • magnoliarose says:

      One of the things that in my opinion is overrated is the belief that someone who doesn’t care about how they look or appear is more authentic than someone who does. If you know your image is going to be beamed all over the world and you know your angles and how you look best it is only intelligent to use that skill. You learn that in modeling and understanding it means you don’t waste time and make a photographer exasperated.
      Meghan has that and is used to studying her image to know what NOT to do. Linda Evangelista took such iconic photos because she worked her angles creatively. Meghan is aware of how goofy you can look just standing there unaware. She likes fashion, so it is crucial she understands her body or again she will seem like a walking figure “flaw”.

  6. Claire says:

    Does she have more than a passing resemblance to Pippa Middleton or is it just me?

    • Digitial Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

      She does but she also reminds me a little of Princess Sofia of Sweden but i guess it depends on which angle the camera catches her at.

      PS. The Fail had an article yesterday (I think) that had pap shots of Pips without any makeup on and I almost didn’t recognise her.

    • Loopy says:

      Well there was an article o the Daily Fail about the Pipa thing today go check it out. But i think she looks like actress Shantel VanSanten( she is in Shooter with Ryan Phillipe)…only difference is that she is blnde. I also get a little younger Julia Roberts from her.

    • Maria says:

      I have always thought that she looks like Pippa.

    • Sticks says:

      Yes, I see it too

    • magnoliarose says:

      I don’t think they look alike. It is only at a certain angle with the same hairstyle otherwise no.

  7. CynicalAnn says:

    She is really pretty-and I love her outfit (I saw more pics at the DM once she took off her coat.) It’s nice to see them both enjoying doing their job (such as it is) and each other. He seems to be so crazy about her-so hopefully there will be no Charles/Diana situation where he is jealous of the attention she gets. He seems way more confident in himself than his father did at that point-and definitely more in love.

  8. Loopy says:

    Do they not sign prenups because they believe that marriage will last forever or is it because its highly unlikely a Royal can be taken to the cleaners as their assets,properties, trusts are very protected and probably belong to the firm so its not like in the event of a split Kate would get Amner(sp?) Hall etc

    • whatever says:

      The second part of your statement is probably closer to the truth.

    • SlightlyAnonny says:

      I thought the later. I thought that, technically, William doesn’t have that much money (I know, I know) because the Duchy of Cornwall/Prince of Wales has it and supports their household. So if WK divorced tomorrow she’d only be entitled to what he has which is not that much (I know, I know). I bet on paper that Harry has more money than William, the inheritance from his mother, his military pension, etc.

    • LAK says:

      Definitely the later.

      Both Diana AND Fergie’s divorce settlements were based on the ex-husbands’ careers and personal money not in trusts. So Charles had to empty his bank accounts and borrow money from HM. Ditto Andrew though that settlement was lower because he was a naval officer at the time of the divorce.

      If precedent is followed, Kate and MM won’t touch any of the money except what is in the bank for personal use.

      And the children belong to the royals, legally. Loophole with greatgrandchildren, but loophole closes when Charles becomes King.

    • grumpy says:

      They are not legally binding under English law.

    • Helen Smith says:

      When Fergie divorced she was suprised how much of what they enjoyed wasn’t Andrew’s property for her to divide.

    • SoulSPA says:

      The BRF must have learned from the drama with Fergie post divorce. Who knows what Diana would have done had she not lost her life that soon. The settlement she received for the divorce could have not lasted her long. She was a woman of expensive taste. She was receiving expensive freebies from rich people including Al Fayed. Men with not a good reputation.
      Meghan did work before marriage and had an above the average income. Both she and Katie Dolittle need a safety net because they cannot make money of their own while married. Aside the many divorces of TQ’s children, no marriage is 100 percent fail proof. Meghan has skills to fall back on if needed. But Dolittle would be forever dependent on her parents. Prenup should be a must.

  9. Jussie says:

    5 million sounds like everything she’s ever earned, before tax and agents fees and living expenses and so on. The last few years her salary, including endorsements, has been around $450,000 a year. Before that she made less for Suits and had no endorsements, and before that she booked small roles extremely sporadically. I’d be surprised if she has more than 1.5-2 million in assets.

    I would of thought Harry would have to have a pre-nup. Seems stupid to risk the PR damage a financial battle could cause, and there is the very, very slight possibility of his situation changing. Unlikely as it may be I would think with royalty they’d want to consider and plan for most eventualities.

    • Squiggisbig says:

      I think the difference is that there is unlikely to be a financial battle because of the ownership structure of a lot of his assets. For example, if you read the article it is unclear if Harry actually owned the diamonds he used for her ring or if they belong to the crown.

      Even in the United States, inheritances are not marital property (unless you comingle it with marital assets). So it isn’t divided up during a divorce.

    • LAK says:

      If we use the precedent set by his divorced father and uncle, no financial battles at all. His money and assets are untouchable. Ditto William.

      It’s actually negligent of Kate not to Jackie O the situation and funnel a nest egg for herself because she will receive chump change relative to Wiliam’s worth now or in the future. The money is free flowing during the marriage, but is cut off on divorce with little recourse to sue for more. See Fergie.

    • Ky says:

      I seriously doubt she has that much money, this is probably more of a PR move to portray her as an independent successful woman in her own right. Do you know what an actor pays for? Agent, lawyer, manager – they take around 35% together and then come taxes and those normally go up to 36%, so you figure. Then, second-rate actress on a second rate tv show, really… Not even Alicia Vikander who has an Oscar, a string of high-profile movies and endorsements hasn’t amassed that much.

  10. itsmealisonryan says:

    They look so happy. This pleases me. I hope they have babies!!! I’m really happy for him that he is marrying for love and to have found a partner in the royal business. I think she’ll be a great partner to him.

  11. Eliza says:

    I thought prenups in England didn’t really carry much legal weight, that’s why a lot of the highest divorce settlements are from there. No?

    • dodgy says:

      Yes, Eliza, you got it in one. Prenups don’t have the weight in England like they do in the US.

      • Saucy says:

        @Eliza & dodgy: They do have weight. There has been a slow but sure change; although they have no statutory footing at present, judges have started to consider fair pre-nups as expressing the intent of both parties and therefore should be upheld. They don’t intervene to change them unless the terms are patently unfair on one party (usually the woman). The legal profession expects them to have formal statutory footing in the next few years.

  12. Barrett says:

    She seems tiny, petite next to tall Germanic Harry! I forget she’s short, her dad is very tall in the photos so if blessed w kids they may be tall.

    Coat overwhelms her tiny frame but she will catch on!

  13. mint says:

    Figuring out who pays for what? They don´t need to. Their lifestyle is bankrolled by Taxpayers.

  14. katie3 says:

    how it felt to be with #Meghan ‘as a ginger’
    WTF is that all about? Are redheads somehow inferior to the rest of the human species?

    • Lynnie says:

      There’s an internet meme all about how gingers have no soul and other extra/weird stuff lol. How it originated I have no idea, but it’s all very tongue in cheek, and more about how rare redheads are more than anything.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        I’ve read that historically (think the medieval times/viking era) it had to do with the fact that in the “England” back then i.e. different kingdoms–Mercia, Northumberland, Cornwall, Wessex, etc…….they had Vikings rape and pillage….and that was where most of the red heads came from. So more than likely, if a woman had a red haired child, it was because Vikings had come through and raped and killed everyone i.e. the child of a pagan outsider. I don’t know how true that is, but it makes a lot of sense to me, at least anecdotally.

    • Kimble says:

      It’s an English thing. My sister used to joke that my youngest son would be a ginger, because his dad is Scottish, but he’s a blonde and her youngest son is full on orange ginger. He gets terribly bullied at school because of it.

      • Liberty says:

        It’s also a German thing apparently. The wife of a friend’s brother gave birth to a darling red-haired boy, and when I went to visit, she confided her sadness that gingers were unlucky. She was really upset! I said nonsense and cheered her up with tales of my extremely lucky three male ginger friends.

    • katie3 says:

      I’m Scottish & have bright red hair myself ;

    • anon says:

      i personally love gingers, so don’t get the prejudice. Think the legacy might be part of the wars between the english and the irish..

      • grumpy says:

        Don’t think so. Judas was often portrayed as having red hair and in France red hair was described as “poil de Judas” (hair of Judas).

        There are plenty of celts in England, Wales and Scotland with red hair. Ireland isnt the only place with gingers.

      • ell says:

        it’s about the english being horrible to the irish, it was a way to discriminate.

    • Honest B says:

      Yes. Day walkers.

  15. The Original Mia says:

    They are an attractive couple. He looks so proud of her and she just radiates happiness. I’m so happy for them.

    • katie3 says:

      I agree- she seems so happy and in love with him. Unlike Kate who seems so stiff and forced with people, I think Meghan will be a natural and will put more of her heart and soul into the “job”.

    • Liberty says:

      Agree! I am so happy for them too.

  16. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Gingers are hot.

  17. Tan says:

    Them together oddly reminds me of the other red Henry and his dark headed beauty the Spanish princess

  18. Bianca says:

    If he cheats, willl she be advised to turn a blind eye, like Kate was?
    I read on this site that if they divorce, she wan’t be able to take her child(ren) with her to the US. Is that true?

  19. IlsaLund says:

    They make such a lovely couple. Harry seems to be over the moon smitten with her and just happy and pleased to have Meghan at his side. I hope they have a long and loving life together.

  20. Kaz says:

    Of course they should have at least an understanding, if not a legally written and binding, pre-nup. They are from different countries, he is a wealthy and Royal guy, so lots of complications possible in the future, even more so if they have children.

    I think they’ll have a great few years but honestly, can’t see this as a life long thing. Meghan should run for the hills and escape this screwed up family and the intense scrutiny.