Prince Harry apparently ‘refuses’ to sign a prenup to protect his assets

2018 Commonwealth Day service

Doing this job, I learned many years ago that prenups aren’t really a thing in Britain. Obviously, some British couples do get some kind of prenuptial agreement, but prenups just don’t have the same kind of strength or legal standing in Britain as they do in America. This goes double for members of the British royal family – on the occasion of a royal divorce, there are bigger fish to fry than figuring out the terms of a prenup, and I don’t think any of the immediate Windsor family members has ever had any kind of prenup. Diana did not, Fergie did not, Princess Anne did not. William and Kate didn’t have a prenup. And now Meghan Markle and Prince Harry won’t have one either.

Prince Harry always has been something of a romantic, publicly lamenting his difficulties in finding lasting love. Now he’s engaged to Meghan Markle, the 33-year-old has made the most dramatic sign of his devotion: I hear that Harry has rejected signing a prenuptial agreement to safeguard his estimated £30 million fortune.

‘There was never any question in Harry’s mind that he would sign a prenup,’ one of his friends tells me. ‘He’s determined that his marriage will be a lasting one, so there’s no need for him to sign anything.’

The disclosure follows persistent rumours that courtiers wanted Harry to safeguard his chunk of the Windsor millions. Meghan divorced her first husband, American film producer Trevor Engelson, after two years. Last week, well-connected broadsheet columnist Sophia Money-Coutts reported ‘whispers’ that a prenup was being drawn up. ‘Both Harry and Meghan have assets to protect,’ the baron’s daughter remarked. ‘Given divorce rates, it’s worth couples having a frank discussion about what each is bringing to the party before signing that marriage register.’ Prenups are not legally enforceable in the UK, but are increasingly taken into account during divorce cases.

Harry was handed £10 million of the inheritance from his mother, Princess Diana, when he turned 30. He is said to have another £20 million of assets. Meghan, 36, has amassed an estimated £4 million fortune from her successful acting career. Harry would be following the example of his brother, Prince William, who rejected a prenup before tying the knot with Kate Middleton.

A Kensington Palace spokesman declined to comment on the ‘private matter’.

[From The Daily Mail]

Do you think Harry is refusing a prenup out of a sense of love and romance, or is he just not doing one because they don’t matter in Britain anyway? I think it’s probably a little bit of Column A, a little of Column B. I believe Harry thinks/knows Meghan is The One. And if they do get divorced… again, they’ll have bigger things to deal with besides an unenforceable prenuptial agreement.

Also: the Archbishop of Canterbury had some kind words about Meghan’s baptism:

And here’s the last thing. You know how Lifetime rushed a quickie TV movie about Harry and Meghan so they could air it just before the wedding? Well, the teaser is here and OMG, you guys. OMG this actress looks SO MUCH like Meghan. And the actor is getting Harry’s voice, right?

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend an event at Millennium Point to celebrate International Women's Day in Birmingham

Prince Harry and fiancee Meghan Markle during a visit to Cardiff Castle as part of their royal duties

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

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

150 Responses to “Prince Harry apparently ‘refuses’ to sign a prenup to protect his assets”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eve says:

    That’s terribly stupid of him! You have to protect your assests, especially if you are marrying somone who has shown flakingness in relationships like MM. Now I know a lot of people here like MM but as a British person having heard numourous stories about her past (some might be true and same might not, but where is smoke there will be fire!) she seems too easily adaptable to one life while as easily moving on from the last one, that’s not bad in the real world per say but in the Royal Family is still for obvious reason a huge embarrassment and a big nono! Harry has to protect not only his assets but if they ever divorce he has to make sure that it has to go as smooth as possible to protect the reputation of the whole Royal family, especially since a lot of the British public are extremely sceptical about this union to begin with…

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      ” the reputation of the whole Royal family” the best laugh I have had in a long time! Their entire legacy is built on taking from others, bloodshed and invasion, that is what royalty is. Also randy Andy and his little holidays with Jeffrey Epstein, yes lets protect that. How about the Queen mothers equerry and his involvement with Jimmy Saville, the entire institution and those the circle like vultures around it are rotten to the core.

    • Tania says:

      Has to defend the reputation of a monarch whose claim to fame is pillaging and taking all the goods from foreign countries in the name of expanding said monarch?

      The monarch itself is an outdated experiment of greed and living off the t*t of others’ misfortunes.

    • Skylark says:

      LOL @Eve. So much blatant wish-fulfilment in one post!
      But thanks for the laughs. :D

    • lunde says:

      Prenups are not legally binding in the UK although judges may take them into account during divorce proceedings.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Me, I’m here for the flakingness.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Lol. People who divorce are flakey? Are you sure you want to stick with that idea? I would urge you to rethink that phrase.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        I would have been flakey had I stayed in my first marriage-flakey,emotionally abused,and told how ugly and worthless I was.If leaving was flakey then that should be my middle name😉

      • Eve says:

        Wow some of you are acting like I spat in your face lol. Relax all of you! No divorce does not mean flakey but changing relationships, friends and religions and leaving your whole life and your live in boyfriend within a year for a Prince IS being flakey as hell! Sorry, not sorry that I god forbid judged your precious MM and you took it personally. Prenups (which I did not use that word!) might not be the same in Europe like it is in US but drafting a clear legal outline of an event of a seperation in all aspects of a marriage is very necessary and common now, especially for the rich and famous.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Still not flakey. Marrying Prince Harry requires some sacrifice. You don’t know she has changed friends. She is only changing from one Protestant religion to another. It is not like giving up Catholicism or Judaism.

        She isn’t my precious. *said like Gollum* Lol

        I just think your reasons for calling someone flakey are exaggerations and a bit sexist. My beliefs aren’t based on Meghan but about anyone in general. I don’t think anyone’s life is always neat and tidy and I think that is true especially when it comes to relationships. We don’t know what goes on internally or what makes someone change everything. Even for us, non-royals marrying is a sacrifice, and it means changing a lot of things to make it work.

        The live-in boyfriend cheated btw. So he was no prize in the end.

      • K2 says:

        “Prenups (which I did not use that word!) might not be the same in Europe like it is in US but drafting a clear legal outline of an event of a seperation in all aspects of a marriage is very necessary and common now, especially for the rich and famous.”

        And you know this… how?

        Marriage is a pro forma contract in England and Wales. You can’t independently contract out of the jurisdiction of the family courts. That’s why prenups are only ever, and at best, advisory: because if you split, and can’t agree on a settlement, then your financial arrangements are determined by a judge, who has very wide discretion.

        And the US and English law have far more in common than most European nations do with either, because we both have a Common Law system, instead of one derived from Napoleonic civil codes. (For a start, US and English law is adversarial and not interrogatory – most Euro legal systems are the latter.) There’s almost nothing shared, other than EU legal frameworks… which aren’t relevant to prenups. At all.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      While pre ups are. Or legally binding In the UK many of his ‘assets’ that come from his family ar e state owned and not outright owned by the BRf. He’ll have his trust fund left to him y his other but his cottage in KP is owned by the state.

    • Milla says:

      He’s not even that rich and Will didn’t sign a prenup either. In case of divorce, Markle would get a nice paychecks, as did Diana and Fergie. That’s real tradition.

      And divorce is new normal. Not flakey. Just reasonable. People fall out of love. But i don’t think either of them want to divorce, they’re still not even married.

      • Karen says:

        Exactly he is not a billionaire and probably has trusts that cannot bebtouched.

      • Samantha says:

        Fergie, his aunt did not receive a good settlement in the divorce. She was broke many times and she had to work. Diana was more lucky, but she had that rich Dodi finance and she had family money.

        Harry is not rich. The most is owned by the state and by the Queen and the trusts, will remain in his name. As I do not think he is in love with Meghan and as prenaps do not count anyhow in the UK, there will be no huge settlement in a case of a divorce by Ms Marple.

        I really wonder though why he marrys. The blind date with Meghan was set up by a German female aristocrat. Maybe there is something in the trusts and wills.

        Maybe also she made much more money with Suits, like we think. But I do not think he is marrying for money. No way.

        For me it looks like, he needed to marry (for whatever reasons) and Ms. Marple was an easy target. She was easily to influence and to get. Time will tell….

      • Olenna says:

        “he needed to marry”…What does this mean?

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        Errr Olenna….remember what happened with Veronica and Trixie…..check out Eve and Samantha……the language, syntax and grammar….

      • Olenna says:

        @Bellagio, thanks for the tip! I def won’t be going down the rabbit hole with this one either. ;-)

    • Alix says:

      It’s not as if, in the event of a divorce, he’d be reduced to utter poverty, forced to share a shabby flat in an unfashionable part of London and get a job like the rest of us.

    • Peg says:

      I’m sure most of the British people don’t read the Dailymail, so they heard other stories about Meghan working for the past seven years in Canada, and before that working at other jobs to support herself.
      Now if that is flakey, more people should try it.
      When you’re divorced, with no children involved, what is there to stop you from moving on?

    • aquarius64 says:

      @Eve – Charles was pressed by courtiers to get a prenup with Camilla and he refused; and Camilla’s history in a previous marriage is WELL known. Doesn’t matter that husband no. 1 was reported to be a dog and Diana was immature, Camilla willingly went to a married man’s bed for years. It caused a scandal that could have cost Charles the throne. It took eight years after Diana’s death for the queen to give consent to the marriage; and they still have to make stealth PR moves to have the public at large to accept her to have the title of queen consort (removing the Princess consort title on the website is one). That’s a 1000x worse than anything Meghan may have done in her first marriage. If prior bad martial acts should be considered then there should not have been a sign off for Camilla, or a prenup should have been a condition before consent. The same prenup should have had a fling/affair clause – she cheats she gets nothing. If she cheats with him she can cheat on him.

      BTW the queen has given official consent for Harry and Meghan to marry, and I have no doubt Meghan was vetted especially with a previous marriage. If anything came back wrong the wedding would be a no go. IMO the consent shoots down the hit pieces done by jealous and bitter half siblings and “old friends”.

      • Peg says:

        The only thing the half-sister is not doing, to get an invitation to the wedding is standing on her head.
        The half-brother saw the writing on the wall, when his lawyer received a reply from KP, to his begging for cash letter.
        The former best friend enjoyed her 15 mins of infamy, and is now back in reality.

    • DesertReal says:

      Well Eve, I would love to hear your righteous indignation towards a royal marrying a Caucasian or European- and not signing a prenuptial agreement.
      Literally none of the other royals have done it in the past… yet you seem mighty up in arms over him marrying a biracial American without one.
      Where there’s smoke, there tends to be fire, as you pointed out.
      And I’m picking up on the racially prejudiced undertone in your comment.

    • Bethany F says:

      @Eve as a british person, shouldn’t you also know that pre nups are pretty much unenforceable in your country?? i thought the calls for a pre nup were coming from americans who don’t know how divorces work in the U.K.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:


        Or Russians….. the slightly imperfect English syntax is a dead giveaway.

      • Saucy says:

        Not true that they are not enforceable in the UK. They do not (as yet) have statutory footing (i.e. I couldn’t say section XY of the Family Act 197X states “pre-nups…..” etc.) but unless the terms of the agreement are patently unfair, judges do not tamper or alter the division of assets as agreed by both parties in the divorce. In other words: they carry significant weight and will, broadly speaking, be respected by the judge presiding.

    • JustBitchy says:

      Is that Ev(with and “e”)?

    • Lyla says:

      Well, as a Brit, you should know that prenups aren’t enforceable in the UK. But thanks for the laugh about the other stuff.

    • Princessk says:

      “As a British person”……lol! Many of us on here are British too. Where do you get your stories about her from? DM trolls probably 😄

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      “Flakingness”? Hmmm, Eve. Got an axe to grind, have you? Just wondering, because I have seen no evidence at all that Meghan Markle is flakey. Could there be something…*else*…about her that bothers you?

    • Sage says:

      “protect the reputation of the whole Royal family,”


      The BRF is one of the biggest on going scams. I see you’re gulping the kool-aid.

    • Meggles says:


      1. Prenups are not legally binding in the UK.

      2. He’s Royal. If they ever get by some horrible circumstance end up in a nasty divorce he’d be easily able to destroy her in the courts anyway. He doesn’t need a prenup.

      3. If Eve’s British, I’m a handbag. There’s absolutely zero chance a British person would ever refer to the UK as “Europe” and talking about the entire continent as a single entity is something only Americans do (and people actually living in the UK or a continental European country despise).

    • Mari With An I says:

      Hahahahahahaha*takes breath*hahahahaha!

    • Veronica says:

      Just because you disagree with Eve, it’s ok to mock her spelling and writing?
      That tells the world a LOT more about you all than it does about Eve.

    • rusty fender says:

      They are Nazi’s. They are German they aren’t even British. Don’t know why you people even have them. and No he doesn’t need a prenup in that family if you get uppity they will just make sure you have an accident.

  2. Caity says:

    I’m so here for that lifetime movie.

    And I think harry would treat Meghan fairly in the event of a divorce, after watching what his parents went through. Fingers crossed they never get there though.

  3. Millie says:

    I don’t know if it’s romance or not believing in prenups. I would think that in asking her to give up her entire career, asking her to move to a different country, and asking her to put up with this level of public scrutiny (that would likely continue in the event of a divorce), the least he could do is make a sacrifice on his end as well should the relationship end. Maybe he just thinks splitting the assets 50/50 would be the fair thing to do.

    • Fhmom says:

      Good point. She is sacrificing so much to be with him. Harry hopefully understands that. I am really pulling for these two.

    • Citresse says:

      MM didn’t give up her career. She wanted to move on, out and up and she sure did with the help of the Mulroneys of course. I wish Harry and Meghan well, but we’ll see if Harry keeps a “Camilla” and if MM gets annoyed by living in a goldfish bowl.

      • Peeking in says:

        Citress – how exactly did Jessica and Ben help Meghan land Harry from here in Toronto? Are the Mulroneys friends with Harry? Meghan was already travelling in the same circles as Ben with his entertainment reporting, and her acting. It’s not like she sought them out to aid her in her social climbing. People I know, who has worked with Meghan, say she’s sweet, quiet and kind, not the conniving witch some people want to make her out to be. She was never even into the night scene or partying around town.

      • Olenna says:

        Yes, Meghan did give up her career. Had she not decided to marry Harry, she could have continued on as an actor. And, being smart, educated and outgoing, she could have pursued other jobs, such as working with charitable or political organizations, when she tired of acting.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Good points, Millie.

  4. Rhys says:

    It’s funny how only that romance that ends with a wedding makes it a legit one and worthy of movie in our society. Are there any movies about Harry and Chelsey out there? :D

  5. yanni says:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury seems like such a lovely man! Lovely words.

  6. Shelley says:

    That first commenter is funny. The British royal family should be the last set of folks to talk background. It built a church on adultery and which was happily practiced by next king and that’s the “little stuff”. The irony!

  7. Nic919 says:

    The royals probably don’t need a prenup because if it ever went to court the non royal party likely has no chance of getting many of the assets. And if UK law doesn’t recognize them, then it is pointless. I suppose what happened with Diana would be the precedent for any future divorce.

    • LAK says:

      The games Diana played in her divorce negotiations actually made it worse for anyone divorcing the royals in the future because whilst they were fiscally mean to Fergie, who divorced months before Diana, they didn’t take away her privileges and there was room for future re-negotiations. After Diana’s shenanigans, the Queen re-wrote the divorce rules to remove ALL privileges and to close the re-negotiation window forever on the person being divorced. The rule now is protect the royal at all costs, whereas before there was some sympathy and softer landing for the person being ejected.

  8. Rumi says:

    I’m divided. On one hand prenups are a safety measure, ensuring what you have coming into the marriage is safe. But on the other hand it’s seems gauche, like if you are thinking of a prenup, is this person really the one?
    Maybe I’d think differently if I had millions.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Anyone who is British would have a different line of thought because the agreement isn’t binding in court; it’s instead “taken into consideration.”

      • Dena says:

        I used to think like you – that it’s preparing for divorce – but I’m about to get married for the second time and we both want one. We both have horrible, awful exes who took us for a ride in our divorce settlements and who keep coming up with excuses to sue us to try to get *more* money. Frex – I write about spousal abuse and I’m facing a defamation lawsuit which is, in the words of my lawyer, “a complete and total cash grab.” My fiance’s Ex-wife just sued him to try to get more money from a house they co-owned five years ago *even though* the divorce is long-settled and you and go back after the fact. My point?
        Sometimes a prenup doesn’t protect your assets from each other or divorce but from people outside the relationship.

    • LizLemonGotMarried (aka The Hufflepuff Liz Lemon) says:

      When my husband and I got married almost ten years ago, we were, as Khalid says, “young, dumb, and broke” ish, and building together. Now, we aren’t those things. If we got divorced (God forbid), it would be hellacious to untangle. If I ever were to get married again, I would have a damn good prenup. Not because I wouldn’t love someone, but because practicality is my middle name, and anyone who said that they didn’t want one isn’t someone I should be marrying anyways.
      I’m not particularly romantic, though, so maybe I’m missing the love clouds. 🤷🏻‍♀️

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Married more than a quarter century, nearly everything’s conjoint that could be and now I would get one too. Just one less potential headache – I would think it would help couples relax and focus on their marriage, not on issues of financial trust/mistrust. Segregates it, in a way.

      • LizLemonGotMarried (aka The Hufflepuff Liz Lemon) says:

        WATP: right? At various times, for various reason, one of us might have held a mortgage or car or investment separately or with someone else, but most of our stuff is joint, and just thinking about untangling it is enough to make me want to apologize after a fight. 😂😂😂

      • Katherine says:

        You can actually sign a prenup at any point of the marriage fyi. But yeah, personally I’m so pro-prenup, I wish people were less “oooohhh this must not be real love then” about them. Like, my SO might not oppose it but I know everyone in our lives who finds out would judge to hell and back

      • LizLemonGotMarried (aka The Hufflepuff Liz Lemon) says:

        That’s good to know-I’m wondering what the hubs would think at this point, if I tried to define the financial tangles. 😂 We’re both pretty practical, so he might just shrug. I don’t plan to divorce him, though, he’s pretty damn cute, works hard, and has some other talents.

    • Rhys says:

      I’m surprised anyone still thinks prenups have anything to do with love. That’s so cute it’s almost old-fashioned. To me they are for protection of both people in marriage from the greedy lawyers if nothing else.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It is a good idea for anyone to get one. We have one and recently made some changes but it isn’t a big deal as much as settling something, so there isn’t a lot of drama or fanfare.

  9. QueenB says:

    I doubt she will get half of Buckingham Palace.

  10. minx says:

    If they did divorce, I don’t see Meghan walking off with some irreplaceable royal treasures anyway.

  11. Shotcaller says:

    I guess Harry gets half of the Suits residuals.

  12. Danielle says:

    The royal seem big on tradition, and tradition says no prenups. Doubt there was anyone seriously urging him to get one.

  13. magnoliarose says:

    I think this was announced because Harry feels the need to be protective and to make a statement. I don’t think it has anything to do with tradition or more to make it known he is in love and marrying a woman he trusts. I believe he is aware of the loons and outlandish criticisms, so he wants to shut down the nonsense talk about his commitment.

    Meghan has enough money that she earned herself. She doesn’t need his money to live well, and I believe this was to make that known too.

    Harry really is better at this than his brother and father sometimes.

    • whatever says:

      I’m sure I saw articles at the time of William’s wedding (or shortly afterwards) saying that he didn’t want or have a prenup either. Harry isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary here because as stated above, many members of the royal family didn’t have prenups either including more recently his brother.

      • magnoliarose says:

        But I think in William’s case it was for the same reason. I thought about it after my post. With everyone calling her waity and consolation prize it was the same kind of declaration.
        I think too because of the public nature of their parents’ divorce it is just a good thing to put out there to show a commitment.
        Some people look at prenups as a sign that the wealthier person is not in it for the long term.

  14. Connell says:

    I’ve always thought Harry’s money was in trust funds, invested, and he receives an income from that. The rest would be in PC’s name. Sarah always claimed she received very little in her divorce settlement, which led to a number of problems. I believe Sarah still loves Andrew, but I don’t think she has ever stopped leaning on him financially. If I were Meghan, I would want to know how much I would potentially receive in a divorce, and how exactly Harry’s money is protected. I would talk to a British attorney.

    • Lauri says:

      Yes, I believe Sarah’s divorce settlement was quite small as it was based on the salary Andrew earned while in the Navy. I’ve also heard that she didn’t push for a larger settlement in order to retain good relations with the Queen.

    • LAK says:

      All of Harry’s money is in trust funds which are off limits which makes this no-prenup declaration pretty meaningless since all the money isn’t on the table to begin with.

      Post-divorce she can’t make a lifestyle case because that money is non-negotiable – laws and royal estate planning.

    • notasugarhere says:

      As LAK has pointed out before, the money that would have gone to Sarah went in trust to Beatrice and Eugenie instead. Sarah asked for nothing but the Queen’s friendship, so she got basically nothing but free room and board with Andrew for 20 years at Royal Lodge.

      • Aurelia says:

        Pretty sure Fergie got 4 million pounds cash, a roof over her head and her royal HRH. She would also go into overdraft by approx. 2 million pounds per year and call her lawyer to get the royal fam to fix her up. They were pretty terrified she would open her huge trap so they always agreed.

        Finally they cut her off to an extent and then fergie got into that bloody awful scam for connections deal with andrew. Fergie was unhinged and a spend aholic. I think he might well have an addictive personallity. She likes a drink too. I mean more than the usual.

    • Samantha says:

      Yes, she should do that. She should seriously protect her interests. But honestly, I doubt that she really thinks about this. Maybe she does, maybe not. She thinks, she won the Jack pot. Also she is in love.

      Cressida ist old english aristocracy, she maybe had good advicers. Chelsey was half British, is a lawyer, worked for a prestigous International law firm and might had contacts.

      Ms. Marple could have done better. But she wanted a Prince, and she got what she wished for.

  15. Naptime says:

    Inherited assets are not community property anyway, so he does not need one. Meghan would have zero claim to his trust fund with or without a prenup. Does he even earn a “salary?”

    • Shotcaller says:

      He has a small military pension.

      • Samantha says:

        He has soon a wife who is working for the Royals.

        She is beautiful, intelligent, looks not cheap, knows how to dress, has money, self earned money (!), hard working girl. She is an asset for the Royal firm. And no influencial, rich family behind her, who can help her in the case of difficulties. She will most likely never be a danger like Lady Diana in any case.

        She will be the young women, everybody love who can never be a threat. Like Fergie. Well chosen.

    • Megan S says:

      That is what I was thinking – divorce considers community property acquired during the time of the union. Unless he has that money stashed in high interesting bearing accounts (and I want to know where those exist these days) it isn’t like he is raking in the millions off of investments and interest. As far as actual “income” she’d probably have to pay him palimony.

      • Olenna says:

        After the marriage, what earned income will Meghan have, aside from Suits syndication royalties, that would require her to pay palimony? Since both are able-bodied adults who could work before the marriage (he was an Army officer, she was an actor), would palimony/alimony be based on their previous jobs? In a divorce, I think the judge would call it a ‘wash’ and encourage a fair settlement without spousal support. And, if there are children involved there will be maintenance and child support to consider for the parents, depending on how custody is determined (I won’t even get into the BS that the Crown owns the kids here).

      • Bridget says:

        Is that in the US or in the UK? We can’t assume that American legal principals apply here.

      • European says:

        It is even more complicated. Harry might have assets (jewelry, paintings and art pieces, stocks or property) but we don’t know “how” he owns them. That is to say that there are certain types of ownership which wouldn’t be “real ownership” and therefore such properties wouldn’t be included in legal divorce proceedings.

        I can’t really explain that crap any better because I ain’t no lawyer. That crap originated from the aristocrats. These aristocrats wanted their land properties to be passed on within their families from son to grandson to great-grandson and not be squandered or gambled away by their sons. Therefore they often put their properties into these “non-real ownerships” and then the sons and grandsons could draw interest or rent from the properties but they couldn’t sell the properties. These schemes were also abused to avoid property taxes.

        See here for example:

      • Megan S says:

        The palimony comment was pure sarcasm….I’ll have to work on my delivery.

    • Bridget says:

      Do you know if that’s the same in the UK though?

  16. Ytbtet says:

    Guy or girl people should sign preups to prtects their assets

  17. Princessk says:

    This is such a total non story. Of course Harry is not going to sign a prenup. Royals don’t do stuff like that. In the very unlikely situation that they should split, an agreement would be reached. Prenups don’t count in the British legal system.

    • Veronica says:

      I don’t know if it is likely they split or not, but I doubt it would come from her unless Harry has a Camilla in the future. It would come from him if it happened. Meghan has WAY more to lose than Harry in any split, including custody of any children.
      It really is ridiculously unfair, that custody part. He is 6th in line to the throne. Why does it apply?

    • Aurelia says:

      The royals have the upper hand in the even of a divorce anyway but I’m sure they wouldn’t shaft Meghan. Not a good look. Pre-nups are irrelevant for royals.

  18. European says:

    Prenups do count in every european legal system. They just aren’t always enforced. They are not or not entirely enforced if one party is severely disadvantaged by the prenup in comparison to what the party would get without a prenup.
    Without a prenup there is a certain amount awarded to each party of a divorcing couple. If there is a prenup and if it reduces this amount very much then the prenup can be declared invalid.

    Harry is worth arount Pounds 25 Mio. Legally Meghan would be entitled to about half of that if there is no prenup. If the prenup would award Meghan only Pounds 1 Mio in case of divorce in the 2nd year of marriage it would likely be declared invalid in court.

    • European says:

      Nevertheless it ain’t clever of Harry to not sign a prenup. Because what a prenup can definitely do is this: it can protect certain assets, for example those pieces he got from his mother (jewelry, paintings etc.). That means in case of divorce Harry wouldn’t have to sell his mother’s pieces in order to split the proceeds with Meghan. Also Harry could arrange in a prenup that in case of divorce Meghan couldn’t use her aristocratic title any more. Remember Fergie? After her divorce from Prince Andrew she caused a lot of trouble for the royal family because she still used her title “Duchess of York” and tried to make money off her connections to the royal family.
      In a prenup Harry could make arrangements for their children.

      A prenup is an opportunity to discuss how you are going to live your life together: who works and earns and how much there is to spend. And that alone makes a lot of sense. [That is the only reasonable thing that the despicable Donald T. ever said.]

    • Peg says:

      If Harry had 25 million before he married Meghan, she is not entitled to half, only what he earned during the marriage.
      She can’t get Jewelry that he already owned.
      When Diana passed, all the jewelry that did not belong to the Spencer family went back to the Royal family.
      There is no need to sign a pre-nup in the Royal Family, you can’t get the buildings, Jewelry or the hidden money.
      They’re not even married yet, and you have them divorce, can’t wait until they have kids, heads are going to spin. 👸🏽🙇👸🏽🙇.

    • LAK says:

      None of this applies to the british royals. All of Harry’s money is in family trusts that are off limits for MM. Her abilith to access them relies entirely on his generosity rather than entitlement. Ditto the trusts that will be created for their children.

      Going by example of previous divorces, she will have access to his personal money and none of his trusts ie his army pension and nothing else.

      As the kids were considered Windsors NOT Spencers, any inheritance they inherited would have been tied up in the Windsor method of protecting those trusts. Even the later Diana money.

      As for Fergie, she remains legally ‘duchess of york’. The title wasn’t removed, and remains her title until or unless Andrew or she remarries. The public might not like it, but that is the reality. It was tacky of her to commercialize her title, but a woman needs to pay her debts and her bills, and the royals weren’t going to do it. They didn’t stop her commercializing her title and if they were embarrassed, they kept it to themselves and let the public speak for them.

      At her divorce, she was officially HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, but because Diana made such a song and dance drama about it in her later divorce, the ‘HRH’ style and status was stripped from both of them and from any future divorcing in-laws. Diana’s shenanigans ruined future negotiations for other in-laws because the Windsors tightened up any loopholes and added a few more to protect themselves.

      Therefore whatever you think is the norm for divorce, even for billionaires, won’t apply for MM or Kate or Sophie or Autumn or Mike.

      As for pre-nups, they really aren’t legally binding in the UK hence every person divorcing a rich hubby wants to do it in the UK because their prenup will not be enforced. It keeps our divorce courts permanently occupied with people trying to get judges to overlook their prenups.

  19. Mar says:

    Megan has 4 million from acting? Pounds or usd? Either way I’m in shock.

    • Peg says:

      No one really knows how much money Meghan has (IRS).
      She was working for steadily for the past seven years, so why are you shocked.
      American actors that work in Canada or anywhere else are usually paid in US$$$.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Seven years on a series that is international, her department store deal, other minor work, possible investments and residuals add up.
      They receive a lot of favors and items deeply discounted or free or paid for by the production company or network too so her out of pocket expenses would not be very high during her time in Canada.

    • Fera says:

      4 million? From what, cause her acting is mediocre at best, that show is ridiculously bad and she was not even known to command big figures. I can point out bigger names who don’t have that much – Gal Gadot, Alicia Vikander and so on…

      • Aurelia says:

        Seriously, I would be suprised if meghan was worth 1 Million at best. By the time you pay your manager, agent and the tax man. Poof, 70% gone just for starters. She was prpbably on $20,000 per episode on Suits. Christ, it was a cable show.

  20. Maria says:

    Are pre-nups popular in the US?

  21. Racer1 says:

    100% of her marriages ended in divorce. The odds are not in his favor. The choice is romantic not pragmatic.

    • Anastasia says:

      You can’t say marriages plural when she’s only been married once.

      • Msthang says:

        Anastasia, there was an annulment to someone else before she actually got married on a beach, so actually 2 marriages. in truth if Harry were intelligent, and if he truly knew himself and how easily he gets bored with the opposite sex,he would get one. But it is well known, he isn’t that bright and what feels good at the moment, go with it. The really sad part is if their are little ones in the middle they will bare the brunt of a fallout!!

  22. liriel says:

    I’m sorry but why didn’t anyone mention the new ‘scandal’ with Meghan – her leaked pictures?

    • magnoliarose says:

      They have been proven to be photoshopped fake pictures. Not really a story. *shrug*

      • Bethany F says:

        i saw a bunch of photos that are clearly screenshots from a video. shot in bright daylight. the woman is not wearing makeup and it looks like her… there’s a photo of her and two girlfriends topless but shot from behind and the video clip is allegedly meghan not realizing video was recording while she was standing in front of the camera trying to work it. i don’t know… feels more like a true leak than a bunch of photoshopped screenshots. the backstory is just so banal it feels real.

      • Bridget says:

        Why are you even looking at those? If they’re leaked, that is without her consent.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They all feel real, but it has been the latest thing creeps have been doing to famous people. The site is known for fakes that is why no one is bothering. Even the fake site thought they were fakes and went with it anyway.
        Besides if any of them were real it would have been all over the place and there would have been a major lawsuit.
        The only celebrity sex tapes and pics nowadays are photoshopped and on purpose.

    • Sage says:

      True. Seems someone hacked her phone like the other HW actresses. It’s a crime. Could be why the media outlets are not touching the ‘scandal’.

      • liriel says:

        One of you says it’s bee proven to be photoshopped, the other leaked. I believe it’s true and criminal but with other leaks there’s been a huge issue made out of it yet the PR of KP seems to be very skilful at handling this. And way better than Harry’s true scandals..

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is photoshopped. Do you really believe she would have been stupid enough to keep something like that on her phone? They have high-level security teams, and all of their devices are nearly impossible to crack. If ever there was anything it would have been found and scrubbed by now, but I doubt there was.
        Meghan’s life has been thoroughly investigated by intelligence because of security risks and to make sure she didn’t have any problematic connections.

        There is no coverup or anything because they aren’t real.
        The lengths people go through to smear this woman is unbelievable.

      • Sage says:

        There were photos that were definitely photoshopped but also photos and a video that are her and her friends. Seems she was stupid enough to take topless photos with her phone, however it’s still a crime for someone to hack and leak the photos .

      • Fera says:

        It’s no Photoshop, it’s for real. There is even a videoclip. Actually she appears like she wanted to take some pics but instead pressed the video button. The pics are still shots from that video.

    • Meggles says:

      Weren’t they confirmed as fake/photoshops?

      Even if they are real a few stolen/hacked pics of her privately sunbathing, not even showing anything, are hardly scandalous.

      • liriel says:

        To be honest security doesn’t prevent from cyber attacks *russia *usa *china. it’d be like nothing for them. To me this pictures are non issue but if they’re real she could use her voice to say it’s definitely not ok and criminal. that’s my take on it.

  23. Patty says:

    I need to bookmark some of these Harry / MM stories. The comments are hilarious; guaranteed to brighten up a gloomy day. 😂

    Look at these gems:

    Women who take pics of themselves and their friends on their phones are stupid

    She has a 100 divorce rate (which is true and would be something to note if she had multiple marriages – but she doesn’t)

    Chelsy Davy is smart! Half British! And she has a law degree! Side note: she doesn’t use her fancy law degree, she designs jewelry. Maybe MM should reach out to her. Ms. Davy can create some replicas if precious family jewels so once divorce proceedings are initiated Meghan can do a swap and keep the originals.

    Is it actually possible for a TV actress to be worth 4M? Probably, I’ve met all kinds of people worth far more and they have regular 9 to 5’s

  24. Masamf says:

    @Sage aren’t these pictures one of the reasons Harry put out that statement in Nov 2016? The pics are fake but they are photoshopped in a way that makes them look real. As Magnolia stated Meghan has been thoroughly investigated and “vetted” and no topless pictures were found. You think nobody could find anything on her in 2016 but now suddenly voila something pops up out of the blue? Why do you think no one has jumped on them, not even the sleaziest tab out there? It’s because they can’t be authenticated!!
    Re prenup, I believe there’s more to the story. IMVHO, I believe both Meghan and Harry love each other and they both believe in their love for each other. There is probably already a prenup that protects Meghan’s assets that she brings with her but they aren’t about to tell us any of that. They only talk about the nothing burger that is the BRF prenup which would mean absolutely zilch even if Harry agreed to sign one.

    • guestt says:

      The video is very real. The pics are very real. I am surprised because I thought her devices would have better protection. Somebody has obtained the pics somehow. They’re not scandalous at all, but it’s Meghan and her friends topless. Mainstream media can’t touch this (even though certain trash tabloids are probably itching to) because they aren’t going to risk the lawsuit. I’m also wondering why they’re still up on that site?

  25. mk says:

    Haha! I had to quit listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury about half way through because I just finished a few nights of binge watching Borgia on Netflix, so still have a Catholic Church hypocrisy hangover.

    Our world is EFFed up because of these systems set up for inequality in favor of elites. Happy St. Patty’s Day!