Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

You absolutely do not know that. her parents were paying for college and private schools. And of course she was doing all the work that allowed him to waltz off to his “important” job and still have a family and a home.

She did practically no work. She employed multiple nannies, housekeeper etc.

Yes, her parents paid for many things.

You will probably not believe this but managing a household/family of people who live large, have multiple houses, take numerous elaborate vacations, socialize on a grand scale, plus kids, is actually a lot of work. Even if a lot of the work you are doing is hiring, training, and managing multiple staff.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

At least $10m if she was able to buy him out of both houses.

What’s maddening is not him retaining his earnings it’s him pocketing the appreciation on houses and emptying her trusts (which are HIS kids trusts in the end). Where her lawyers were looking ? It’s a predatory prenup and they should have advised better to state that appreciation on whatever is funded with trust remains in trust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to hand it to her ex. He ran an impressive operation all these years. Got a wealthy wife to fund his lifestyle, used her family connections to build his career, spent his spare time banging young women, kept all his cash and then skedaddled the minute he got busted.

After he left her, he moved into a 2 BR condo. Yes, NYC real estate is expensive, but I wouldn't be surprised if he spend his hedge fund earnings on "other things." She says he had "brushes with the law" as a teen.

Looks like the small condo was more to prevent his kids from asking to stay with him. She says her youngest who was 12 at the time was upset that she wouldn’t have a room at her dad’s house unlike all her friends with divorced parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

At least $10m if she was able to buy him out of both houses.

What’s maddening is not him retaining his earnings it’s him pocketing the appreciation on houses and emptying her trusts (which are HIS kids trusts in the end). Where her lawyers were looking ? It’s a predatory prenup and they should have advised better to state that appreciation on whatever is funded with trust remains in trust

Who knows how it was reviewed? Belle has a BA from Harvard and a law degree from NYU, but she says she was "in love" and nothing else mattered at that point. Plus, if you've never had to worry about money in your life, it probably didn't register to her that one day she may need to worry when her husband fleeces her for all her assets.

[Anonymous]

Yea, “ money, success, stability” are the key words here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

At least $10m if she was able to buy him out of both houses.

What’s maddening is not him retaining his earnings it’s him pocketing the appreciation on houses and emptying her trusts (which are HIS kids trusts in the end). Where her lawyers were looking ? It’s a predatory prenup and they should have advised better to state that appreciation on whatever is funded with trust remains in trust

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

At least $10m if she was able to buy him out of both houses.

What’s maddening is not him retaining his earnings it’s him pocketing the appreciation on houses and emptying her trusts (which are HIS kids trusts in the end). Where her lawyers were looking ? It’s a predatory prenup and they should have advised better to state that appreciation on whatever is funded with trust remains in trust

Who knows how it was reviewed? Belle has a BA from Harvard and a law degree from NYU, but she says she was "in love" and nothing else mattered at that point. Plus, if you've never had to worry about money in your life, it probably didn't register to her that one day she may need to worry when her husband fleeces her for all her assets.

I still wonder how the family office lawyers or any other lawyers involved in the prenup let this go.forward but this is the best explanation for her willful blindness I can see. She probably wasn't financially literate because she never had to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

I tend to agree with this. I also saw that he said something about not wanting the kids to have to go back-and-forth between houses. Many children of divorce hate this aspect, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a parent would give up primary custody so that they can have quality time once a month, or over the summer, especially if they are in a high-pressure job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

I tend to agree with this. I also saw that he said something about not wanting the kids to have to go back-and-forth between houses. Many children of divorce hate this aspect, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a parent would give up primary custody so that they can have quality time once a month, or over the summer, especially if they are in a high-pressure job

He chose somewhere where they didn't have their own bedrooms. Even if he'd just wanted them for a couple of weekends a month and part of the summer -- which is still barely parenting -- he couldn't have done that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

I tend to agree with this. I also saw that he said something about not wanting the kids to have to go back-and-forth between houses. Many children of divorce hate this aspect, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a parent would give up primary custody so that they can have quality time once a month, or over the summer, especially if they are in a high-pressure job

He chose somewhere where they didn't have their own bedrooms. Even if he'd just wanted them for a couple of weekends a month and part of the summer -- which is still barely parenting -- he couldn't have done that.

Plenty of very wealthy people live in 2 bedroom apartments in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

You absolutely do not know that. her parents were paying for college and private schools. And of course she was doing all the work that allowed him to waltz off to his “important” job and still have a family and a home.

She did practically no work. She employed multiple nannies, housekeeper etc.

Yes, her parents paid for many things.

You will probably not believe this but managing a household/family of people who live large, have multiple houses, take numerous elaborate vacations, socialize on a grand scale, plus kids, is actually a lot of work. Even if a lot of the work you are doing is hiring, training, and managing multiple staff.

I understand as I run in these circles. However I still don’t think she is blameless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

You absolutely do not know that. her parents were paying for college and private schools. And of course she was doing all the work that allowed him to waltz off to his “important” job and still have a family and a home.

She did practically no work. She employed multiple nannies, housekeeper etc.

Yes, her parents paid for many things.

You will probably not believe this but managing a household/family of people who live large, have multiple houses, take numerous elaborate vacations, socialize on a grand scale, plus kids, is actually a lot of work. Even if a lot of the work you are doing is hiring, training, and managing multiple staff.

I understand as I run in these circles. However I still don’t think she is blameless.

No one cares what you think about a woman you never met who never claimed that she was blameless. Blame away if you feel that’s how you want to spend your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

I tend to agree with this. I also saw that he said something about not wanting the kids to have to go back-and-forth between houses. Many children of divorce hate this aspect, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a parent would give up primary custody so that they can have quality time once a month, or over the summer, especially if they are in a high-pressure job

He chose somewhere where they didn't have their own bedrooms. Even if he'd just wanted them for a couple of weekends a month and part of the summer -- which is still barely parenting -- he couldn't have done that.

Plenty of very wealthy people live in 2 bedroom apartments in NY.

Are they also the parents of minor children and do they also turn one of the rooms into an office? Because if so, they are also not interested in parenting.

[Anonymous]

It seems he was very contemptuous of her. I wonder if it's because she sat at home all those years despite having a law degree. But he does sound like a jerk regardless, especially considering the "brushes with the law" as a teen and the way she says he said he wanted to "protect" her in the early days of their relationship--that read as weird to me and would have caused me to question this person's integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

At least $10m if she was able to buy him out of both houses.

What’s maddening is not him retaining his earnings it’s him pocketing the appreciation on houses and emptying her trusts (which are HIS kids trusts in the end). Where her lawyers were looking ? It’s a predatory prenup and they should have advised better to state that appreciation on whatever is funded with trust remains in trust

Who knows how it was reviewed? Belle has a BA from Harvard and a law degree from NYU, but she says she was "in love" and nothing else mattered at that point. Plus, if you've never had to worry about money in your life, it probably didn't register to her that one day she may need to worry when her husband fleeces her for all her assets.

They were engaged in 3 months and married soon after. Definitely a rush job

The way he seduced her when she was living with her boyfriend. He is all red flags.

I ak guessing she figured she would be the wealthier one and figured he could keep what he earned since he grew up poorer. I dont think the prenup specified that she pay half of expenses, I think he just enforced it as “fair” and she went along with it thinking why would it matter, they were in it together.