Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

She's not that dull. Gwyneth is going to play her in a movie. He on the other hand abandoned his kids and tried to screw her out of the inherited wealth she used to buy their marital homes. And now America can see that on the big screen.

She is absolutely dull. Her writing was juvenile and shows no personality at all. She’s a milquetoast whose inheritance was the only interesting thing about her.

You’re entitled to your opinion. Plenty of people think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

So money makes someone interesting? Sure, it provides the ability to travel, own homes in multiple locations, etc., but after the booze, affairs, and pettiness that pervades, doesn't sound that great to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

She's not that dull. Gwyneth is going to play her in a movie. He on the other hand abandoned his kids and tried to screw her out of the inherited wealth she used to buy their marital homes. And now America can see that on the big screen.

She is absolutely dull. Her writing was juvenile and shows no personality at all. She’s a milquetoast whose inheritance was the only interesting thing about her.

Will respectfully disagree with this take.

Was it the best written, most interesting book ever? No.

Did it demonstrate some fairly rare vulnerability/candor for a person from that particular social circle? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

So money makes someone interesting? Sure, it provides the ability to travel, own homes in multiple locations, etc., but after the booze, affairs, and pettiness that pervades, doesn't sound that great to me.

Well travel should make you interesting. If you aren’t just “vacationing” and if you really want to learn about the world and people. It also gives you time to learn: music, languages, cooking, developing any skill in depth! If you’re not bogged down by a boring job you need in order to eat, yeah, you can be even more interesting. Maybe money just illuminates who you are at your core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

She's not that dull. Gwyneth is going to play her in a movie. He on the other hand abandoned his kids and tried to screw her out of the inherited wealth she used to buy their marital homes. And now America can see that on the big screen.

She is absolutely dull. Her writing was juvenile and shows no personality at all. She’s a milquetoast whose inheritance was the only interesting thing about her.

You’re entitled to your opinion. Plenty of people think otherwise.

Those people are dull too.

[Anonymous]

She seems like a nice person but so out of touch and boring. She also seems oddly obsessed with wealth and comfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a nice person but so out of touch and boring. She also seems oddly obsessed with wealth and comfort.

+1000000

Seems to me the DH got bored. I was tired of her after reading her book. Can’t imagine being married to her. She’s vapid and superficial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wanted to hold her to a grossly unfair prenup that took advantage of her, didn’t want to give her half of his earnings from during their marriage which should have been equally shared assets at divorce, and let her pay for the kids schooling and clothes during and after the marriage instead of supporting his own children like a decent father, it’s sociopathic financial and emotional abuse. What a sad little man

The prenup they amended was insulting to him. He could have lost half (50:50 is default split) of a modest retirement nest egg to someone with $20-50MM in untouchable spendthrift trusts if she decided to file a divorce after many years of marriage. She knew she would end up with big bucks from trusts and inheritances. He was only going to get rich via hard work. It turned out he was a big success, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.

This right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a friend who this happened to, and basically enjoyed the book to the extent possible by being able to relate to that story. Unfortunately, she came off as pretentious, obsessed with everyone knowing about her status and doing all of the things rich people do (like there was even a Doodle involved it was so cliche), and was utterly humorless. So, not the best memoir I have ever read...

I didn't have the same read about her status obsession, but agree in general that what made the book interesting is The Thing That Happened To Her. And her willingness to be vulnerable in writing about it. Because it happens to a lot of people and it's healing to read and understand how widespread this sort of thing is.

But oh I wish it had been written by someone who had a more biting sense of humor and ability to spill the tea (hard to do when you have kids!!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re both dull as hell. Imagine having that kind of money and living that kind of life.

She's not that dull. Gwyneth is going to play her in a movie. He on the other hand abandoned his kids and tried to screw her out of the inherited wealth she used to buy their marital homes. And now America can see that on the big screen.

She is absolutely dull. Her writing was juvenile and shows no personality at all. She’s a milquetoast whose inheritance was the only interesting thing about her.

Will respectfully disagree with this take.

Was it the best written, most interesting book ever? No.

Did it demonstrate some fairly rare vulnerability/candor for a person from that particular social circle? Yes.

+1

I enjoyed it and read it in a couple of days. It was an easy read — not what I’d call particularly literary.

I felt it was honest and true to her experience — kind of a horror story from her viewpoint, really. Good for her for breaking the cycle of (I believe) her mother and grandmother looking the other way when their husbands were unfaithful.

She does not seem to be someone truly comfortable being the center of attention — introverted, reflective. I like that because I am similar, but I can see how she might come off as uninteresting to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wanted to hold her to a grossly unfair prenup that took advantage of her, didn’t want to give her half of his earnings from during their marriage which should have been equally shared assets at divorce, and let her pay for the kids schooling and clothes during and after the marriage instead of supporting his own children like a decent father, it’s sociopathic financial and emotional abuse. What a sad little man

The prenup they amended was insulting to him. He could have lost half (50:50 is default split) of a modest retirement nest egg to someone with $20-50MM in untouchable spendthrift trusts if she decided to file a divorce after many years of marriage. She knew she would end up with big bucks from trusts and inheritances. He was only going to get rich via hard work. It turned out he was a big success, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.

Was he a good parent to the children and spouse?

Or was he negligent? Perhaps a work addict chasing money, who punched out when he saw more and more equity pay days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wanted to hold her to a grossly unfair prenup that took advantage of her, didn’t want to give her half of his earnings from during their marriage which should have been equally shared assets at divorce, and let her pay for the kids schooling and clothes during and after the marriage instead of supporting his own children like a decent father, it’s sociopathic financial and emotional abuse. What a sad little man

The prenup they amended was insulting to him. He could have lost half (50:50 is default split) of a modest retirement nest egg to someone with $20-50MM in untouchable spendthrift trusts if she decided to file a divorce after many years of marriage. She knew she would end up with big bucks from trusts and inheritances. He was only going to get rich via hard work. It turned out he was a big success, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.

This right here.

Wrong. From the book, husband Henry amended the prenup 2 weeks before the wedding so say that anything in one spouse's name stays in that person's name. He insisted to put all her inherited assets jointly (like the joint marital homes they bought with her trust/family money), but kept all the income/bonuses from his hedge fund job in his name. So basically, when he initiated the divorce after abandoning his family--he would get half of the homes she bought with her family money and she gets nothing from his income despite giving up her career to raise his 3 kids for 20 years.

“I had two trusts that I had inherited from both sides of the family, and so I was advised to sign a prenup. A normal prenup says that anything you come into the marriage with remains yours, especially if it’s in a trust. Anything earned during the marriage is shared, 50-50. So my then-fiancé sat on it for a while until it was two weeks before our wedding. And then he said, ‘I think we should make a change to it, that nothing will be split unless it is put in joint name.’ And my lawyer said, ‘You should not do this.’ And I looked at him and I thought, this is the man I love. This is going to be the father of my children. This is my prince. So I said, no, I really want to make the change. And the lawyer made the change, and we signed it five days before our wedding.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wanted to hold her to a grossly unfair prenup that took advantage of her, didn’t want to give her half of his earnings from during their marriage which should have been equally shared assets at divorce, and let her pay for the kids schooling and clothes during and after the marriage instead of supporting his own children like a decent father, it’s sociopathic financial and emotional abuse. What a sad little man

The prenup they amended was insulting to him. He could have lost half (50:50 is default split) of a modest retirement nest egg to someone with $20-50MM in untouchable spendthrift trusts if she decided to file a divorce after many years of marriage. She knew she would end up with big bucks from trusts and inheritances. He was only going to get rich via hard work. It turned out he was a big success, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.

This right here.

Wrong. From the book, husband Henry amended the prenup 2 weeks before the wedding so say that anything in one spouse's name stays in that person's name. He insisted to put all her inherited assets jointly (like the joint marital homes they bought with her trust/family money), but kept all the income/bonuses from his hedge fund job in his name. So basically, when he initiated the divorce after abandoning his family--he would get half of the homes she bought with her family money and she gets nothing from his income despite giving up her career to raise his 3 kids for 20 years.

“I had two trusts that I had inherited from both sides of the family, and so I was advised to sign a prenup. A normal prenup says that anything you come into the marriage with remains yours, especially if it’s in a trust. Anything earned during the marriage is shared, 50-50. So my then-fiancé sat on it for a while until it was two weeks before our wedding. And then he said, ‘I think we should make a change to it, that nothing will be split unless it is put in joint name.’ And my lawyer said, ‘You should not do this.’ And I looked at him and I thought, this is the man I love. This is going to be the father of my children. This is my prince. So I said, no, I really want to make the change. And the lawyer made the change, and we signed it five days before our wedding.”

I didn’t think Belle’s prenup made her inheritance joint. I thought it was the fact she used money from the trust to purchase homes and put him on the title.

I wouldn’t be interested in sharing my income 50% if my spouse came into the marriage with significant assets that were kept separate. I don’t blame him.

Personally I think she has a major spending problem. It’s a good thing she wrote his book because if not she’d end up broke like her dad.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t think Belle’s prenup made her inheritance joint. I thought it was the fact she used money from the trust to purchase homes and put him on the title.

I wouldn’t be interested in sharing my income 50% if my spouse came into the marriage with significant assets that were kept separate. I don’t blame him.

Personally I think she has a major spending problem. It’s a good thing she wrote his book because if not she’d end up broke like her dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t think Belle’s prenup made her inheritance joint. I thought it was the fact she used money from the trust to purchase homes and put him on the title.

I wouldn’t be interested in sharing my income 50% if my spouse came into the marriage with significant assets that were kept separate. I don’t blame him.

Personally I think she has a major spending problem. It’s a good thing she wrote his book because if not she’d end up broke like her dad.

There's no evidence she has a major spending problem. Didn't you read the above? Belle came in with family money assets, and used them to buy two marital homes which she put in both their names. Yet he kept all his hedge fund income exclusively for himself while she stepped out of the workforce to raise their 3 kids. It's not like Belle was less well educated. She has a Harvard undergrad degree and an NYU law degree.