Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

She would have taken a severe financial hit if she had had to liquidate her properties while her husband would not have been affected at all, so I don’t blame her for feeling stressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

Her one-year, 800k income is not going to cover her husband's half of their $15 million in real estate. I don't think she could even qualify for mortgages on the outstanding $7.5 million with that income, even if she made 800k/yr consistently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

Did you read the article? It basically accuses her of misrepresenting her financial status in the book. If you don’t take the New Yorker seriously then that’s another issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

She had access to five trusts, with each trust having about 35 million in it. So stressful.

[Anonymous]

The article seems designed to make readers go "wow, she's rich. So unfair." I certainly don't find her financial situation relatable. But I also don't think it exactly refuted what she was saying.

[Anonymous]

So Belle's actual naivete was not just the marriage but the belief that nobody would tip off the New Yorker about just how rich she actually is and was the whole time. I'm glad the New Yorker had the guts to publish this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

She had access to five trusts, with each trust having about 35 million in it. So stressful.

I thought she was inheriting a trust at some point in the future when someone died. Am I misunderstanding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article seems designed to make readers go "wow, she's rich. So unfair." I certainly don't find her financial situation relatable. But I also don't think it exactly refuted what she was saying.

It’s about being truthful, not about whether her situation is relatable or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article seems designed to make readers go "wow, she's rich. So unfair." I certainly don't find her financial situation relatable. But I also don't think it exactly refuted what she was saying.

No. Her story of feeling betrayed, lied to, and abandoned -- married to a stranger -- still stands and still sucks.

The article's purpose is to inform all of us who fell for the "married women, learn about how your finances work! this can happen to even smart rich people!" branding narrative this book has gotten a huge amount of mileage out of when that piece is actually not true, Belle always had an enormous amount of money and was always going to be financially fine, and the true extent of her fortune is something she deliberately didn't disclose in the story to make it more compelling. Unfortunately this is further suggesting she is not that smart in more ways than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

She had access to five trusts, with each trust having about 35 million in it. So stressful.

Where does the article say this?

[Anonymous]

This book and the hype behind it was ridiculous. Not surprised there was an expose for the whole story. Not as bad as Amy Griffin but still.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

She had access to five trusts, with each trust having about 35 million in it. So stressful.

None of which will pay out until her stepmother dies. People are being willfully obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Wow, where did I say a man shouldn't pay child support for his own kids? I said she is a wealthy woman who was not under any sort of financial stress, based on the new yorker article.

You wouldn't be stressed having to either sell your homes or spend $7.5 million-ish to keep them?

She had access to five trusts, with each trust having about 35 million in it. So stressful.

I thought she was inheriting a trust at some point in the future when someone died. Am I misunderstanding?

No, you’re right. Belle Burden and her brother will get the remainder of their late father’s estate only when their stepmother dies. People are deliberately ignoring that little fact. She is extremely close to her stepmother by the way, so it’s not a wicked witch situation.