Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her decision to move forward stoically without answers, without even talking to the OW DH, is very WASPy, but it could be something else. Many toxic people claim to "have no idea" why they were abadoned, but they were told why, and just would not accept it.

Publishing this article is not very WASPy, and it is smelling fishier to me the more I think on it. It makes him look bad, yes, but it makes her look bad too. Why would she do this thing her class has been raised not to do? Seems like an abuser's stance: I'll take you down WITH me.

Also I think she's overstating the abandonment of the kids. I would bet he still sees them, but declined to fight for custody of teens, set in their routines and a few years from independence. That's actually a fine fatherly decision. He also may not have been willing to fight on that point because he knew she'd get vicious and it would hurt the kids further.

Total conjecture, but she might be the bad guy, I see plenty of red flags, like it was an abuser/victim role reversal

This. First red flag is that she’s suggesting the guy is a sociopath. Well why did she marry him?

I’m married to a wealthy man who is quite evil and would fight me for custody. If we were to divorce I’d likely give up custody. I simply don’t have it in me to go to war with him. It’s not the best thing for the kids. I’m a woman and can absolutely see man taking this approach. Your average well educated man with a solid career doesn’t just walk away from his kids for no reason. She’d either being dishonest about his involvement with the kids or he gave up custody for legit reasons.

Unfortunately his legit reasons (not wanting to poke the toxic bear) failed to accomplish his desired goal — to make a smooth, gray-rock exit. His fears of her ability to exact revenge proved legitimate — she did a number on his reputation via the NYT. The publicity probably hangs over his new relationship still. Mission accomplished.

DP. I don’t buy it. If she was truly that toxic where he felt he needed to gray-rock exit then he had a responsibility to his children not to leave them abandoned to their toxic mom. He’s an adult man and they are children.

The results speak for themselves: millions of non-celebrities get divorced but only this one manages to enlist the NYT in trashing her ex’s reputation. Talk about not caring about their children — she creates a situation where forever they will live with public knowledge that their dad is supposedly an awful gold-digging narcissistic cheater. Who tries to pull moves like that? And why didn’t the NYT realize that there was no effective anonymity in what they were publishing?

I wonder what prompted this spate of pro-husband spin posts. Fewer decent party invites this year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

PP here. I agree about the looks differences, but the love-bombing, use-her-for-wealth-and-status narcissist pattern is very similar. Elizabeth was naive and in love with Phillip and he used her terribly. It's sad that her parents allowed this marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

Disagree. Elizabeth allegedly was smitten with Phillip when they met and she was 13. Not really the same thing as Belle at all.

I get that she was a pampered princess and all but woof! Did they have magical mirrors at Buckingham?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

Disagree. Elizabeth allegedly was smitten with Phillip when they met and she was 13. Not really the same thing as Belle at all.

*their

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her decision to move forward stoically without answers, without even talking to the OW DH, is very WASPy, but it could be something else. Many toxic people claim to "have no idea" why they were abadoned, but they were told why, and just would not accept it.

Publishing this article is not very WASPy, and it is smelling fishier to me the more I think on it. It makes him look bad, yes, but it makes her look bad too. Why would she do this thing her class has been raised not to do? Seems like an abuser's stance: I'll take you down WITH me.

Also I think she's overstating the abandonment of the kids. I would bet he still sees them, but declined to fight for custody of teens, set in their routines and a few years from independence. That's actually a fine fatherly decision. He also may not have been willing to fight on that point because he knew she'd get vicious and it would hurt the kids further.

Total conjecture, but she might be the bad guy, I see plenty of red flags, like it was an abuser/victim role reversal

This. First red flag is that she’s suggesting the guy is a sociopath. Well why did she marry him?

I’m married to a wealthy man who is quite evil and would fight me for custody. If we were to divorce I’d likely give up custody. I simply don’t have it in me to go to war with him. It’s not the best thing for the kids. I’m a woman and can absolutely see man taking this approach. Your average well educated man with a solid career doesn’t just walk away from his kids for no reason. She’d either being dishonest about his involvement with the kids or he gave up custody for legit reasons.

Unfortunately his legit reasons (not wanting to poke the toxic bear) failed to accomplish his desired goal — to make a smooth, gray-rock exit. His fears of her ability to exact revenge proved legitimate — she did a number on his reputation via the NYT. The publicity probably hangs over his new relationship still. Mission accomplished.

DP. I don’t buy it. If she was truly that toxic where he felt he needed to gray-rock exit then he had a responsibility to his children not to leave them abandoned to their toxic mom. He’s an adult man and they are children.

The results speak for themselves: millions of non-celebrities get divorced but only this one manages to enlist the NYT in trashing her ex’s reputation. Talk about not caring about their children — she creates a situation where forever they will live with public knowledge that their dad is supposedly an awful gold-digging narcissistic cheater. Who tries to pull moves like that? And why didn’t the NYT realize that there was no effective anonymity in what they were publishing?

They already know. You don’t think they noticed that there dad lives with another woman and never sees them anymore?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

Not even remotely. They are average at best and have aged poorly. Her grandmother was striking.

They’re not Greek gods, but they look rich and much better than the average person I see walking around Manhattan. But regardless of what you think of their attractiveness levels, you’ve got to agree they’re a match looks wise. Elizabeth and Philip, on the other hand, were not a match. She was very homely and he was hot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

Not even remotely. They are average at best and have aged poorly. Her grandmother was striking.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. This is terrible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html

The New Gossip Times never ceases to entertain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

I agree with everything you said until you get to Elizabeth and Phillip.

Belle and her husband were evenly matched looks wise. I’d even go so far as to say they looked like brother and sister. They’re both tall, blonde good looking Wasps. He was well educated and upwardly mobile, law partner material. I could see Belle ignoring the warning signs, but thinking they were a fair match, even though she was far wealthier and better connected.

The same could not be said for Elizabeth II and Phillip. Surely, Elizabeth must have noticed from the get go that Phil was significantly better looking. Did she think her amazing personality was the draw? I suspect she was well aware of what Phillip was like and enjoyed having her power over him. He might have strayed, but he couldn’t leave and would never amass the position to do so. She always held the upper hand. Plus, she obviously played power games with her children’s love lives. She was no victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gift link.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=CEsAeHv8LtV30mw4KWsCiaC-hiuFp_fELq0qgwzGhvFszG7cyEcPUyV0NlCo9JC688sJCNX8JMgDbwwZZbgxdW14jkpA8so6U-Tprh4VMC4mdi68YuWJQ7QVUutxfZteRgkagKP8kU0WD5X7NEm8jAzeygJA4xhmLY4eF_7wBzQufN07xGICcVZS9rA2tvxaA_n24XElP5J_G7zxQqK5xZ1TQugWHhGQ1MC621Ok5-ANW7UQtCT2XhxGWnyAMbi7u7mjhqaaFaDLSjhn_Qb9cGrA7b1Y1Z8gBnLVoD9CWmlOM8YmKY0mqBSY8fYYksBahl3w_evUNjI9A-DuzwKiJc1oJO5_MU2KlA&smid=url-share

Expired.

new gift link - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/style/modern-love-married-to-a-stranger.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.0Cl6.39DzP9GC5GVi&smid=url-share

I think the husband had been having affairs the whole time. He married her for her name and her money. Here's their wedding announcement - he was still an associate at Davis Polk when they got married. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/style/belle-burden-and-henry-davis.html?unlocked_article_code=1._0w.rICs.ZFOzxmNhx0hG&smid=url-share

Once he became rich and successful on his own he didn't need her anymore. He's a typical completely self-absorbed, super successful, sociopathic wealthy Wall Street dirtbag.

I'm sorry this happened to Belle - we have mutual friends who all say she's a very nice person and devoted mother.

I don’t know these people, but just from those links (and a quick google search to see what they look like) and I completely agree. He’s a self-absorbed dirt bag who married her for her connections and was always cheating because that is who he is.

And no, he did not love her ever. He was always already in love with himself.

She’s got a smart face. So, I do think that she must have lied to herself about it. There must have been signs that she chose not to see because it would explode her world. She may not be able to see it now, but she is much better off without him.

And she’s so lucky to be wealthy and financially independent!

+1 He's a social climbing narcissist who love-bombed her to get her money and status. She willfully overlooked a lot of red flags like women who stalked him. This is generally a type of man and a type of woman. The man is a lying narcissist who strings the women along to feed his own pathetic ego. The women have low self esteem and ignore the bajillions of red flags. So he's telling people that the women are stalking him, but he's telling the women that there's still hope for their relationship. The women have such low self esteem that they cling to morsels even when it's clear to everyone else that he doesn't love them. Belle is the same type of woman except she has wealth and status so he marries her to get that from her.

This sounds like Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II all over again. He wasn't into her either. He used her for her wealth and status then essentially left her to be with women he actually desired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her decision to move forward stoically without answers, without even talking to the OW DH, is very WASPy, but it could be something else. Many toxic people claim to "have no idea" why they were abadoned, but they were told why, and just would not accept it.

Publishing this article is not very WASPy, and it is smelling fishier to me the more I think on it. It makes him look bad, yes, but it makes her look bad too. Why would she do this thing her class has been raised not to do? Seems like an abuser's stance: I'll take you down WITH me.

Also I think she's overstating the abandonment of the kids. I would bet he still sees them, but declined to fight for custody of teens, set in their routines and a few years from independence. That's actually a fine fatherly decision. He also may not have been willing to fight on that point because he knew she'd get vicious and it would hurt the kids further.

Total conjecture, but she might be the bad guy, I see plenty of red flags, like it was an abuser/victim role reversal

This. First red flag is that she’s suggesting the guy is a sociopath. Well why did she marry him?

I’m married to a wealthy man who is quite evil and would fight me for custody. If we were to divorce I’d likely give up custody. I simply don’t have it in me to go to war with him. It’s not the best thing for the kids. I’m a woman and can absolutely see man taking this approach. Your average well educated man with a solid career doesn’t just walk away from his kids for no reason. She’d either being dishonest about his involvement with the kids or he gave up custody for legit reasons.

Unfortunately his legit reasons (not wanting to poke the toxic bear) failed to accomplish his desired goal — to make a smooth, gray-rock exit. His fears of her ability to exact revenge proved legitimate — she did a number on his reputation via the NYT. The publicity probably hangs over his new relationship still. Mission accomplished.

DP. I don’t buy it. If she was truly that toxic where he felt he needed to gray-rock exit then he had a responsibility to his children not to leave them abandoned to their toxic mom. He’s an adult man and they are children.

The results speak for themselves: millions of non-celebrities get divorced but only this one manages to enlist the NYT in trashing her ex’s reputation. Talk about not caring about their children — she creates a situation where forever they will live with public knowledge that their dad is supposedly an awful gold-digging narcissistic cheater. Who tries to pull moves like that? And why didn’t the NYT realize that there was no effective anonymity in what they were publishing?

I think the kids already knew their dad is an awful gold-digging narcissist. Their friends and community knew it, too. People have probably been talking about how he banged other women for years. Perhaps, it was unknown to you, but the people in their circle knew.

This woman may be very rich, but she’s a human being who hurts. She wrote this article to heal herself, to get the gossip out there in her terms, because everyone she knew was already talking.

The NY Times published it because people are interested in reading about the hardships of people who have summer homes in Nantucket. You feel sorry for her, but not too sorry because she’ll be okay.

But at the bottom of all this is a very broken heart and a woman who was caught off guard. If you’ve ever had a relationship with a dark triad personality, you would recognize the signs in her husband (a criminal history, crazy ex girlfriends, a cool and calm demeanor, etc.) The way he didn’t fight with her is scary, too. Couples who are invested in each other sometimes disagree and argue. He didn’t because he was faking it and didn’t care enough to fight.

And after over 20 years of marriage she finally sees him for what he is and feels hurt and betrayed!

If writing this article made her feel better, great! I hope it did!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her decision to move forward stoically without answers, without even talking to the OW DH, is very WASPy, but it could be something else. Many toxic people claim to "have no idea" why they were abadoned, but they were told why, and just would not accept it.

Publishing this article is not very WASPy, and it is smelling fishier to me the more I think on it. It makes him look bad, yes, but it makes her look bad too. Why would she do this thing her class has been raised not to do? Seems like an abuser's stance: I'll take you down WITH me.

Also I think she's overstating the abandonment of the kids. I would bet he still sees them, but declined to fight for custody of teens, set in their routines and a few years from independence. That's actually a fine fatherly decision. He also may not have been willing to fight on that point because he knew she'd get vicious and it would hurt the kids further.

Total conjecture, but she might be the bad guy, I see plenty of red flags, like it was an abuser/victim role reversal

This. First red flag is that she’s suggesting the guy is a sociopath. Well why did she marry him?

I’m married to a wealthy man who is quite evil and would fight me for custody. If we were to divorce I’d likely give up custody. I simply don’t have it in me to go to war with him. It’s not the best thing for the kids. I’m a woman and can absolutely see man taking this approach. Your average well educated man with a solid career doesn’t just walk away from his kids for no reason. She’d either being dishonest about his involvement with the kids or he gave up custody for legit reasons.

Unfortunately his legit reasons (not wanting to poke the toxic bear) failed to accomplish his desired goal — to make a smooth, gray-rock exit. His fears of her ability to exact revenge proved legitimate — she did a number on his reputation via the NYT. The publicity probably hangs over his new relationship still. Mission accomplished.

DP. I don’t buy it. If she was truly that toxic where he felt he needed to gray-rock exit then he had a responsibility to his children not to leave them abandoned to their toxic mom. He’s an adult man and they are children.

The results speak for themselves: millions of non-celebrities get divorced but only this one manages to enlist the NYT in trashing her ex’s reputation. Talk about not caring about their children — she creates a situation where forever they will live with public knowledge that their dad is supposedly an awful gold-digging narcissistic cheater. Who tries to pull moves like that? And why didn’t the NYT realize that there was no effective anonymity in what they were publishing?