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.

this is the best comment in this thread and as a Native New yorker this is so true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Belle used her trust money to purchase the homes. The book mentioned if she bought his share out she would not be able to afford it. It doesn’t mention how much were in the trusts. The lawyer for a prenuptial was not supportive of having her ex keep all his earnings during the marriage, but he had insisted on that change. I suppose with her family money he felt like he should be should keep his earnings. It did mention that her father died with 40 million in debt. After selling assets, there was some money left over for her.

this is it and i don’t blame him.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Belle used her trust money to purchase the homes. The book mentioned if she bought his share out she would not be able to afford it. It doesn’t mention how much were in the trusts. The lawyer for a prenuptial was not supportive of having her ex keep all his earnings during the marriage, but he had insisted on that change. I suppose with her family money he felt like he should be should keep his earnings. It did mention that her father died with 40 million in debt. After selling assets, there was some money left over for her.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:The prenup was a warning sign. Not that there was one, but that the terms were so tilted in his favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!

Sounds like jealousy to me to get so worked up. It’s one thing to criticize part of a book, it’s another to wildly trash it.

I’m not worked up. What am I jealous of?

Mmmkay.

"I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this."

"It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write."

roll:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!

Sounds like jealousy to me to get so worked up. It’s one thing to criticize part of a book, it’s another to wildly trash it.

I’m not worked up. What am I jealous of?

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, but by like the 100th time she said “a friend says every book begins with an unanswerable question” I started rolling my eyes. She thinks her thoughts are deeper than they are. She’s obviously more talented than Taylor Swift, but the book was giving those vibes.

I disagreed with your view on Strangers but this post just made me discount anything you have to say entirely. You don't have to like TSwift's music to recognize that she is extremely talented as a creative artist.

Yeah, but by like the 100th time she said “a friend says every book begins with an unanswerable question” I started rolling my eyes. She thinks her thoughts are deeper than they are. She’s obviously more talented than Taylor Swift, but the book was giving those vibes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!

Sounds like jealousy to me to get so worked up. It’s one thing to criticize part of a book, it’s another to wildly trash it.

I’m not worked up. What am I jealous of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!

Sounds like jealousy to me to get so worked up. It’s one thing to criticize part of a book, it’s another to wildly trash it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!

I read Maggie Smith’s book and loved it! She’s a poet and her cento poem was genius.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have to chime in here though I’m probably too late for anyone to read this.

I just read Strangers and I thought it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever read. I read it on the heels of “You could make this place beautiful” by Maggie Smith. Smith’s work was overly poetic, with drama and insufferable melodramatic language and repetition where none was called for. I thought maybe it was like a 6/10.

Then I read Strangers. I am certain that my middle schooler could write a better book than this. She’s had more depth and introspection than this writer since kindergarten. Good god, the writing was awful. I liked that it was straightforward but it gave zero insight into what was going on in any human’s brain or life. Like, these are not fictional characters and yet you and your ex husband are STILL this one dimensional? Completely insufferable. Are all wealthy people like this? It was complete garbage, the reader could get no sense of who this woman was as a person (other than a milquetoast dullard), and even from her perspective she came off as shallow, unengaged mother. Good christ, she cannot write.

I fully understand her ex is a narcissist, but that’s because I’m smart… not because she was able to come to that conclusion herself. She’s too busy being stupid and confused.

Am I going crazy here?! It was awful!