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.

I wrote this a week ago, well before the New Yorker story broke. Everybody had been spinning the prenup to be proof of his rapacious greed, but now it is clearly understandable as a completely legitimate protection against a prenup that could have left him with bupkis even after a 30/40-year marriage. And the prenup is so central to the plot of this memoir/novel, that it’s indefensible for her to hide its true context. People like Belle have always had armies of well-paid trust lawyers protecting them from adventurers like her husband, and of course they care not a whit about two people exiting a long marriage with wildly disparate levels of comfort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The fact that it is not unique is what makes it relatable. She is a good writer and she lives a glamorous life. So readers find that appealing/interesting and then add the relatable part and you get another reason to be interested.

Why have I heard this more than once here? Do you all read total trash most of the time? She is NOT a good writer. She’s one dimensional, simplistic, disingenuous, and boring.

Even the New Yorker writer said she was a good writer. Give it up.

She's not bad. But the osprey allegories got on my nerves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The fact that it is not unique is what makes it relatable. She is a good writer and she lives a glamorous life. So readers find that appealing/interesting and then add the relatable part and you get another reason to be interested.

Why have I heard this more than once here? Do you all read total trash most of the time? She is NOT a good writer. She’s one dimensional, simplistic, disingenuous, and boring.

Even the New Yorker writer said she was a good writer. Give it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The fact that it is not unique is what makes it relatable. She is a good writer and she lives a glamorous life. So readers find that appealing/interesting and then add the relatable part and you get another reason to be interested.

Why have I heard this more than once here? Do you all read total trash most of the time? She is NOT a good writer. She’s one dimensional, simplistic, disingenuous, and boring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

I think that’s the point. She was blindsided, but owns the cluelessness that landed her there. How often do we see someone in her position do the latter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The fact that it is not unique is what makes it relatable. She is a good writer and she lives a glamorous life. So readers find that appealing/interesting and then add the relatable part and you get another reason to be interested.

Also she seems like a genuinely nice person and self effacing person who isnt into society stuff given her lineage being Babe Paley's granddaughter and all. She is wealthy but not really glamorous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The fact that it is not unique is what makes it relatable. She is a good writer and she lives a glamorous life. So readers find that appealing/interesting and then add the relatable part and you get another reason to be interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

The story is definitely interesting, but it’s not just because of her money, it’s also because she is a decent writer (likely a product of her extreme privilege and fancy schools).

I’m not surprised that she lied to readers because as mentioned upthread, this woman is not very smart. From not listening to the advice of expert lawyers she has access to because of her immense wealth and social capital, to marrying a man who had “brushes with the law”, it’s clear she’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The lesson for women I think is this: unless you know deep in your bones that your husband genuinely respects SAHMs (a lot of them pay lip service but they actually don’t) and will still find you interesting years later, do not give up your career.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are trusts other than the one from her stepmother.

Anonymous wrote:When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.

But why? The only thing about her story that makes it unique is her money/SES.

When I first saw the New Yorker article, I thought "the ex-husband is out for revenge" but once I read it I sort of shrugged. She may have mislead somewhat on the extent of her at least future wealth, but I think the betrayal, the generational infidelity, and her refusal to go along with his narrative to save face is the more interesting part of her story.