Based on the current exchange rate between US $ and UK £ and assuming a four year marriage, Heather Mills made approximately $5,589.78/ hr for being married to Paul McCartney, counting only the immediate divorce settlement.
I’m guessing that there were some hours during their marriage when they weren’t even having sex. While I’m sure the same was true for the time spent between Spitzer and “Kristen”, no doubt the ratio of sex-time to non-sex-time was better for Spitzer than for Sir Paul.
Although well-disguised by the title, the thread The Going Rate For a One Legged Hooker already discusses Heather Mills’ relative price/value.
I think I got the math correct though. £ 24.3M = ~$49M
~8766 h/yr
49,000,000 / 8766
= 5589.7787
Cool! The other thread has derailed into a debate on how much we’d pay/need to be paid to f*ck any member of the Beatles.
What I’d like to debate, instead, is how reasonable the amount awarded to mrs. Mills and her daughter is.
As for me, I feel it is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous. She can look after herself, economically; she lived the sweet life with Paul McCartney for four years; she has more then enough money to raise McCartneys daughter by any reasonable standard.
I feel such money should only be awarded in the case of “We started our marriage both poor, and due to our joint effort we, or technically the earning partner, made a shitload of money, and now after a substantial amount of years we divorce”-scenario.
Which this clearly isn’t.
I think I got the math wrong though. £ 24.3M = ~$49M
~8766 h/yr * 4 yrs = 35,064 hours
49,000,000 / 35,064
= $1397.44/ hr
Damnit!
I liked her comment about how her four year old daughter is getting class ‘B’ treatment because she’s only getting $70K/yr.
How many nooks can she get for $70k
Child support muddies the water considerably. Since, as you stated, Mills was not at all a contributor to McCartney’s fortune she deserves very little by herself. I think alimony should only serve to make sure a person doesn’t have to choose between staying with an abusive spouse and financial deprivation, and as such should be relatively small and short-term.
But if she has partial or complete custody of McCartney’s kid… I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for enough money to make sure the kid has comparable lifestyles with both parents, which of course would help Mills considerably.
And there’s the rub. What is more reasonable: that the daughter grows up in upper middle class/upper class circumstances, as she would on the allotted 70 K dollar amount set aside for just child support? Or that the kid would live in the style she would living at the MCartney Mansion?
Personally, I’d say enough is enough. Living in upper-middle class circumstances in a modern Western society should be luxurious enough for anyone. I don’t care if mrs Mills or her kid claims to be “used” to millionaire cicumstances. IMHO, they can adapt to living like a normal lucky person, damnit.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but where do you cut it off?
Why should upper-middle class be the line? Why not just plain middle class? It’s good enough for most of us.
Two problems I see with your ideas:
Expect a lot of false allegations of abuse in order to get that alimony.
If you are going to make the father pay money to ensure that the kid maintains a high standard of living, then have a companion law to force the woman to actually spend that money for the child.
She can be awarded that money, and provide the child just enough to keep child welfare services at bay and spend the rest on liquor and polo ponies. The courts will do nothing.
The full text of the judgement is here . PDF warning!
It’s one of the most politely worded character assassinations you’ll ever read.
Which pretty much describes the life of John and Cynthia Lennon together, yet she got only a pittance. I think that’s been rectified since, but fobbing her off with a mere 100000 GBP, just as the inflation late 1960s was taking off, was terrible.
When divorcing, I do think a celebrity spouse is entitled to fair compensation; they don’t only get to enjoy the lifestyle while married to the star, but also they have to put up with many of the same inconveniences of fame as the celebrity him/herself.
When I try to read a US court document, I must admit that my eyes glaze over almost instantly. However, I find British court documents much more entertaining. It may be the first person narrative, but I was able to make it through nearly 16 pages of that 58 page tome before I nodded off.
Good point. In this case there is also the issue of the enduring animosity that Ms. Mills will have to face. I’m sure there have been any number of protracted divorce cases with huge settlements that have resulted in either party being called whores on the internets. Not to mention that whole dancing with the stars episode.
I was unaware that people were entitledto monetary compensation for involving themselves in situations which could later prove to be unpleasant.
You’re telling me. No wonder she didn’t want it published.
And of course this, from the judgment:
Makes this:
A little less impressive.
Oh, and the fact that she’s bat-shit crazy
She said something about her poor child having to travel ‘Business class’ while her father travels first class.
I know this is typical of this woman, still made me raise an eyebrown in WTFness.
That was the most polite bitch-slap I have ever read. Well worth the effort of reading an entire 300+ paragraph ruling.
She was absolutely right- that makes her look like hell, which apparently is the truth. Sir Paul, I was so disappointed when you got into this mess, I am just glad you are shut of it (at least somewhat).
Ouch. I like how he sneaks a cooking reference (“over-egging the pudding”) in paragraph 230. Any legal eagles out there know of other amusing cross-profession metaphors in legal decisions?
Although in Mills’ case, she was also a (semi-) celebrity in her own right, and has made numerous attempts to gain even more of the spotlight for herself (Dancing with the Stars, her PETA videos, etc.)