Is anyone else enjoying hearing about this one? The actress, Zeta-Jones who is carrying his child, is negotiating a Pre-nup - a good idea for everyone - and she wants only $4.5 million a year and a house, in case of a divorce.
Of course there will be a divorce.
My question is, what does she do that qualifies her for four and half million bucks a year?
I am reminded of a Winston Churchill Story (probably untrue) that ends with the line, “We have already established that, madam. Now we are merely haggling about the price.”
(Yes, I know. I’m going to hell, directly to hell, and that $200 isn’t going to help me any)
Maybe she figures it’s what he owes her for putting up with him?
Hey, I like to think of myself as cynical as the next guy… perhaps even more so, but I cannot for the life of me envision a situation in which my S.O. and I would be talking about a divorce settlement before we even got married. What chance does the relationship have if you are entering your marriage with a divorce agreement in hand. How very cynical indeed.
I do like that Churchill story though. Very appropriate in this case.
Many recent threads mentioned some women entering relationships simply because of the man’s favourable financial status. Gold diggers was the term used more often than not. Can Ms. Zeta-Jones be classified as anything else in this case? She is entering a marriage with a fair bit of her own assets (no pun intended). If the marriage falls apart, she ought to be able to leave it with her original assets intact (again, no pun intended) as long as she and hubby did not enter some risky business ventures in which they both got burned and lost their investments. I just don’t see why she considers it reasonable that she be owed 4.5 million if things go south in the marriage. It can’t be for having to sleep with Michael Douglas because presumably she did not mind doing so before the pre-nup.
**
Have you seen Catherine Zeta-Jones? If I had MD’s bank account, I’d pay!
Others have addressed this well.
The only thing she could <i>possibly</i> in my view argue is that by hooking up with him, she has raised his public profile and therefore perhaps helped him land roles or earn bigger $$ from his roles. But then, he could say the same about her career.
It’s an ugly thing that people believe saying vows automatically entitles one to a portion of the other person’s assets should the union dissolve. It’s one thing if divorce will put you in poverty, or if you helped acquire the assets of the other party. It’s quite another to be Marla Maples. Or Zeta-Jones.
I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that.
Gold star to Miss Bunny.
Well, I guess that’ll teach me to post off the top of my head. 
But I did say it was “probably untrue.” 
And whoever said it, I still think it’s apropos.
Zeta-Jones has her own income. She is just getting the best deal her looks can buy, I guess.
But isn’t the idea of a Pre-Nuptial Agreement to protect yourself in case of a divorce? One doesn’t want the marriage to end, but if it does, and you have a Pre-Nup then you don’t have a judge telling you what is yours and what you get to keep.
More power to her, MD is offering $1.5 million a year.
Well, dogsbody, that’ll teach you!
Don’t you know you must never post without having at least two independent verifiable sources to back up your every statement?!
(Just kidding, before anyone gets all riled up - and I wasn’t absolutely positive about GBS either, so don’t feel bad, dogsbody, we all make mistakes - did you know that I recently posted that the the pig in Charlotte’s Web was named “Orville”? Boy, did I feel stupid.)
Yeah, and it’s an even uglier thing when it is always assumed that the woman has a right to the man’s money and not vice versa. This may originally have made some sense for historical reasons, but it sure as hell makes no sense here.
How about this, she’s getting 4.5 million a year to raise their child in the same manner that she and the child’s father are accustomed to?
If she is giving him offspring and thus immortality, of a sort, and she’s the one stuck changing the diapers (or paying the nanny whose changing the diapers), then I think she deserves more than what he’s offering, because let’s face it, by his standards that’s a pittance.
The idea of the OP seems to be that the pre-nup is giving her $4.5 million. But isn’t it reducing what she gets to $4.5 million? My guess (which is based on virtually no knowledge of the specifics, definitely does not have two different verified sources, and therefore may very well be wrong) is that MD said “Hey, can you sign this agreement that if we divorce, you’ll get nothing” and CZJ said “You want to be able to leave me any time you want without losing anything? If you’re really serious about this marriage thing, could you at least give me $4.5 million?” or something like that.