General Chat

A woman who says she is "desperately unhappy" in her 39-year marriage is fighting a legal battle against a court's refusal to grant her divorce.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38978661

She's 66, he's 78. He thinks they can make a go at it, she's had enough. He's probably more concerned at the division of their assets and losing a housekeeper/potential carer. Financially she'd be better off sticking it out to inherit the majority of his Estate.

When she acquits herself with honour, dignity & courage in the face of this ruling, it should be difficult for the wife to entertain the concept of defeat.

Poor woman. He sounds very controlling. And even if he isn't the age gap and her allegations of being reated in a childlike way, ring true. Men of his age (I am married to one bless him) can be very pedantic, very sure they are right. As I am not much younger than my OH I am on the same wave length most of the time Lol! But he can be very sure that I am wrong and he is right. I can ignore it, she is younger and obviously gets hurt by his attitude. Why should that judge deny her a chance of happiness? If I were her I would withdraw from cooking and washing and housekeeping for him, he might change his mind then.

It is a very retro idea of marriage to see the role of one person as housekeeper to the other. Even as far back as the Brontes or even Poldark there were other ideas. It is obviously wrong for a judge to decide on such matters cos it takes two to tango.
Broken hearts cannot be mended.

A strange one, this.

I have heard that the husband refuses to divorce her because he thinks she is after his money when the divorce goes through.

In the light of this case, it seems possible that even if she stays with him, he will not include her in his will.

All the more reason to walk away & contest the Will if he predeceases her.
A 'marriage' where one party is deeply unhappy is no marriage at all

It will probably be only a matter of time before she gets her divorce, I should think.

I imagine the judge is working within the law. Perhaps she didn't present a strong enough case.
Seems like a good reason to not marry in the first place.

It seems they have lived apart for 3 years, only two more and she will be granted a divorce and her share of the assets.

I'm aware of a couple who would like nothing better than a divorce - but it would cause 'upset' because of their strong religious beliefs.

but she's been married to him for 39 years .................

can he really not leave her anything in his will if they are still married at that time???


That would not be the case here!

Maybe in these modern times a marriage contract should be a bit like a drivers licence renewable every so many years, with the consent of both parties

My marriage is 37 years old and has known some tough times. For some it's during these times they really to know each other.

{Although not directly connected with the topic of this thread, I feel the attached article in today's Times would give us all food for thought.}

'Marriages involving almost 500 migrant children under the age of 16 who arrived in Germany during the influx of asylum seekers over the past two years are to be annulled.

Angela Merkel’s government will also change the law to ban any new marriages taking place on German soil that involve those under 18, bringing to an end the discretion of local courts to allow underage weddings in some circumstances for those aged 16 or 17.

Charities have argued that girls in child marriages drop out of school more often and are socially isolated. They are often victims of domestic and sexual abuse by much older husbands.

Ministers agreed on a proposal to ban marriages for minors under the age of 16'.