Why I'd rather my daughter marry a rich man than have a brilliant career
The new breed of intelligent, jet-set housewives really do seem to have it all...
By FRANCES CHILDS
Last updated at 9:48 AM on 9th December 2010

"I do... as long as you can afford me not to work"

During a chat with a group of 17-year-old girls recently, our ­conversation turned to their dreams for the future. One girl, Patty, wants to be a lawyer. Another, Justine, has her heart set on becoming a doctor.

But it seems there’s one aspiration that’s proving surprisingly popular — and it doesn’t involve years of ­dedicated study, either.

Yes — feminists look away now — most of the girls I talked to are intent on marrying a rich man.

This idea is buoyed by a culture of celebrity that sees attractive women marrying well and then enjoying ­luxurious lifestyles as a result. ­Because of this, matrimony is ­increasingly viewed as an alternative career choice for the ambitious younger generation.

‘I’m going to train as a pharmacist, work for a couple of years and then marry a rich man,’ Lilly announces in a matter-of-fact manner.

Her friend Amy also has it all mapped out: ‘I’m going to be a graphic designer — but when I have children, I’ll give up work. I’m going to marry someone with a really good job.’ Her friends nod in agreement.

As a teacher, perhaps I should have argued with these teenagers and told them their happiness depended on financial independence and high-­flying careers. A few years ago I would have done, but not any more.

So what’s changed? Well, four years ago my daughter Nancy was born and I became a harassed working mother. It was my implacable belief that a career was the path to female ­fulfilment that kept me working after her birth.

Back then, I honestly believed that women who didn’t work were boring ­little drones who had given up all vestige of personality.

How wrong I was!

Last year, Jill Berry, the then president of The Girls’ Schools Association, publicly said what many of us women in our late 30s and early 40s have come to realise.

She said that combining a high-powered career and motherhood and doing both well is impossible. It’s time we stopped feeding girls the fairy tale that they can do it all — and I agree.

But, more than that, I think most women — if given a truly free choice — would choose to stay at home and look after their children in their infancy.

The trouble is that most families rely on the salaries of both parents, so it’s not really an option.

It goes without saying, although it sometimes seems we are expressly forbidden to say it, that having a rich husband would provide that option. When I go to pick up Nancy from school, there are three ­distinct camps of women at the gates: the frazzled working mums like myself, rushing up at the last minute.

Then there are the childminders of those women still at work. Then there are the stay-at-home mothers — and if you imagine the latter group to be tubby drudges in unflattering tracksuits with fuzzy, unkempt hair, think again.
Today’s breed of stay-at-home mother is impeccably turned out — after all, they’re the only ones rich enough to be able to not work. Mostly in their late 20s, they’re clad in designer gear and have the time to have their hair styled weekly at an upmarket salon.

Their nails, miniature works of art, certainly haven’t seen the inside of a pair of Marigolds.

Shallow and vapid they are not — this new breed of uber-­housewives are highly educated, with clear ideas about their new role in life.

They’re not tied to the kitchen sink as their husband’s wealth means they have nannies and cleaners to help with the grind of chores.

My friend Amanda was an accountant before she married and had children. Now, she doesn’t work, but she certainly isn’t ­darning socks. She employs a cleaner and a part-time nanny. She goes to the gym and is doing a Spanish course. As she says: ‘I’m a wife and mother, not a maid.’ Good for her.

Amanda, and plenty of women like her, are marrying for love — but this love gets a helping hand when the bank statement arrives.

At the same time, rich alpha males want to marry women who look amazing and whose wit will dazzle at social functions. For modern girls, marrying a rich man is an indisputable announcement of success.

It does make life feel a lot more sparkly than getting up to catch the 6am bus every morning.

If, in 20 years’ time, my daughter announces she’s jumping off the career ladder to marry to a wealthy man, I won’t throw a fit.

In fact, I rather hope she does marry money so her life is less toil.

She’d have the choice to work if she wants and stay at home if she doesn’t — and not feel like a ­modern-day Stepford Wife.

That might sound shallow. What I mean, though, is that I’ve learned to accept there’s more routes to a woman’s fulfilment than simply the size of her salary.

Younger women have realised that instead of spending the day listening to some bore drone on about sales figures, it might be more fun to go swimming with the children while the cleaner sorts out the house.

Of course, there are still some stay-at-home mums who spend their days dusting the mantelpiece, but these women would be seen in the new pecking order as having failed miserably.

Old-fashioned? Yes, it is. Victorian novels dwell incessantly on the theme of women seeking out rich men for their daughters to marry.

The difference, of course, between us and the Victorians was that if a man was vile, his poor wife was stuck with him.

That’s simply not the case any longer. Not that I’m encouraging divorce, but new laws ensure no woman should be left destitute if a marriage fails.

Julia McFarlane, 50, was recently awarded a house worth £1.5 million and £250,000 a year for life after her marriage to a hugely ­successful accountant ended in divorce.

The judge insisted the years she spent supporting her husband’s career and raising three children be recognised and rewarded.

Women in the past were often forced to put up with abuse because they had nowhere else to go and no means of supporting themselves.

But the new alpha housewife is the educated, intelligent woman who chooses not to work — but thanks to her husband’s money certainly isn’t pushing a mop around the kitchen floor either.

Hopefully, my daughter and her generation will benefit from our belated realisation that a happy life isn’t guaranteed by working a 50-hour week and seeing your ­children on Saturday afternoons.

A happy life isn’t guaranteed by marriage to a wealthy man either. But isn’t it time we admitted that it certainly helps?

Royal wedding: loving Prince William rejects prenuptial agreement
By Richard Eden 7:00AM BST 01 May 2011

Prince William's whispered words to Catherine Middleton at the altar in Westminster Abbey, "you are beautiful", are not his only romantic gesture. The Duke of Cambridge, as he now is, refused to sign a prenuptial agreement with his fiancée.

"William was advised that some sort of legal agreement might be a good idea," said one of his friends.

"But he loves Kate and trusts her implicitly, and was adamant that no agreement was necessary."

When Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, a guest at the royal wedding, married her former fitness instructor, Daniel Westling, last year, agreements were drawn up to define how the wealth would be divided should they separate.
Lawyers acting for the princess ensured that all property, inheritance and gifts belonging to the royal household remained in her name alone.

After Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton was announced last November, Patrick Jephson, a former private secretary to Diana, Princess of Wales, urged the couple to sign a prenuptial agreement, saying it was important to be practical and ensure that every future eventuality was considered.

With the Supreme Court having recognised the validity of such contracts, a debate had begun in legal circles as to whether it would have been prudent for the royal couple to have taken advantage, just in case.

Prenuptial agreements have been popular with Hollywood stars for many years, but were never part of British law. However, all that changed last October when judges used a test case involving Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress, to rewrite marriage law in Britain.

She was allowed to protect her family's fortune and restrict what her former husband was entitled to.

The Supreme Court ruling means that husbands and wives will have the protection of the law if their marriage fails but they prepared a document beforehand to safeguard their wealth and property. Mr Jephson said: "There will be a tidal wave of sentimental slush, but you've got to be practical.

"If she were my sister I'd tell her to get a good prenup. It's such a public thing.

"If they don't get this one right, what's going to happen to the institution in the long run?"

As unromantic as the move may seem, legal experts say it can help ensure that marriages are based on love rather than material desire. Prenuptial agreements are not simply about money, though, and can also be used to ensure confidentiality is maintained after any split.

A St James's Palace spokesman confirmed: "There is no prenuptial agreement in place for this wedding."

Sarah, Duchess of York complained to an undercover reporter last year that she had been given a divorce settlement of "zero" when her six-year marriage to the Duke of York came to an end in 1992. She eventually raised that figure to £15,000.

However, it is understood that the duchess and her two daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, had, in fact, received about £3 million from the Royal family. This included £1.4 million provided by the Queen to set up a trust fund for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and £500,000 for the duchess to buy a new house.

Furthermore, under the settlement reached in 1996, £350,000 in cash was provided by the Queen with no restrictions on its use. There was also an agreement that the duke would pay his daughters' private school and university fees and the duchess was given a modest monthly allowance.

China tries to stop women marrying for money, rather than love
With divorce rates soaring, and widespread worries about a new culture of hyper-materialism, the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money.

China wants women to marry for love, not money.
By Malcolm Moore, Shanghai4:00PM BST 21 Aug 2011

In China's booming cities, prospective husbands are now routinely vetted about whether they own a house, and preferably also a car, before a match can be agreed. Tying the knot without a house as part of the deal is jokingly called a "naked marriage" and widely thought to be a risky choice.

"I would choose a luxury house over a boyfriend that always makes me happy without hesitation," said one 24-year-old contestant on If You Are the One, one of China's most popular television dating shows. "And my boyfriend has to have a monthly salary of 200,000 yuan (£18,900)," she demanded.

In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China's Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.

"Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much," said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.

The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment. China's huge property bubble has driven property prices in Shanghai up to £5,000 per square metre when annual salaries average just £6,000.

"There are more and more girls who want to marry rich men and improve their financial position. It has been a really notable increase," said Wang Zhiguo, a consultant at Baihe, a Beijing-based matchmaking website.
"Most pretty girls now try to trade on their beauty. It is an unhealthy trend and the government is now trying to restrict it," he added.

"Having said that, money has always been an important concern when it comes to marriage. In the 1950s and 1960s, women chased after the top Communist cadres because they were guaranteed a good life. In the 1980s, when the economy opened, businessmen became sought-after.

Chinese people have always been materialistic, but today's hot commodity is property." According to the latest statistics, there were 2.68 million divorces in China last year and divorces have multiplied at almost the same speed as China's economy has grown: by seven per cent a year for the past five years.

In particular, more than a third of all marriages in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou now end in divorce, and the fastest-growing segment of society is those aged 25 to 34. Almost half of all divorces see a court squabble over the family assets.

The growing popularity of divorce runs contrary to traditional Chinese culture, and newly-weds used to be warned on their wedding day that their marriage had to last "until your hair turns white". Just eight years ago, couples still needed written permission from employers or their neighbourhood committee to end a marriage.

"With 5,000 divorces a day, it is an appalling number for Chinese people. Our families are the basic unit of society that maintains stability. The government has had to change the marriage law to keep society stable. Usually the courts now rule, in the first instance, that couples cannot divorce. They have to come back after six months if they insist on one," said Mr Hu.

Chang Xueli, 26, a graphic designer in Beijing is one of the few Chinese women willing to risk a "naked marriage", despite the initial misgivings of her parents. "My husband is from quite a poor family, and I am from quite a well-off family," she said. "My parents tried to set me up with someone with a house, because they wanted the best for me, but I did not have any feelings for them.

"I used to think I had to have both a man I loved and a house to get married. But then I realised sometimes you need to make a choice," she said. "Now I guess the dream is for both a husband and a wife to own a house."

Cryer's Ex-Wife Can Keep Child Support, Not Child
By JEFF D. GORMAN

(CN) - Actor Jon Cryer must keep paying his ex-wife $8,000 a month in child support, even though the child is in his custody, a California appeals court ruled.

The "Two and a Half Men" star and Sarah Trigger Cryer divorced in 2006, and both remarried. Sarah initially had primary custody of the couple's son, and Jon agreed to pay $10,000 a month in child support.

Sarah, a struggling actress, had a child with her second husband, but that marriage also ended in divorce. Both of her children were placed with their respective fathers after her youngest son was hurt in her home.

Cryer petitioned the court to cancel his child support obligation, but his ex-wife argued that the monthly payments were not a burden on Jon since it constituted just 3 percent of his income. Noting that child support was her only significant source of income, Sarah claimed she would lose her house and car and be unable to pay other bills without that money.

The family court ordered Cryer to keep paying $10,000 a month in child support throughout 2009, but lowered the obligation to $8,000 a month beginning in January 2010.

California's Second Appellate District in Los Angeles upheld the ruling Monday.

"We find that the family court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order a more severe reduction of child support," Justice Roger Boren said for a three-judge panel. "The court properly found that special circumstances existed, and its ruling was consistent with the objective of protecting the child's best interest."

"Although, understandably, Jon may have found the situation unfair, the primary focus must remain on the child's well-being, not the parents' feelings," he added.

Cryer will appear this fall on the ninth season of "Two and a Half Men," with Ashton Kutcher stepping in as the other male lead on the top-rated CBS sitcom in place of Charlie Sheen.

Sarah has not acted professionally since 2005. Her notable credits include "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" and the TV series "Turks" and "EZ Streets."

Comedian Dave Foley fears arrest, owes $500,000 in child-support
March 11, 2011 00:03:00, Garnet Fraser and Katie Daubs

Dave Foley of beloved Toronto sketch troupe the Kids in the Hall is starting a new career in standup comedy, but not in Toronto — he suspects he’ll be arrested if he returns to Canada.

The 48-year-old faces a back child-support bill in Ontario of more than half a million dollars: the accumulation of a debt that accrues steadily at more than $17,000 per month. On the set of Servitude, a film shot in Toronto last year, “I told the production guys, I have a court appearance on Monday and there’s a good chance I’ll be in jail on Monday afternoon,’” Foley said in an interview with the Star.

During an appearance on comic Marc Maron’s WTF podcast last month, Foley explained that his marriage to Toronto writer Tabatha Southey ended during his run on NBC’s five-year hit comedy NewsRadio, and he has failed in his efforts to adjust his child support downward to reflect his new life after sitcom stardom.

“My income has dropped in the last 10 years, as anyone can tell from the number of shitty movies I’ve been in,” says Foley. “I’m not exactly picking and choosing my projects.” However, four years ago, Superior Justice Nancy Backhouse denied his motion to vary his support payments.

“I called Kevin (McDonald),” he told Maron, “and said, ‘If I die, you understand you have to take my corpse out on the road. You’re going to be out there doing another restaging of The Odd Couple, only this time, Oscar is dead.’”

He believes his payments might have been sustainable if he could have landed another gig as lucrative as the lead on NewsRadio. But new sitcoms have been few and far between on the box in the last decade. “Comedy disappeared from TV for a few years,” he says, so he hosted shows such as Thank God You’re Here and Celebrity Poker Showdown.

Foley says that Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office now has an enforcement order and last year sought a six-month jail sentence for him, which was to extend indefinitely, until the overdue support was paid.

In November 2010, a judge spared him immediate imprisonment but allowed the FRO to seek a warrant for Foley’s arrest — and 10 days in jail — without notifying him as soon as he misses or is late for a payment. Since he has missed payments, Foley assumes such a warrant now exists. (While declining to comment on this specific case, the FRO says payors are typically notified in advance of such action.)

Foley now owes $17,301.30 monthly toward his two children, who are both now teenagers: the $10,700 in child support agreed to in 2001, now raised to $12,301.30 to reflect cost of living increases, plus $5,000 a month toward the overdue $589,000 he already owes. For a performer, that means that once taxes and a 20 per cent commission are factored in, he has to earn $40,000 per month, he figures, before he can see a dime.

Southey’s lawyer, Jacqueline Mills, said Foley also owes arrears for private schools, mortgage payments, health care and tutoring, although she added a precise figure for those expenses did not exist.

“I have no comment on the scope of the payments, except that the arrears arose during times when Mr. Foley was making a very large income. Mr. Foley has tried to have the amounts changed a number of times, and after full hearings, his requests have been denied,” Mills wrote in an email to the Star. “Mr. Foley was ordered to provide details of his employment contracts. He has not done so, so we do not know what his income is.”

When contacted, Southey declined to comment on the story.

In the U.S., Foley is keeping busy. He’s doing standup in L.A. and sporadic TV work in the last year: a significant role recently on Desperate Housewives; last year’s Kids in the Hall miniseries Death Comes to Town; a regular voice role in the animated series Dan Vs. on U.S. cable; guest spots last year on several U.S. shows.

Foley says his U.S. TV appearances tend to pay the standard scale rate of about $7,000 per episode; it would take lot of those to raise what he needs. Given that, it’s no surprise that a new Kids in the Hall tour might also happen. He has spent a bit of time with fellow Kid Scott Thompson while the latter works on a new TV project in Los Angeles. Thompson, on his Scott Free podcast, even suggested that the two of them would soon share a standup bill together.

Foley says the standup material — “pretty dirty, pretty dark” — is coming together mostly onstage. It’s his first time doing standup since his teens.

His material has a lot of stuff about “dating as a middle-aged man.” While his material wanders into social issues and politics, any standup tour won’t cross the border into his homeland, where his fame is greatest.

As for his children in Canada, he says, “It may be time to write them a very difficult letter.”