DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RoyalChatter
HTML https://royalchatter.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Luxembourg
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4580--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Cloaked Date: July 11, 2018, 10:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think Tessy (or any other Princess) should be able
to keep her name after divorce - just like any other woman.
They made her a Princess. It's just a title and it's her name.
I don't respect that royal families can disgard a 'married in'
person differently to how any other spouses divorce. Tessy is
due alimony (or she perhaps needs to pay alimony depending on
her high paying job), she is due keeping her name, her friends
and having her children see that she was of equal value to the
marriage and the family.
I think she is sharing way to much but it's her life and she has
to live with scrutiny or not. :-[
Tessy likes the limelight. It's her choice not her husbands'
how she lives.
Any impact on their children is still the business of Louis, of
course.
#Post#: 4838--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Tigerben Date: August 20, 2018, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Married in Princesses get their title from their husbands. Tessy
goes on about been a humanitarian, a strong woman ect well then
I’m sure she can be this as Tessy Antony . Sarah Ferguson is not
a Duchess , she isn’t her grace . But I’ve thought that since
the divorce Tessy has been wanting the British form of surname
like Sarah , like Diana. Like Charles Spencer’s 3x wives were
it becomes a surname . I hope the lux palace issues a statement
when the divorce is finalized and that they correct the press on
it as well .
#Post#: 5370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Tigerben Date: October 18, 2018, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6290813/Princess-Tessy-Luxembourg-represents-High-Court-battle-divorce-cash.html
This is weird , she could have address the judge but have a
lawyer there , unless she is claiming she is so short of funds
she cannot pay her lawyers or maybe cannot get new ones to
represent her. Maybe it’s a last ditch attempt by her and her
lawyers to soften the judge towards her, if so it might back
fire as he could say she is articulate and well able to get a
job to support herself.
[quote]Princess Tessy of Luxembourg had no help from solicitors
or barristers during her battle with the country's Prince Louis
at the High Court in central London.
[/quote]
#Post#: 5373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Tigerben Date: October 18, 2018, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Update article with more pictures
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6290813/Princess-Tessy-Luxembourg-represents-High-Court-battle-divorce-cash.html
#Post#: 5377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Cloaked Date: October 19, 2018, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I hope that Tessy wins reasonable support. She and the boys
should live in a way not too far removed from what they were
used to. Meanwhile, she should also be prepared to work for
earnings part time so that she can extend her career once the
boys are grown..
#Post#: 5387--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Tigerben Date: October 19, 2018, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thing is Cloaked the lifestyles was provided by his parents, but
her maintenance doesn’t have to be. I think why it’s drawn out
so much is that she is trying to get money from his trust fund.
She is probably arguing that that it’s assets . Depending on the
way the trust is set up it could be out of bounds , it could be
that it’s a family trust that cannot be used as assets in the
divorces.
For the majority of their marriage they were students , with
school fees , accommodation , kids school fees and living
expenses provided by his parents. He has only recently got a job
. Now if his job paid €150 grand a year it would be a lot for
him , a lot !
The boys education will be paid for , could be out of a family
trust set up for this or the grandparents. Louis has very little
real assets and Tessy has shown she can earn money so her money
needs only to provide for herself
Her life style which she has well documented since the
separation is to show this is my life style so this is why I
need so much money . But the judge cannot order his parents to
give her that life style . Her maintenance is from Louis’s
assets only . Even if he hand over all his wage to her she still
could not afford to live in the most expensive part of London.
She will need at the very least an income of £250 grand a year
plus housing paid for and that wouldn’t be even living the very
high life .
#Post#: 5400--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Cloaked Date: October 19, 2018, 11:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think it is sneaky for the Lux Royal Family to hide
behind trust funds when, in a heartbeat, they would contribute
for Louis' family expenses should Tessy still be there or if, in
future, he should remarry.
It is at his parents' discretion, yes, but also quite a reliable
income for Louis.
Tessy, I feel, should expect to own a dwelling in which to house
her boys and to have some basic costs met for herself not just
for the boys. Why should Tessy have to rely on social security
because (on paper only) her exhusband receives little income?
If Louis didn't have a very wealthy benefactor type family then
I would see it differently but I don't think Tessy should
qualify for payment by the taxpayer.
#Post#: 5425--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Cara Date: October 20, 2018, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit that I am with Cloaked on that.
#Post#: 5433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Tigerben Date: October 22, 2018, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Louis’s parents cannot be held responsibility for Tessy . They
have provided a first class education for her , they will
provide a first class education for the boys. Louis does not
live the high life , he seems to prefer the quiet high class
living within his own social circles. Bar having a baby out of
wedlock , the wedding and the divorce he hasn’t court the press
nor have we seen him at charity balls ect like Tessy has been
doing since the separation.
The simply fact that the lux palace has let it go this far with
the attention in the press must tel us that Tessy is wanting a
lot of money . It’s not the way the lux or any reigning house
would go unless the demands were outrageous. She probably would
have been better off if she had taking what was offered in the
first place but with the divorce in England like a lot of women
she is hoping the divorce capital of the world will be more
generous to her than what she was offered.
I’m only supposing like most wealthy families that there is
trust funds set up. In years to come if one of her boys were
getting divorced I’m sure Tessy wouldn’t like their ex’s to try
and get at their funds . It’s the way of life. Tessy can make a
good living but she can’t make a living like she will have done
as HRH . Bar the last few years where she has set up this
lifestyle as a prelude to wanting post divorce she will have to
settle for somewhere between the life they lead pre divorce
which was far more staid .
#Post#: 5467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tessy(formerly?) of Luxembourg
By: Cara Date: October 22, 2018, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
i always felt that the DRF handled jokke and alex' divorce well
in that Alex has been given a nice house in a great area and an
income. the only thing they did not do well imo is that they did
not foot the income bill from their own money.
tessy should at least get a house in a nice area, also because
she has two children that stay with her on a regular basis. it's
not too much asked. it's also an important step so that said
children learn that a woman should be treated decently and
fairly and not dismissed once the person with the financial
power divorces her.
money is not an issue for the luxes. they can afford it. the
fact that on paper louis doesn't have a high income is just not
good enough a reason to dismiss her. she's still the mother of
his two children. there is a way to find a decent balance, which
is not to say that they should accept unreasonable requests of
course.
i'd say that they main point of contention at this point is not
money but her title.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page