Royal Prenuptual

[Captain Oates 911]

I just remember the rules on the engagement rings in the UK. If she calls it off, she keeps the ring by law I think, as it is seen as a gift.

Yes it is a gift

It's a gift in all jurisdiction I know of

I suppose it is just custom as to whether it is given back if the engagement is broken off but it isn't law. It's a gift.

I was engaged to a contortionist - but she broke it off

The old method of post nuptial, pre the English civil war, was cutting her head off, and that was most effective and involved minimal legal cost.

By the way - to the other aggressive nativist poster, I was saying that the media should explain the various laws - not that ordinary people should know them. You shouldn't assume that new Americans arrive with a blank slate as far as knowledge of English and American law is concerned. I am not a huddled mass you know.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Why don't the Sun and the The Times explain them? To their own people?

[Pooky 3,786]

Why don't the Sun and the The Times explain them? To their own people?

The Sun? Are you serious?

[Captain Oates 911]

Why don't the Sun and the The Times explain them? To their own people?

They are 'trash mags' and many of their readers are barely literate. I have seen Sun readers in Tenerife . They 'read' the paper over their English breakfasts and that involved looking at the soft porn on page 3 and then the football pics - and then they throw the paper away. The paper costs 5 times what it does in England but they don't care.

There are newspapers who know the law full well and yet spin it falsely to make a story. I suspect the US papers don't bother with English law, but if they did, there would still be a certain level of journalism that decided to mislead and make a story.

I often thirst after the facts and find them to hard to find - US Public Broadcasting isn't too bad, and the BBC and Al Jazeera are useful too. Paris Hilton and Donald Trump fans don't want to make their heads hurt with factual stuff, so I suppose many newspapers simply give their customers what they want.

That doesn't really enlighten the ignorant masses which is what riles me over all this stuff.

They may be difficult to enlighten but it shouldn't stop the papers trying. The masses continue to believe all the 'alien abductions' stories and 'giving money to rich people is really good for poor people'. It may be entertaining, but it does the uninformed no favors in the long term.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The Sun? Are you serious?

Of course - it's Britain's #1 newspaper in terms of circulation and readership? The Times if the #1 broadsheet. Both newspapers making similar points about pre-nuptials for William and Paul McCartney.

Kind of undermines complaints about the American media.

[Captain Oates 911]

Of course - it's Britain's #1 newspaper in terms of circulation and readership? The Times if the #1 broadsheet. Both newspapers making similar points about pre-nuptials for William and Paul McCartney.

Kind of undermines complaints about the American media.

So if another country has some stupid newspapers, that takes away all criticism of US newspapers ? Two stupids make a clever ?

The prickly paranoid element are at it again.

A self confident country admits its weaknesses as it's weaknesses are much less than it's strengths.

A person or a country with low self esteem and no self confidence is forever trying to hide and cover up and deny the weaknesses and in doing so, magnifies them

The constant paranoia of Americans to perceived 'criticism' from foreigners is world famous and it should stop as the US has plenty to be proud about. They should be able to absorb negatives and examine them honestly without simply pointing the finger back - which is a symptom of borderline personality disorder - a condition that includes much paranoia and clawing anxiety.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So if another country has some stupid newspapers, that takes away all criticism of US newspapers ? Two stupids make a clever ?

The prickly paranoid element are at it again.

A self confident country admits its weaknesses as it's weaknesses are much less than it's strengths.

A person or a country with low self esteem and no self confidence is forever trying to hide and cover up and deny the weaknesses and in doing so, magnifies them

The constant paranoia of Americans to perceived 'criticism' from foreigners is world famous and it should stop as the US has plenty to be proud about. They should be able to absorb negatives and examine them honestly without simply pointing the finger back - which is a symptom of borderline personality disorder - a condition that includes much paranoia and clawing anxiety.

Seems like you only want the criticism to go in one direction. Your point about the American press being idiots for not explaining English law is completely undermined by English papers not doing it either. It's kind of makes you look foolish for ranting about it. Or should popular media outlets in the UK be held to a different standard? You don't address this, turning your attention to the quality of person who reads said paper.

[Captain Oates 911]

Seems like you only want the criticism to go in one direction. Your point about the American press being idiots for not explaining English law is completely undermined by English papers not doing it either. It's kind of makes you look foolish for ranting about it. Or should popular media outlets in the UK be held to a different standard? You don't address this, turning your attention to the quality of person who reads said paper.

Why do you keep on comparing to England ? I posted about US news media.

Why are my opinions 'rants' but yours are objective and sensible. Need all discussions be conducted by negative characterisations of the other person without reference to the subject ?

I simply don't understand why you are saying that the presence of trash papers in the UK negates any criticism of US media - that does not make sense

[Pooky 3,786]

Of course - it's Britain's #1 newspaper in terms of circulation and readership? The Times if the #1 broadsheet.

There are 3 newspapers you read for serious news in the UK - the Guardian, the Independent and the Telegraph, listed in order of their political leanings, left to right.

The Sun's popularity has squat to do with it's news content and a lot to do with T&A, sports and cartoons. None of the tabloids is particularly hot when it comes to new, although some have pretensions in that direction. The UK is little different to the USA when it comes to printed media.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

You make the comparisons all the time. I guess anyone with a different opinion than yours is not allowed to do the same.

And anyway, if you are looking for nuanced discussions of English law in what is essentially a celebrity story might I suggestion you are looking in the wrong place? I mean really, why didn't they engage in such discussion regarding Canadian law when ScarJo divorced Ryan Reynolds? Or the nuance between Californian and Texas state laws during the Sandra Bullock/Jesse James imbroglio. They are dropping the ball!

Edited April 16, 2011 by Trompe le Monde

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes it is a gift

It's a gift in all jurisdiction I know of

I suppose it is just custom as to whether it is given back if the engagement is broken off but it isn't law. It's a gift.

I was engaged to a contortionist - but she broke it off

The old method of post nuptial, pre the English civil war, was cutting her head off, and that was most effective and involved minimal legal cost.

By the way - to the other aggressive nativist poster, I was saying that the media should explain the various laws - not that ordinary people should know them. You shouldn't assume that new Americans arrive with a blank slate as far as knowledge of English and American law is concerned. I am not a huddled mass you know.

Here, I believe its taken as being part of a contract as a conditional gift. If the man breaks the contract by breaking off the engagement, it can remain with the woman otherwise it should be returned. Maven probably knows best on this if she stops by again.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Sousuke

[Captain Oates 911]

Here, I believe its taken as being part of a contract as a conditional gift. If the man breaks the contract by breaking off the engagement, it can remain with the woman otherwise it should be returned. Maven probably knows best on this if she stops by again.

What bits I know of US law is that every State is different in contract law

I have neveer heard of a conditional gift but I am quite prepared to believe there are States that have such a construction

After all, that is only one step from the slave owning idea

...as in 'you are mine and if not then I want my money back' my monetary investment in you...

quote the young ones :

I bought you that coca cola in good faith and now you tell me you are a lesbian and won't have sex with me ? - you owe me 50 pence !

In contract law there can be no contract without 'consideration' by both parties - usually the exchange of goods for money. So a conditional gift cannot be a contract unless it's the exchange of sex for gold in which case the laws of Nevada are probably more relevant.

With 50 States all having their own laws and some of the lawmakers being well weird, I would believe anything on this subject. One judge had the ten commandments on a stone pillar outside the court building. If that can happen then anything can.

Maven has over 500 engagement rings (in a silver box buried under her house) so far - so yes she is a great source of knowledge on this.

I think she has 3 of mine but I signed - nothing.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

my understanding of "the ring" is if the guy breaks off the engagement, she keeps the ring. if she breaks off the engagement, she returns the ring.

[Captain Oates 911]

my understanding of "the ring" is if the guy breaks off the engagement, she keeps the ring. if she breaks off the engagement, she returns the ring.

I think that must be just by custom..

Like if I punch her then she punches me and if I bonk her pal then she bonks mine

The 50 States have 50 sets of laws - I do know that much

Federal law will not deal with the niceties of engagements

I believe the law regarding return of fugitive slaves was repealed so it can't be covered by that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws

.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

actually, i think that's from ann landers