Is this Britain's most 有毒な 離婚 戦う／戦い? Nine years, 14 裁判官s, five 法廷，裁判所s... and （人命などを）奪う，主張するs both parties are 'psychologically 損失d'. That's what Camilla's 親族 Charles Villiers has 直面するd in a 企て，努力，提案 to 保護する his family's £3.5m 信用 基金

• e-mail

Charles Alastair Hyde Villiers was 充てるd to his late grandmother who, he says, was as wise as she was 豊富な. ‘She had street sense 同様に as 存在 from an aristocratic family,’ he says.

Lady Mairi Bury, daughter of the 7th Marquess of Londonderry, was 特に careful when it （機の）カム to money. When she died, leaving her millions to a ‘small number of 相続人s’ (Charles 含むd), she decided to put her 広い地所 in 信用, 申し込む／申し出ing ‘some 保護’.

保護 from what? ‘井戸／弁護士席, she was acutely aware of the 危険 of family members getting married,’ says Charles, arching an eyebrow.

‘You see it over and over again. You have these aristocratic families where the 資産s ― 所有物／資産／財産, 農地, portraits ― go 支援する 世代s. But it only takes one person in one 世代 to take half of it. These people take a chainsaw to old families, or try to. My advice to any young man of means, when it comes to marriage, is: be careful.’

No prizes for guessing that Charles, 58, who is also a distant 親族 of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (‘on the Keppel 味方する. Yes, she sends a Christmas card to our 支店 of the family’), is in the throes of one of the messiest 離婚s that the 現在の aristocratic 始める，決める has ever 証言，証人／目撃するd.

Charles Villiers,?a distant 親族 of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall,?is in the throes of one of the messiest 離婚s that the 現在の aristocratic 始める，決める has ever 証言，証人／目撃するd

How royally 長引いた it has been, too.?

It is nine years since his wife Emma, 62, left the Scottish manor (seven bedrooms, ten acres, its own loch. You get the picture) where they had spent most of their 18-year marriage and, in his words, ‘hot-footed it to London’.

Charles 最初 thought he was fortunate, as にもかかわらず the family 存在 one of the oldest in England (the line can be traced to Mary Tudor, younger sister of Henry VIII), his home was in Scotland. Under Scottish 法律, 地位，任命する-離婚 spousal 維持／整備 is capped at three years.

Crucially, 相続するd wealth is not 含むd in the 結婚の／夫婦の 資産s. ‘It’s a very sensible system, because it’s ringfenced,’ he points out. Sensible for the aristocracy, he means.

式のs for Charles (and his family millions), his wife 協議するd lawyers in London and, while waiting for their 離婚, and money for those three years, to be settled, she 適用するd for 維持／整備 in the English 法廷，裁判所s, 火刑／賭けるing a （人命などを）奪う，主張する on a £3.5 million 信用 基金, of which he had a half 株.

To his horror, in 2015 Charles was ordered to 支払う／賃金 her £5,500 a month. ‘現実に, she said that wasn’t enough. She said she needed £10,000.’

He didn’t 支払う／賃金 . . . so the pair went to war, with Charles 告発する／非難するing his wife (‘who had nine pairs of white ジーンズs. Who needs that many?’ he ガス／煙s today) of ‘離婚 観光旅行，事業’.

Since then they have been, 効果的に, on a 巡航する of the 法廷，裁判所s. A 最高の，を越す-end 巡航する, too; no expenses spared. Fourteen of our 最高の，を越す 裁判官s have been 伴う／関わるd, he tells me, and I think I’ve misheard. ‘No, tha t is 訂正する.’

How many barristers? How many 法廷，裁判所s? He has to こども it up, but settles on, ‘14 different 裁判官s, north and south of the Tweed, nine separate barristers and five 法廷，裁判所s ― the 郡保安官 法廷，裁判所 in Scotland, Family 法廷，裁判所, High 法廷，裁判所, 法廷，裁判所 of 控訴，上告 and 最高裁判所. So far, there have been 12 separate 審理，公聴会s.’

The most 重要な was in the 最高裁判所, which in 2020, 支配するd that Mrs Villiers could proceed with her 使用／適用 in England, にもかかわらず her husband’s 反対s. Five 裁判官s were 伴う／関わるd: of which three agreed with her.

The 事例／患者 has left British 離婚 lawyers agog. The best (or worst) bit? The 巡航する ship is still at sea. The warring pair are still not 離婚d. ‘Although I’m hoping this 最新の 判決，裁定 will have 結論するd things in England so we can get 支援する to the Scottish 法廷，裁判所s and finalise the 離婚,’ says Charles, hopefully.

For, last month a surprise 新たな展開 （機の）カム. Having considered arguments over money at a 私的な 審理，公聴会, Mr 司法（官） Mostyn, of the Family 分割 of the High 法廷，裁判所 in London, made a 判決，裁定 that Charles should not be 要求するd to 支払う／賃金 維持／整備, 予定 to his 財政上の position, which Charles is brandishing as 証拠 of victory.

The 判決，裁定 受託するd that magazine publisher Charles, who is living in rented accommodation and is up to his neck in 負債, could not afford to 支払う／賃金 the 維持／整備 需要・要求するd.

This 審理，公聴会 took five days, and Mr 司法（官） Mostyn took the unusual step of making large parts of his 判決，裁定 public. It makes for 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の reading. Even with the nitty gritty of the 財政上の background redacted, it runs to more than 14,000 words. No one comes out of it 井戸／弁護士席. To return to the 巡航する ship analogy, it sounds as if 裁判官 Mostyn would like to throw everyone overboard.

His wife Emma (権利 with her daughter Clarissa), 62, left the Scottish manor nine years ago and under Scottish 法律, 地位，任命する-離婚 spousal 維持／整備 is capped at three years but?in 2015 Charles was ordered to 支払う／賃金 her £5,500 a month 維持／整備 money

He 明らかにする／漏らすs he thought it was a mistake for the 最高裁判所 to 支配する the way it did last year, although he was bound by that 判決，裁定.

裁判官 Mostyn’s greatest 怒らせる, however, is saved for the warring couple.

‘This has been a 事例／患者 where love has turned to 憎悪 to an 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の degree,’ he 結論するs, （人命などを）奪う，主張するing that ‘hours’ had been spent ‘選ぶing over 古代の grievances’.

‘The husband has vented his spleen by 主張するing that the wife is a bigamist. The 主張 was 完全に spurious. The husband has （刑事）被告 the wife of 存在 a fraudster, a fantasist and 一般に useless. The wife, with some justification, has （刑事）被告 the husband of 存在 dishonest, manipulative, vindictive and いじめ（る）ing.

‘She is not beyond 批評. She has 行為／行うd her 追跡 of the husband in this litigation in a 完全に disproportionate manner and has wilfully blinded herself to the reality that the 広大な 量s of 相続するd 基金s that she believes the husband has at his 処分 are, in fact, a chimera.

‘The result of this terrible litigation is that both parties are now financially 廃虚d and, I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う, psychologically 損失d.’

Fair comment? Charles nods. ‘I sympathise with Mr 司法（官） Mostyn for appearing to have been exasperated. Yes this has been an utter waste of time and money, 特に for my wife, since she has come out with not a ha’penny.’

裁判官 Mostyn also says that had Charles not challenged the 初めの 維持／整備 order it would have ‘saved the parties the better part of six years of stressful, contentious, ruinously expensive and psychologically 損失ing litigation 戦争’.

How much is he out of pocket?

‘I have 貸付金s to 支払う／賃金 of £49,000 単独で incurred in 関係 with this litigation in England, all of which could have been 避けるd. I might 潜在的に have another £50,000 of costs, making £99,000 for me to 返す. This is outrageous and I could only continue to fight because I 安全な・保証するd 合法的な 代表 on a プロの／賛成の bono basis. If my barristers had not come to my 救助（する）, 井戸／弁護士席, I dread to think . . .’

And psychologically 損失d?

‘I certainly don’t feel psychologically 損失d, although I will say that the entire 過程 has been most stressful.

‘The other 味方する walked over me at both High 法廷，裁判所 審理，公聴会s, because I could not afford 合法的な 代表. 存在 鎮圧するd in this way might have pers isted 無期限に／不明確に had I not received this プロの／賛成の bono 代表. Who is to say what would have happened to me without it, because you can easily be criminalised because of errors or missteps.’

Aristocrat Charles Villiers and Emma Villiers spent most of their 18 years together in the ten-acre Scottish manor which has seven bedrooms and its own lock?

Certainly, there are tricky 合法的な points at play. The Scottish/English conundrum （機の）カム about, Charles says, because of ‘EU 規則 which （機の）カム into 法律 in 2011, but was only designed as an 暫定的な 手段’.

He also believes that, were it not for cost-cutting 改革（する）s to the 合法的な 援助（する） system (‘which has led to people 存在 hung out to 乾燥した，日照りの as they have to 代表する themselves’,) the 事柄 would have been over ‘years ago’.

最終的に, though, this is a story of greed ― although all parties 伴う／関わるd will quibble about 正確に／まさに who is 存在 greedy. That the 法律 容易にするs such 長引いた 訴訟／進行s is surely scandalous? 裁判官 Mostyn didn ’t use the word in his 判決，裁定, but his irritation was （疑いを）晴らす.

Yet on they go. Charles is utterly 納得させるd he is the 犠牲者 here.

‘Perhaps she saw the multi-million 続けざまに猛撃する 解決／入植地s that have been 達成するd by the wives of footballers and celebrities and thought she could get 類似の,’ he says of his wife.

‘But the 状況／情勢 was never 類似の. Old families like 地雷 have 生き残るd for a 推論する／理由. The money in 信用 is there to be passed on to 未来 世代s. I have a daughter with Mrs Villiers. I may have more children.’

Not once during our interview does he 言及する to his wife by her Christian 指名する. When, I ask, did the love turn to hate? ‘Oh I don’t hate my wife. In fact, I pray for her to find happiness, after three failed marriages.’

If this 離婚 sounds dysfunctional, then perhaps the marriage was, too, from the off.

Charles and Emma met at a dinner party. He knew she had been married before ‘to a much older man, a 豊富な 所有物／資産／財産 developer’. He did not know, he 主張するs, that there had been another husband before that.

‘What sort of marriage is it if you don’t even know how many husbands your wife has had?’ The bigamy 告訴，告発s which 現れるd in 法廷，裁判所 ― 完全に 誤った ― stemmed from the fact that 離婚 文書s had the 指名する of Mrs Villiers’s first husband redacted.

‘Even if you think you are happily married, when you go through a 恐ろしい 離婚 like this and you find out things about the other person, you 結局最後にはーなる thinking: “Did I really know them at all?”’

Outwardly the marriage (they 結婚する in 1994) was glossy. Charles, who 始める，決める up a publishing 商売／仕事 in his 30s, was doing 井戸／弁護士席. He owned a string of racehorses, and they bought 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる）d, 18th-century Milton House, nestled in ten acres of woodl and, in time for the arrival of their daughter, Clarissa.

His wife threw herself into entertaining. ‘She threw big 黒人／ボイコット-tie dinner parties,’ he says. ‘It was all about show for her. When she left, there were two rooms 十分な of 着せる／賦与するs. I went through them. There were things with the labels still on. She had handbags never opened.’ Were there money difficulties before the marriage failed? The fact Charles was 宣言するd 破産者／倒産した in 2014 (the 破産 was 発射する／解雇するd a year later) 示唆するs so, although he points out there were no wider problems. ‘The only 推論する／理由 I went 破産者／倒産した was because the house failed to sell. Nothing to do with the 商売／仕事.’

He 示唆するd they sell Milton House, which had become too big, and too 高くつく／犠牲の大きい, to 持続する. ‘Clarissa was at school in England, at Cheltenham Ladies’ College, and it didn’t make sense for us to be rambling around in a big house. But Emma wouldn’t hear of it. She said “I’d rather sell my 約束／交戦 （犯罪の）一味 than Milton House”. That 傷つける me very much. A loving wife would have said: “承認する, let’s move on to the next 一時期／支部.” ’

From that moment the marriage was over. Charles says Emma ‘just left’. The house was put up for sale but was still on the market two years later. ‘The 底（に届く） had fallen out of the Scottish country house market’. He says he had no choice but to call the bank and give them the 重要なs. In 2015, Milton House in Dumbartonshire was repossessed.

What of these family millions in 信用, though? How can a man of means lose his house and go 破産者／倒産した? Charles explains that ‘as a separate 合法的な （独立の）存在’ (akin to a 限られた／立憲的な company), the 信用 基金s 簡単に cannot be dipped into at will.

So, it ふさわしい you to go 破産者／倒産した? He 反対するs. ‘It’s not a 事例／患者 of whether it ふさわしい. It was just a reality.’

合法的な intricacies aside, the marriage lasted 18 years, which w ould give his wife 権利s in any country. Is he 説 should have left the marriage penniless? ‘絶対 not. Had she gone about things the proper way ― in Scotland ― she would have had a 相当な 解決／入植地, which I would have 自由に given.’

He points out the difference between their living 手はず／準備 today. He lives in a modest former manse in an East Lothian village. ‘I am not living in a big house in Notting Hill,’ he points out, 激しく. When approached by the Mail, Mrs Villiers 拒絶する／低下するd to comment.

So what now? Can Charles 現実に get his 離婚? He believes so. ‘I hope my wife will want to go 負かす／撃墜する the sensible 大勝する and 適用する to the 郡保安官 法廷，裁判所 for the 法令’. He is referring to the 手続き that sees many 離婚ing couples reach 協定 about splitting their 資産s without 伴う／関わるing the 法廷，裁判所s, only then 適用するing to their 地元の 郡保安官 法廷，裁判所 (in Scotland) for a 法令 of 離婚.

However, Mrs Villiers could still 控訴，上告 裁判官 Mostyn’s 判決，裁定 that Charles should not be 要求するd to 支払う／賃金 維持／整備 予定 to his 財政上の 状況／情勢, so who knows?

Somehow, Charles has 設立する happiness in the middle of all this. Four years ago, he began a 関係 with Heidi Innes, 43, a classically trained singer.

She is also 離婚d ‘but in her 事例／患者 everyone was sensible’. They would have liked children ― and to 株 a surname ― but he says this couldn’t happen until he was 解放する／自由な to 結婚する again. He seems to be in for the long 運ぶ／漁獲高 with Heidi, though. Last summer they had a ‘union party’, where friends and family gathered to watch them 交流 公約するs and 削減（する） a cake.

It wasn’t a wedding, mind. Nothing was 合法的に binding. Phew!

Is he 現実に considering getting married again, given the advice he would give to others?

He 拒絶する／低下するs to be drawn. ‘I need to get 離婚d first.’