Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

[Edited 4/8/17 18:43pm]

Theoretically, that would be true. But it wouldn't explain why one listing says she sold the house in 2004 and then later that he was selling it again in 2006 and 2014 per these listings. The conflict is that a "Dutch businessman", or an annonymous buyer bought it, but then, at a later date, Prince is selling it. The whole thing is a mess.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/see-inside-princes-former-mansion-7848800

http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/26/princes-marbella-home-is-up-for-sale-for-a-cool-e5-6million-4707932/

http://www.startribune.com/prince-s-former-villa-in-spain-is-for-sale-again-for-5-7-million/322651851/

http://1041jackfm.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/princes-selling-spanish-villa-where-he-honeymooned-with-ex-wife-mayte/

Interesting.

I have no basis to speculate, but you know how P sometimes bought stuff back?

What if it sold in 2004, but P bought it back, then resold it in 2014?

Or what if the press got the dates all wrong? Maybe they mistook it for the Turks & Caicos property which sold recently?

I dunno, but I saw a picture for Mayte's book and the picture said "Prince and ex- wife, Mayte Garcia, who wrote a memoir about their love story"...but it wasn't Mayte in the picture, it was Manuela.

They didn't even know which wife was pictured, dumbazzes.

[Edited 4/8/17 19:41pm]

Vashtix said:

PennyPurple said:

Unfortunatley I think TOB has left the forum.

He has not left remember he said he registered again and is waiting For 5 days to post. There is info from him a few posts before this one.

Oh good. Thank you.

Thanks -- NotACleverName for correcting my typo. Yes, it is "critique". You are clever!

NotACleverName said:

bibrose said:

BTW, please leave Denise Matthews and TOB out of the discussion about Mayte's book. TOB suffered a loss he has not recovered from but is gracious enough to share with us. Denise is at rest and need to be allowed to rest in peace! We all know she rejected the name "Vanity" and reverted to her given name. Please show her some respect!

Regarding the bolded text.....you cannot make a demand for freedom of speech while attempting to silence another who is entitled to that same right. So no, I will post what I please, about who I please, when I please! Furthermore, you can critique (not critic, btw) the contents of a book without relentlessly bashing the author. You, and your posse, do not seem to grasp that concept.

Thanks - BillieBallon! Can we all agree that stating an opposing viewpoint is not tantamount to bashing the opposite camp? Yes, I did ask that Denise and TOB be left out of the discussion. This thread is not about them. Denise also passed away just over a year ago after battling kidney disease for a number of years. Whether one likes or dislikes her, it is not fair to talk in a flippant manner about a person who has passed recently and, especially, when her loved one has just shared that he is still struggling with her loss. This is just a matter of common decency. I hope it is now clear. Thanks.

BillieBalloon said:

NotACleverName said:

Regarding the bolded text.....you cannot make a demand for freedom of speech while attempting to silence another who is entitled to that same right. So no, I will post what I please, about who I please, when I please! Furthermore, you can critique (not critic, btw) the contents of a book without relentlessly bashing the author. You, and your posse, do not seem to grasp that concept.

You can also critique a book without relentlessly bashing the critics. Something you and your posse do not seem to grasp either.

purplerabbithole said:

So people still love Bill Cosby? I can't believe in a musicians work if he is just a god awful person...a very flawed person is fine. A monster is hard to listen to. I can't seperate the artist from the man entirely. I don't expect perfection and I understand how stress, insecurity, and neurosis can make people act shitty. But a complete asshole is hard to relate to.

LBrent said:

All that you said, all of it! YUP

I was a fan before Mayte, during her, and after her...Nothing could tarnish P's memory for me. Not unless he was a serial killer and even then...

He soudtracked my teen years from 1977/78 through my first romance and college, marraige, 5 kids, a 34 year career, a divorce, every high and low is tied to P's musical career/shenanigans/awards/hairstyles/fashion/everything/EVERYTHING.

There is not one area of my life where there isn't a P memory in it somewhere. And for a time when things were especially difficult as my marraige was falling apart, Mayte was in P's life. Knowing what went on with them during those years completes MY STORY as well.

I'm glad she wrote it and I'm glad I read it.

[Edited 4/8/17 18:39pm]

[Edited 4/8/17 18:41pm]

People do not still love Bill Cosby on my circles and many people do not know anything about Prince and will believe all M1 has in her book. I am hoping another book comes out to balance out the damage done by an ex who never let and wants the public to stew in 1996 with her. Prince moved on for the 70s, 80s, 90s and I am glad he did ; I enjoyed the Purple Yoda Prince and the Prince in the suits and I loved Prince in the fro the last years and rockin out with 3rd Eye Girl. He did say his favorite was the80s in his concerts; the good ol days he said was the 80s. . .not the 90s.Just saying . . . .

Prince had decades to build his legacy and worked himself to death. It is sad the general public and others generations to come will be tainted with their thoughts of him due to M1s book.

There has to be legit publications not from exes or sidepieces that chronicles his journey , respecting him and no passive aggressive undercurrent.

bibrose said:

Thanks - BillieBallon! Can we all agree that stating an opposing viewpoint is not tantamount to bashing the opposite camp? Yes, I did ask that Denise and TOB be left out of the discussion. This thread is not about them. Denise also passed away just over a year ago after battling kidney disease for a number of years. Whether one likes or dislikes her, it is not fair to talk in a flippant manner about a person who has passed recently and, especially, when her loved one has just shared that he is still struggling with her loss. This is just a matter of common decency. I hope it is now clear. Thanks.

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

LBrent said:

Misslink88 said:

Theoretically, that would be true. But it wouldn't explain why one listing says she sold the house in 2004 and then later that he was selling it again in 2006 and 2014 per these listings. The conflict is that a "Dutch businessman", or an annonymous buyer bought it, but then, at a later date, Prince is selling it. The whole thing is a mess.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/see-inside-princes-former-mansion-7848800

http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/26/princes-marbella-home-is-up-for-sale-for-a-cool-e5-6million-4707932/

http://www.startribune.com/prince-s-former-villa-in-spain-is-for-sale-again-for-5-7-million/322651851/

http://1041jackfm.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/princes-selling-spanish-villa-where-he-honeymooned-with-ex-wife-mayte/

Interesting.

I have no basis to speculate, but you know how P sometimes bought stuff back?

What if it sold in 2004, but P bought it back, then resold it in 2014?

Or what if the press got the dates all wrong? Maybe they mistook it for the Turks & Caicos property which sold recently?

I dunno, but I saw a picture for Mayte's book and the picture said "Prince and ex- wife, Mayte Garcia, who wrote a memoir about their love story"...but it wasn't Mayte in the picture, it was Manuela.

They didn't even know which wife was pictured, dumbazzes.

[Edited 4/8/17 19:41pm]

All plausible but unlikely as the press would have reported that he'd bought it back. You know how they loved keeping track of everything he did because he would seldom let them in. Look at what happened with the auction! Here is yet another link that says it was unloaded in 2006, with some incorrect facts. The most interesting this is, there are NO real estate listings for the property from 2000 to 2004 or even 2005. How do you sell a house if you don't list it??

https://www.forbes.com/sites/guymartin/2016/04/29/princes-former-mansion-in-marbella-spain-yours-for-a-mere-6-million/#21310bc73ec2

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

Interesting.

I have no basis to speculate, but you know how P sometimes bought stuff back?

What if it sold in 2004, but P bought it back, then resold it in 2014?

Or what if the press got the dates all wrong? Maybe they mistook it for the Turks & Caicos property which sold recently?

I dunno, but I saw a picture for Mayte's book and the picture said "Prince and ex- wife, Mayte Garcia, who wrote a memoir about their love story"...but it wasn't Mayte in the picture, it was Manuela.

They didn't even know which wife was pictured, dumbazzes.

[Edited 4/8/17 19:41pm]

All plausible but unlikely as the press would have reported that he'd bought it back. You know how they loved keeping track of everything he did because he would seldom let them in. Look at what happened with the auction! Here is yet another link that says it was unloaded in 2006, with some incorrect facts. The most interesting this is, there are NO real estate listings for the property from 2000 to 2004 or even 2005. How do you sell a house if you don't list it??

https://www.forbes.com/sites/guymartin/2016/04/29/princes-former-mansion-in-marbella-spain-yours-for-a-mere-6-million/#21310bc73ec2

Hmmm...He could've bought it back using a corporate shell to mask the true buyer. We're just finding out some of his business dealings.

LBrent said:

PennyPurple said:

Penny be fair. You have decided that only people who have read the book or allowed to comment on that page. I have commented once or twice but I am expecting to be banned soon. If one disapproves of the timing and advertisement of that book in the first place, he/she really won't want to read it on principle. Let's us talk here so that we don't infect that thread.

PennyPurple said:

bibrose said:

Thanks - BillieBallon! Can we all agree that stating an opposing viewpoint is not tantamount to bashing the opposite camp? Yes, I did ask that Denise and TOB be left out of the discussion. This thread is not about them. Denise also passed away just over a year ago after battling kidney disease for a number of years. Whether one likes or dislikes her, it is not fair to talk in a flippant manner about a person who has passed recently and, especially, when her loved one has just shared that he is still struggling with her loss. This is just a matter of common decency. I hope it is now clear. Thanks.

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

Vashtix said:

This post is written by Toban (TOB)

Toban

There is just something odd about all of this. It’s almost as if they wanted to make her a villain.

No one does something like this around the anniversary of a loved one’s death. This honestly feels like a setup.

.

.

“: from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert (and the long-distance romance that followed),”

This is the only problem I have, the bold part of the line the ad. Specifically the added (parenthetical) statement, which is usually done to provide additional but unnecessary information for clarity to the sentence.

So it could also be written “from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert when she was 16, and the unconventional long-distance romance that immediately followed.”

Is this what she is actually saying or not? Because as a 43 year old woman she is teases us with the thought of Prince and a 16 year old.

Advertising that has been my only or main problem. My questioning why it was done and allowed were subsequent, and as result.

.

When you know her age was 16 when they first met and 17 when she moved in, does this advertisement state, suggest, imply, or hint that they were involved in a “long-distance romance” when she was 16?

.

It then allows anyone to call into question his intent ad-hoc, regard any decision he makes about her. His marriage to her 6 years later would make people wonder about his initial intent anyway, but it is not the same as eluding to it, as to say “maybe we did or maybe we didn’t” 6 years earlier.

.

How is her “long-distance romance that followed” statement justified or explained within the book?

Was she actually referring to later time after November 1992?

.

In either case the uncertainty of it is knowingly being used as a tease to create a controversy to increase sells of her book.

.

And thus, appearing to both slur his name and in order to capitalizing on the eve of the 1^st anniversary of his death.

Appearance is everything and this doesn’t look good.

I personally was playing with the thought of posting/playing the entire recording of “When the Saints go Marching In.” Hopefully his the estate would allow it. No matter what I should just email it or another snippet to those who have been “kissing my azz.”

.

My other comments as TOB were speculative as to the possibility of why there is no push back against some of the content in her book from the estate.

Furthermore, my prior and forthcoming speculations are not hate filled or hateful. Most were questioning if Mayte had been in some way defrauded due the odd image of the Marriage Certificate, the Annulment, and due to the lack of divorce documentation.

Now wondering if that’s what we are supposed to think.

.

There’d need to be a justifiable reason for an annulment so late into the marriage.

And if it were allowed to be annulled, then technically Mayte and Symbol fka Pince were never married.

Reminded me again, how is this a Love Story?

.

It is a legitimate question to then ask if she can prove if she was ever legally married to the Symbol fka Prince Roger Nelson. Which I would think would be on his legal documents at the time back then.

Even the March 4, 1996 issue of Jet reports that she intended to keep her maiden name followed by the “Symbol,” but there are no Symbols or “fka” on that 02/16/1996 Marriage Certificate.

Plus, I find it odd that the County Recorder is open on Saturday, the Date Stamp on the Marriage Certificate, Filed Recorded: Feb 16 1996, is a Saturday.

.

If she always knew she was never married is one thing, no harm no foul.

Is she providing plausible evidence that she honestly believes and relied upon that they were married, and could not have known that they never were?

If the marriage certificate turns out to be fake, finding no divorce documents, and her stating that she was coerced in signing something that she didn’t read. Honestly, where is this Love Story heading, or rather where is she leading?

It’s supposed to be a Love Story, right? So it should he a happy ending?

Spoiler Alert!!! IT DOESN’T WORK OUT

So what’s the actually story all about?

She speaks of this in the book. If you read it you would know the answer.

LOVESYMBOLNUMBER2 said:

LBrent said:

Hmmm...He could've bought it back using a corporate shell to mask the true buyer. We're just finding out some of his business dealings.

Mayte sold it 2004, that owner has listed if for sale. Engelvoelkers.com

That's the point. There is no listing of the property prior to 2006, so between 2000 to 2004, when it was sold by her, it wasn't on the market. The "Dutch businessman" or "annonymous" buyer sounds like a cover for him owning the house the whole time.

PennyPurple said:

bibrose said:

Thanks - BillieBallon! Can we all agree that stating an opposing viewpoint is not tantamount to bashing the opposite camp? Yes, I did ask that Denise and TOB be left out of the discussion. This thread is not about them. Denise also passed away just over a year ago after battling kidney disease for a number of years. Whether one likes or dislikes her, it is not fair to talk in a flippant manner about a person who has passed recently and, especially, when her loved one has just shared that he is still struggling with her loss. This is just a matter of common decency. I hope it is now clear. Thanks.

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

No opposing or questioning of the book is allowed on your book thread. We are discussing the history of the auction and how it relates to the other things that she spoke of in her book, namely, HOW she acquired the items for the auction.

DD55 said:

Ok, time for some fun speculation… The estate papers listed over 40 companies P owned. Wouldn’t it be really funny if he owned one of the bootleg companies that was always selling his work. He would get to sell his music without WB in the mix. What a fake out that would have been. Please NO rumors!! Just trying to bring some fun.

Quite possible that O+> might be a "board member" of some of them and he was a free agent.

DD55 said:

Ok, time for some fun speculation… The estate papers listed over 40 companies P owned. Wouldn’t it be really funny if he owned one of the bootleg companies that was always selling his work. He would get to sell his music without WB in the mix. What a fake out that would have been. Please NO rumors!! Just trying to bring some fun.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit and has crossed my mind over the years.

I hope he was.

What a stroke of genius and a nice FU to WB.

BillieBalloon said:

PennyPurple said:

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

People have respectfully stayed off the book club thread so you can discuss the book to your hearts content. Now youre on here trying to shut down discussion of the book that you dont approve of. You are embarrassing yourself and its not a good look. Just a little heads up. Youre welcome.

Everyone is saying, this isn't about Vanity, this isn't about TOB, well it's not about Maytes book either.

Can everyone not read the title of the thread? And If I wanted to get it shut down....I would report it.

Misslink88 said:

PennyPurple said:

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

No opposing or questioning of the book is allowed on your book thread. We are discussing the history of the auction and how it relates to the other things that she spoke of in her book, namely, HOW she acquired the items for the auction.

NO you are not.

purplerabbithole said:

Penny be fair. You have decided that only people who have read the book or allowed to comment on that page. I have commented once or twice but I am expecting to be banned soon. If one disapproves of the timing and advertisement of that book in the first place, he/she really won't want to read it on principle. Let's us talk here so that we don't infect that thread.

PennyPurple said:

Hello...this thread isn't about the book either. It's about the auction items that Prince allegedly pulled.

I'm not stopping anybody from talking. But people who complain that this thread isn't about Vanity, or TOB, or whomever.....when in all actuality this thread isn't about the book or the 100's of posts on this thread. So let's get real, if one wants to bitch and complain what this thread is about or not about, just look at the thread title.

PennyPurple said:

Misslink88 said:

No opposing or questioning of the book is allowed on your book thread. We are discussing the history of the auction and how it relates to the other things that she spoke of in her book, namely, HOW she acquired the items for the auction.

NO you are not.

Then you've not read all the posts.

The auction calls into question why it took place in 2015, which calls into question intent or stated reasons at that time, which calls into question her financial situation and/or gain from the auction, while also calling into question why it was stopped. Some of the information is in her book because the items for auction were mainly clothing he wore around the 1998 - 2000 period. She has not stated anywhere else why the auction was pulled.

Dug around some more and found this from the Auction site.

Many Prince Stage Worn Costume Lots Were Auctioned at NateDSanders.com by Ex-Wife

PRINCE STAGE WORN COSTUME // admin // October 19, 2016 // no comments

LMAO

DD55 said:

Vashtix said:

This post is written by Toban (TOB)

Toban

There is just something odd about all of this. It’s almost as if they wanted to make her a villain.

No one does something like this around the anniversary of a loved one’s death. This honestly feels like a setup.

.

.

“: from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert (and the long-distance romance that followed),”

This is the only problem I have, the bold part of the line the ad. Specifically the added (parenthetical) statement, which is usually done to provide additional but unnecessary information for clarity to the sentence.

So it could also be written “from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert when she was 16, and the unconventional long-distance romance that immediately followed.”

Is this what she is actually saying or not? Because as a 43 year old woman she is teases us with the thought of Prince and a 16 year old.

Advertising that has been my only or main problem. My questioning why it was done and allowed were subsequent, and as result.

.

When you know her age was 16 when they first met and 17 when she moved in, does this advertisement state, suggest, imply, or hint that they were involved in a “long-distance romance” when she was 16?

.

It then allows anyone to call into question his intent ad-hoc, regard any decision he makes about her. His marriage to her 6 years later would make people wonder about his initial intent anyway, but it is not the same as eluding to it, as to say “maybe we did or maybe we didn’t” 6 years earlier.

.

How is her “long-distance romance that followed” statement justified or explained within the book?

Was she actually referring to later time after November 1992?

.

In either case the uncertainty of it is knowingly being used as a tease to create a controversy to increase sells of her book.

.

And thus, appearing to both slur his name and in order to capitalizing on the eve of the 1^st anniversary of his death.

Appearance is everything and this doesn’t look good.

I personally was playing with the thought of posting/playing the entire recording of “When the Saints go Marching In.” Hopefully his the estate would allow it. No matter what I should just email it or another snippet to those who have been “kissing my azz.”

.

My other comments as TOB were speculative as to the possibility of why there is no push back against some of the content in her book from the estate.

Furthermore, my prior and forthcoming speculations are not hate filled or hateful. Most were questioning if Mayte had been in some way defrauded due the odd image of the Marriage Certificate, the Annulment, and due to the lack of divorce documentation.

Now wondering if that’s what we are supposed to think.

.

There’d need to be a justifiable reason for an annulment so late into the marriage.

And if it were allowed to be annulled, then technically Mayte and Symbol fka Pince were never married.

Reminded me again, how is this a Love Story?

.

It is a legitimate question to then ask if she can prove if she was ever legally married to the Symbol fka Prince Roger Nelson. Which I would think would be on his legal documents at the time back then.

Even the March 4, 1996 issue of Jet reports that she intended to keep her maiden name followed by the “Symbol,” but there are no Symbols or “fka” on that 02/16/1996 Marriage Certificate.

Plus, I find it odd that the County Recorder is open on Saturday, the Date Stamp on the Marriage Certificate, Filed Recorded: Feb 16 1996, is a Saturday.

.

If she always knew she was never married is one thing, no harm no foul.

Is she providing plausible evidence that she honestly believes and relied upon that they were married, and could not have known that they never were?

If the marriage certificate turns out to be fake, finding no divorce documents, and her stating that she was coerced in signing something that she didn’t read. Honestly, where is this Love Story heading, or rather where is she leading?

It’s supposed to be a Love Story, right? So it should he a happy ending?

Spoiler Alert!!! IT DOESN’T WORK OUT

So what’s the actually story all about?

She speaks of this in the book. If you read it you would know the answer.

Are you responding to me or TOB?

Vashtix said:

This post is by Toban (TOB)

Toban

There is just something odd about all of this. It’s almost as if they wanted to make her a villain.

No one does something like this around the anniversary of a loved one’s death. This honestly feels like a setup.

.

.

“: from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert (and the long-distance romance that followed),”

This is the only problem I have, the bold part of the line the ad. Specifically the added (parenthetical) statement, which is usually done to provide additional but unnecessary information for clarity to the sentence.

So it could also be written “from their unconventional meeting backstage at a concert when she was 16, and the unconventional long-distance romance that immediately followed.”

Is this what she is actually saying or not? Because as a 43 year old woman she is teases us with the thought of Prince and a 16 year old.

Advertising that has been my only or main problem. My questioning why it was done and allowed were subsequent, and as result.

.

When you know her age was 16 when they first met and 17 when she moved in, does this advertisement state, suggest, imply, or hint that they were involved in a “long-distance romance” when she was 16?

.

It then allows anyone to call into question his intent ad-hoc, regard any decision he makes about her. His marriage to her 6 years later would make people wonder about his initial intent anyway, but it is not the same as eluding to it, as to say “maybe we did or maybe we didn’t” 6 years earlier.

.

How is her “long-distance romance that followed” statement justified or explained within the book?

Was she actually referring to later time after November 1992?

.

In either case the uncertainty of it is knowingly being used as a tease to create a controversy to increase sells of her book.

.

And thus, appearing to both slur his name and in order to capitalizing on the eve of the 1st anniversary of his death.

Appearance is everything and this doesn’t look good.

I personally was playing with the thought of posting/playing the entire recording of “When the Saints go Marching In.” Hopefully his the estate would allow it. No matter what I should just email it or another snippet to those who have been “kissing my azz.”

.

My other comments as TOB were speculative as to the possibility of why there is no push back against some of the content in her book from the estate.

Furthermore, my prior and forthcoming speculations are not hate filled or hateful. Most were questioning if Mayte had been in some way defrauded due the odd image of the Marriage Certificate, the Annulment, and due to the lack of divorce documentation.

Now wondering if that’s what we are supposed to think.

.

There’d need to be a justifiable reason for an annulment so late into the marriage.

And if it were allowed to be annulled, then technically Mayte and Symbol fka Pince were never married.

Reminded me again, how is this a Love Story?

.

It is a legitimate question to then ask if she can prove if she was ever legally married to the Symbol fka Prince Roger Nelson. Which I would think would be on his legal documents at the time back then.

Even the March 4, 1996 issue of Jet reports that she intended to keep her maiden name followed by the “Symbol,” but there are no Symbols or “fka” on that 02/16/1996 Marriage Certificate.

Plus, I find it odd that the County Recorder is open on Saturday, the Date Stamp on the Marriage Certificate, Filed Recorded: Feb 16 1996, is a Saturday.

.

If she always knew she was never married is one thing, no harm no foul.

Is she providing plausible evidence that she honestly believes and relied upon that they were married, and could not have known that they never were?

If the marriage certificate turns out to be fake, finding no divorce documents, and her stating that she was coerced in signing something that she didn’t read. Honestly, where is this Love Story heading, or rather where is she leading?

It’s supposed to be a Love Story, right? So it should he a happy ending?

Spoiler Alert!!! IT DOESN’T WORK OUT

So what’s the actually story all about?

[Edited 4/9/17 16:03pm]

TOB:

There is so much blithering going on about this book and nothing being questioned, all taken as facts.

If I may, what do you mean this all sounds like a setup to make her look like a villain? Who is "they"? Would she have written the advertisement for this book or at the very least approved it? The sentence about "the long distance romance that followed" can be seen as immediate upon their meeting when she was 16. She says in her book that she was sending him tapes of herself belly dancing and he was sending her music tapes along with letters and drawings. I don't know if she put pictures of letters in the actual book, I only have the transcript. The letter is typed within text and is dated August 1990 and isn't necessarily "romantic" in nature. He tells her she's pretty, thanks her for a gift she sent, and also describes the bed he's laying on as being as big as the one in Frankfurt. They talked on the phone frequently- several times a week, right after their meeting. All of this occurring before November 1992.

.

The annulment/ divorce is still a mystery, but perhaps the reason there is no divorce record in MN is that they divorced in CA or in another state? Or maybe they went through the hassle of doing it in Spain? I don't know the ins and outs of divorce and as far as annulment, the only thing I know is that certain conditions must be met before a legal annulment is granted. Those conditions must be proven with documentation and from what I've read it is not easy. On the Hennepin County Court website, the conditions listed did not seem to fit them. I don’t know what was used in those documents she signed. She wrote that after the conference where he publicily announced that they were having their marriage annulled, she was furious with him for blindsighting her that way. For hours after, she tried to reason with him, finally surrendering her signature to the document, which she admitted, she did not read. The divorce was presented as a “deal struck”. Again, I don’t know how any of that works. If the marriage was annulled, would there have been a need for a divorce?

.

I didn't get the "love story" angle that was advertised to be in the book. It was deceiving. So much insinuation and blaming that how can anyone extract a love story? The biggest thing is that it ended, it was over. Money, attention, and revenge seemed to have been the driving force. Only my opinion.

~Azz Kizzer

purplegirl00 said:

The annulment/ divorce is still a mystery, but perhaps the reason there is no divorce record in MN is that they divorced in CA or in another state? Or maybe they went through the hassle of doing it in Spain? I don't know the ins and outs of divorce and as far as annulment, the only thing I know is that certain conditions must be met before a legal annulment is granted. Those conditions must be proven with documentation and from what I've read it is not easy. On the Hennepin County Court website, the conditions listed did not seem to fit them. I don’t know what was used in those documents she signed. She wrote that after the conference where he publicily announced that they were having their marriage annulled, she was furious with him for blindsighting her that way. For hours after, she tried to reason with him, finally surrendering her signature to the document, which she admitted, she did not read. The divorce was presented as a “deal struck”. Again, I don’t know how any of that works. If the marriage was annulled, would there have been a need for a divorce?

.

I didn't get the "love story" angle that was advertised to be in the book. It was deceiving. So much insinuation and blaming that how can anyone extract a love story? The biggest thing is that it ended, it was over. Money, attention, and revenge seemed to have been the driving force. Only my opinion.

~Azz Kizzer

Finally, someone got the anullment part correct.

I'll only add that P took the papers she signed with him.

Now, I'm gonna guess he might've thought he'd simply use that document to prove she had agreed to an anullment, but since the documents were legally worthless he was left still married and had effed up the situation.

On her part, also probably not aware of the law, Mayte signs and when he leaves she assumes it's a done deal and he's got his anullment. She's sad and depressed with alot of things to organize to rearrange her life so she just takes his word. Dumb, but not as dumb as someone I know personally whose ex told her they were divorced and it wasn't until years later that she found out that her ex had lied and there was no divorce. It's a good thing my friend didn't try to get married again.

LBrent said:

purplegirl00 said:

The annulment/ divorce is still a mystery, but perhaps the reason there is no divorce record in MN is that they divorced in CA or in another state? Or maybe they went through the hassle of doing it in Spain? I don't know the ins and outs of divorce and as far as annulment, the only thing I know is that certain conditions must be met before a legal annulment is granted. Those conditions must be proven with documentation and from what I've read it is not easy. On the Hennepin County Court website, the conditions listed did not seem to fit them. I don’t know what was used in those documents she signed. She wrote that after the conference where he publicily announced that they were having their marriage annulled, she was furious with him for blindsighting her that way. For hours after, she tried to reason with him, finally surrendering her signature to the document, which she admitted, she did not read. The divorce was presented as a “deal struck”. Again, I don’t know how any of that works. If the marriage was annulled, would there have been a need for a divorce?

.

I didn't get the "love story" angle that was advertised to be in the book. It was deceiving. So much insinuation and blaming that how can anyone extract a love story? The biggest thing is that it ended, it was over. Money, attention, and revenge seemed to have been the driving force. Only my opinion.

~Azz Kizzer

Finally, someone got the anullment part correct.

I'll only add that P took the papers she signed with him.

Now, I'm gonna guess he might've thought he'd simply use that document to prove she had agreed to an anullment, but since the documents were legally worthless he was left still married and had effed up the situation.

On her part, also probably not aware of the law, Mayte signs and when he leaves she assumes it's a done deal and he's got his anullment. She's sad and depressed with alot of things to organize to rearrange her life so she just takes his word. Dumb, but not as dumb as someone I know personally whose ex told her they were divorced and it wasn't until years later that she found out that her ex had lied and there was no divorce. It's a good thing my friend didn't try to get married again.

Here's one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. If you didn't read the documents, how do you know they were legally worthless or not? And in "taking his word" did her divorce lawyer not read it as well?

Misslink88 said:

LBrent said:

Finally, someone got the anullment part correct.

I'll only add that P took the papers she signed with him.

Now, I'm gonna guess he might've thought he'd simply use that document to prove she had agreed to an anullment, but since the documents were legally worthless he was left still married and had effed up the situation.

On her part, also probably not aware of the law, Mayte signs and when he leaves she assumes it's a done deal and he's got his anullment. She's sad and depressed with alot of things to organize to rearrange her life so she just takes his word. Dumb, but not as dumb as someone I know personally whose ex told her they were divorced and it wasn't until years later that she found out that her ex had lied and there was no divorce. It's a good thing my friend didn't try to get married again.

Here's one of those situations where you can't have it both ways. If you didn't read the documents, how do you know they were legally worthless or not? And in "taking his word" did her divorce lawyer not read it as well?

Ok, let's try this again...

1) They went to the press conference where P announces they are getting an anullment (She had no idea what he was talking about)

2)They get back to the Spanish house where P tries to convince her to sign a paper that was supposedly an anullment (She refuses for the hours they argue)

3) She finally is exhausted and signs and assumes it's an anullment but she hadn't read the paper (He leaves and doesn't say anything else)

4) Finally, after waiting to hear from him, hoping to reconcile, she writes him a letter saying she feels he doesn't love her and it's over and she wants a divorce. She packs up the house, puts the stuff in storage and goes to stay in the US with her family.

Months later, after he still doesn't respond, she contacts a lawyer who prepares divorce documents and sends them to P's lawyer. The lawyer responds that she can keep the house but will not get much cash. (She's too emotionally ehausted to fight so she agrees despite her lawyer advising er to negotiate a better deal, but she just wants the divorce at this point so it'll all end)

P NEVER GOT AN ANULLMENT CUZ THE PAPERS SHE SIGNED WEREN'T LEGAL TO USE THAT WAY> THEY WERE WORTHLESS> He might've thought he could do it that way, but it's NOT LEGAL. Heck, the papers weren't even notarized and witnessed like a legal document.

NO LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER SHE SIGNED. IT WASN'T A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

It's all in the book.

Sheesh

[Edited 4/9/17 18:44pm]

Just to clarify, she didn't read them, but signing a LEGAL document might've granted them an anullment, but the document was worthless because the situation and criteria did NOT fit an anullment to be granted so the document was WORTHLESS.

[Edited 4/9/17 18:45pm]