Gold-Digging Gone Wild

Amy and John discuss "The Swedish Countess"

By Amy Kean and John D. Schwartz

JOHN:  She's currently on the cover of every tabloid. And I'm thinking, "Who the hell does she think she is?" I'm talking about the "Swedish Countess" of course, Marie Douglas-David, 36, who is trying to legally rob her ex-husband, George David, of as much as $100 million. Pushing the envelope of unabashed gold-digging, the Countess is claiming that her 2005 postnuptial agreement which granted her $36 million (It was $70 million before the stock market plunged!) is null and void because she and Mr. David shacked up together for nine months last year. So even though she agreed to, and signed a contract worth--36 MILLION DOLLARS!-- she insists on getting more than double that now. She claims, with a straight face, that her expenses are $53,000 per week!


So my question is: Aren't all women embarrassed by Marie Douglas-David? This is a woman who is only 36-years-old! She has no children and is quite capable of earning an extremely good living herself. (She used to make $400,000 per year as a Vice President at an investment bank.) Furthermore, she only married the 66-year-old mogul (That's right, he's 30 years older than her!) in 2002, yet she admitted in court that she had at least one affair with a Swedish fencing expert as early as 2004. (To be fair, Mr. David is accused of cheating as well, but I can't find any hard details about it.)

Weren't divorce laws created to protect women who take themselves out of the workplace to build a home and raise a family during the prime years of their lives? The Countess did nothing of the sort! Yet she's still entitled to $100 million? George David earned that money over a 35-year span before he ever even met her! This kind of story is precisely why so many men fear marriage. The fact that this case even gets heard in a court of law is outrageous! What do you have to say for yourselves ladies??!!


AMY:  $53,000 a week?! Honestly, I'm thinking I got a pretty raw deal marrying you. If I left you, what would I get exactly? A bunch of dusty old Smashing Pumpkins CDs? (No one even listens to CDs any more.) Your VHS (!) tapes of "Caddyshack" and "Tommy Boy"? Or maybe your bent-up, out-of-date photography manuals? (No one develops pictures anymore either.) In fact, we're probably the only couple in New York City who still don't own a flat-screen television. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm the most unsuccessful gold-digger on earth!  

Why didn't I marry that rich old geezer? Oh yeah, because I wouldn't let a 66-year-old man lay his wrinkled finger on my body for all the money on earth. It's gross!

And I never feel sorry for these rich, old creeps who get taken to the cleaners by younger "trophy" wives. These guys deserve to get robbed. Think about it. Why is it any worse for a woman to marry a guy for his money than it is for a man to marry a woman for her youth and beauty? If these moguls, like Mr. David, aren't smart enough to protect their assets, too bad. Marie Douglas-David should take whatever she can get. Why not?

In May/December marriages, where big money is at stake, I think both parties are shallow, and they both deserve to suffer for it. And, don't worry; they usually do in the end. After all, wasting your time in a marriage without true, deep, meaningful love must be torture--no matter how many diamonds or servants you have.

Take a look at this adorable couple (top photo). Do they really think people believe their relationship is authentic? Would this nubile 28-year-old swimsuit model even speak to him if he were a 64-year-old retired shoe salesman or postal worker? And would this elderly billionaire be willing to marry her if she weighed 250 pounds and was say, 50 or--gasp!--60? I doubt it. They're just using each other. Ah, romance.

Living in New York City, I see these types of couples all the time. My verdict: They deserve each other.