Ex-model Christina Estrada breaks down in court as she defends £200m divorce claim, saying ‘this is what I am accustomed to’

Our thanks to a supporter for this. Extracts:

Christina Estrada is such a devotee of the opera she needs part of the £200 million she is suing her husband for to attend performances.

Unfortunately Ms Estrada’s grasp of the operatic world appeared a little sketchy.

On Tuesday in a highly emotional court appearance, in which her spending needs came under the spotlight, Ms Estrada – when asked what was the last opera she had seen – replied: “The Nutcracker.”

Sadly, as every aficionado knows, The Nutcracker is in fact a ballet…

Ms Estrada broke down in the witness box after telling the court how she had received a call the previous night from her teenage daughter in Zurich who said: “Mummy, you are going to make me a poor girl.”

Ms Estrada has rejected an offer from her former husband [note: he has terminal cancer] which would give her £37 million in cash and assets to live on…

She later claimed she was filing this divorce to “stand up for women” and insisted that although her lifestyle was perceived as “extraordinary, wonderful, magical”, that it was a “hard life full of responsibilities”…

Among her spending needs, disclosed yesterday, was £55,000 a year for shoes;  £28,000 for Wimbledon tickets; £78,000 to buy two new watches every year; and £10,000 to attend Sir Elton John’s annual white tie ball.

Apparently most women spend less than £55,000 a year on shoes, and less than £78,000 a year on new watches. How they manage that is a mystery. It’s probably something to do with the patriarchy.


About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • The answer to the “what has this got to do with justice for men and boys?” question is this. In the era of Mad Men, the ‘little lady’ stayed at home and the man provided for her. Some women, perhaps most, were economically dependent upon a man. In this case, there might be a case for a net transfer of wealth to a woman as she had no other sources of income.

    This principle seems to have endured, at least in the minds of some women, and an assortment of white knights and benevolent sexists. Apparently, it is only “fair” that there is a net transfer of wealth after divorce, even if the women is economically independent. We see this in the claims of the multi-millionaire Amber Heard against the soon-to-be-less-wealthy Johnny Depp.

    The challenge for all of us is why this “he for she” principle, that defines men as responsible for the economic welfare of women with whom they are no longer involved, has endured, while the second limb of the argument (that women are economically dependent upon men) is demonstrably no longer true. Could it be that some women are happy to retain those aspects of benevolent sexism that benefit them, while championing the destruction of those elements that (some) women do not care for?i

    I read recently that Russell Brand was enttled to claim from the estate of Katy Perry, his former wife, and chose not to. I think Russell Brand is a polarising figure, but we should contrast the behaviour of Russell Brand and Christina Estrada to highlight a universal truth. (Most) Men regard wealth as something to be worked for, to be earned, to be achieved, while (many) women regard wealth as something to acquired from a man, by any means possible.

    It is this naked avarice that is so ugly, and it is driven by a culture of entitlement and privilege, the sense “because you are worth it”. No, your economic worth is proportional to what you have created, what you have earned, not what what you have taken. But your social capital is something else; it is based upon trust, honour, integrity and reputation. You can’t spend social capital in Garrards, but if you could, Christina Estrada, and the long list of gold digging women who see men as walking ATMs would be bankrupt.

  • epistemol

    SHE’S the nutcracker.

  • The conversation is attributed to a number of people, including Frank Harris, George Bernard Shaw and even Winston Churchill, but basically it goes something like this:-
    Eminent Man: “Would you sleep with me for £1M?”
    Young Woman(flattered) agrees.
    Eminent Man: ” Would you sleep with me for five shillings?”
    Young Woman (outraged): “What do you think I am?!”
    Eminent Man: “We’ve established that, we’re just trying to agree on the price”.
    My money is on Frank Harris, though Shaw did call marriage legalised monogamous prostitution and that is what these women are.

    • GBS had plenty of interesting things to say about marrriage. Jenni Murray (Woman Sour) also called it legalised prostitution at one time, and then she married haha!

  • rahsoft2015

    “Mummy, you are going to make me a poor girl.”
    thats a teenager who is never going to be able to cope with any adversity( including the eventual death of her father).
    .. Send Christina to shelf stack in tesco, maybe that well bring her into reality
    perhaps the father should leave a small amount to the daughter in order to study and. the rest to cancer charities.
    … trouble is, it may create another charlotte proudman.