Sunday, July 7, 2013

Nigella Lawson's Husband Files for Divorce

Nigella Lawson Choked
Photo - Sunday People
Last month, paparazzi in London caught Nigella Lawson's husband Charles Saatchi putting his hands around Nigella's neck several times while at a restaurant (pictured to the right).  I didn't have a post on here about it, but you may have seen it all over the news.  The day after the 'choking' incident, photographers caught Nigella leaving her home with luggage and her children with her.  Charles stated that it was a 'playful tiff' and voluntary went to police regarding the incident.

The Daily Mail UK is now reporting that Charles Saatchi is filing for divorce, and gave a statement to them.  He said he "made the ‘heartbreaking’ decision to formally separate from the television chef because she refused to defend his reputation after he was pictured with his hand around her neck at their table."  Since the incident, Nigella has refused to answer his calls or texts.

Here are some other things noted in the Daily Mail Story:

  • Charles said he is against violence of women, and has never abused Nigella physically.
  • Charles feels that Nigella chose her PR team's advice over his own, which tore them apart.
  • In his statement, Charles said Nigella has held his neck in the past like he did to her at the restaurant.
  • He wishes the best for Nigella's future global success.

The whole article is here and it is a pretty entertaining read if you are interested.  Charles comes across as pretty controlling and seems to be trying to shift the blame to the victim.  It may be fortunate for Nigella that she is able to get out of this relationship now.


  1. She is SO much better off without an abusive clod who gets riled because she "refused to defend his reputation" after he publicly put his hands around her neck! He made his reputation all by himself.

  2. I don't pretend to know anything whatsoever about this situation but I'm quite confidant that, despite the way the press reported the story, Nigella was never in any real danger. She was in a public place, being observed and photographed even, and she was perfectly capable of yelling for help if she'd thought she needed some. She may have been embarrassed but I doubt that she was really afraid.

  3. But the bottom line is that he put his hands on her in an assaultive manner. That is NEVER acceptable.

  4. If Saatchi felt at liberty to choke her in public, we can only wonder what sort of hell she was enduring behind closed doors. And any protest in public likely would have had repercussions at home. His letter is classic abuser mentality: He's the victim of her failure to excuse what he did.

  5. She is a strong woman and I have always respected her. You can see how unhappy she is in her face, that wasn't play when he grabbed her neck.

  6. She may not have been in danger of him beating her in the middle of the street but, if he felt he could humiliate and physically intimidate her in public like that, what the hell do you think he was doing to her in her own home.

    Do you think what he did was something minor?

    To her credit she didn't stick around to see what his next act was going to be.

  7. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was condoning his behavior or trivializing it. By American definition, what he did was assault and battery. He was also humiliating her in public. Classic abuser behavior as stated above. What I was saying is that the press kept saying he choked her which he clearly did not. She wasn't, at that moment, in any real physical danger. I most certainly don't condone what he did.

  8. Thank you for the clarification, it is appreciated and I agree with your thoughts.

  9. Someone's definition of "violence against women" is off.