Could Jemima Goldsmith's new husband get half her fortune? The prenup question explained

Jemima Goldsmith's marriage to financier Cameron O'Reilly brought together two people with substantial family and business wealth. But would marrying an independently wealthy partner automatically protect everything she brought into the relationship?

According to Rhianna Manani, a barrister specialising in family law at No.5 Chambers, neither spouse should make that assumption.

The producer, 52, recently married the Irish-Australian businessman, 62, more than two decades after her first marriage to Imran Khan ended. Their wedding was reported earlier this week, following news of their engagement in May. 

Speaking to HELLO!, Rhianna explained why family money, property purchases and even the couple's ten-year age gap could matter when considering financial arrangements.

There has been no public confirmation that Jemima and Cameron signed a prenup. Rhianna's comments explored how the law in England and Wales could apply to a couple in their circumstances.

"In principle, anybody can make an application for a financial claim when going through a divorce," she said. "However the outcome of that claim really depends on a number of competing factors. That remains the case even where both parties entered the marriage independently wealthy."

© Instagram

How much are Jemima Goldsmith and Cameron O'Reilly worth?

Jemima, the daughter of late businessman Sir James Goldsmith, has an estimated fortune of $100 million, according to Celebrity Net Worth. That figure is an estimate, rather than a verified account of her finances. 

Cameron, the son of late media magnate Sir Anthony O'Reilly, built a career in business and investment. He led the investment group behind Landis+Gyr, the metering company whose $2.3 billion acquisition by Toshiba was announced in 2011.

That was the value of the company transaction, involving multiple shareholders, rather than Cameron's personal proceeds or net worth. Without reliable, comparable figures for both spouses, it is not possible to establish which is wealthier. Nor could a headline estimate reveal what either might receive in a hypothetical divorce.

© Instagram

"It would be impossible to put a hypothetical figure on what either Jemima or Cameron might receive without knowing their full financial circumstances," Rhianna explained.

Would Jemima Goldsmith's inheritance be protected?

Rhianna explained that a court would consider which assets belonged to the marriage, alongside the parties' needs and the overall fairness of a settlement.

"For a couple like Jemima and Cameron, who have reportedly both accumulated significant wealth before marrying, that distinction could be particularly important," she said.

"Assets brought into the marriage, as well as inheritance received from outside the marriage, can potentially be regarded as non-matrimonial. By contrast, wealth created through the parties' endeavours during the marriage is more likely to fall within the matrimonial pot."

© Instagram

The Supreme Court clarified that distinction in its 2025 Standish judgment. The sharing principle applies to matrimonial property, although non-matrimonial wealth can still be relevant to needs and compensation. Equal sharing is the starting point for matrimonial assets, with departures possible where justified. 

Could buying a home together change Jemima's position?

A shared home could complicate the picture, particularly if one spouse used inherited money to buy it.

"In the event Jemima used inherited money to buy a home with Cameron, the Court could potentially reach the conclusion that those funds have been mingled into the marriage," Rhianna explained.

The couple's agreements and their treatment of the property would matter. Using inherited wealth to buy a home they subsequently regarded as a shared family asset could support an argument that the money had become matrimonial.

"However, simply changing the ownership of an asset does not necessarily mean it automatically becomes matrimonial, and the court can look at both the original source of the wealth and how the couple have treated it during the marriage."

Would Cameron be entitled to half of Jemima's investment gains?

For two people entering marriage with established finances, another question concerns what happens if those assets grow.

An investment portfolio or business could become considerably more valuable during a marriage, but Rhianna cautioned against assuming that the increase would automatically be divided equally.

"There isn't a simple rule that one spouse automatically becomes entitled to half of the other's gains," she said.

"The court would need to consider a number of matters including the nature and source of the asset, when and how the growth arose, the wider circumstances of the marriage, the sharing principle and fairness."

Time could also change the position, particularly if previously separate finances became increasingly intertwined over a long marriage.

© Instagram

Why Jemima and Cameron's age gap could matter

Jemima and Cameron married with a ten-year age difference, something Rhianna identified as potentially relevant to their future financial needs.

"There is a 10 year age gap between Jemima and Cameron, so when looking at achieving equality it isn't just about looking at the here and now but also about the future," she explained.

"For example, if a party is closer to retirement, it may be said they need a bigger percentage of the pot as they may not be able to build their wealth as much as the other party." That would be one consideration among many, rather than an automatic entitlement for the older spouse.

© AFP via Getty Images

Could Jemima and Cameron sign an agreement after their wedding?

Jemima also has two adult sons, Sulaiman and Kasim, from her marriage to Imran. Providing for children from an earlier relationship could make wider financial planning particularly important.

Rhianna explained that a nuptial agreement could work alongside wills and, where appropriate, trusts to reflect what someone intended to leave both their spouse and their children.

She also stressed that the opportunity to make an agreement did not disappear after the wedding.

"If a couple didn't enter into a pre-nuptial agreement before marrying, they can still consider a post-nuptial agreement afterwards," she said.

"In England and Wales, nuptial agreements aren't automatically binding in the same way as an ordinary commercial contract, but the court can give significant weight to an agreement that has been entered into freely, with both parties properly informed of its implications, provided it would be fair to hold them to it in the circumstances at the time of divorce."

For Rhianna, those conversations could serve a purpose beyond preserving individual fortunes. "It isn't always about protecting assets, for many couples it can also be about protecting each other."