More on those Russian students in a moment, but let's start with the latest news from good old Heather. Heather Mills has long denied that his �1bn fortune had anything to do with her decision to marry Paul McCartney, who is 26 years her senior. The former 'model' and animal rights campaigner, whose past includes semi-naked photoshoots, sex videos and attendances at weddings wearing floor-length fur coats, is locked in a battle with the exBeatle for a substantial portion of his fortune.

The couple were married for a couple of years and had a child together.

One can say with a fair amount of certainty that Paul McCartney will look after the child and make sure that she is cared for, educated and comfortable. But Heather, we were told this week, will go to court next year if he doesn't give her �50m. Fifty million? For what, exactly?

Unless I am terribly mistaken, the demand for such a sum would appear to signify that in marrying Paul McCartney, Heather had an expectation that her ship had come in. Whether the relationship worked or not, her fortune was made. She did not contribute to his amassing of this wealth, the bulk of his work was done when she was in school or living on the streets of London or writing for a newspaper, depending on what version of her life she sells you today. But now that it has fallen apart, rather than disappear off into the sunset, she wants to take his cash with her.

Lest you think I am being unfair to Heather, it was also revealed this week that Paul McCartney has offered her �20m to settle. But this is not enough.

She wants him to double it and add 10.

It's not like he can't afford to give her the cash, but how bad can it have been for her to feel entitled to such an amount?

But Heather is far from being the only one to hold out for the cash. Three cities in Russia have courses run for women whose primary aim is to bag a man for his money. The courses are over-booked and run by a man who believes that looks and sobriety shouldn't come into the equation when a woman is looking for a husband.

Vladimir Rakovsky teaches his students to seek out a man who is "good in bed, has emotion and has money." He advises the women to be light and fluffy when dealing with their prey and to bring him coffee and resist the urge to take control.

The women who sign up have good jobs and seem to be intelligent, with one even admitting that if she behaved in work the way she does in front of men she has designs on, then she'd never get anywhere.

The ambitions of some women to get together with men of wealth have long existed, and sociologists would no doubt point to theories of Stone Age women seeking out the best protector and hunter-gatherer for her family. And perhaps this theory does have some credibility, but it hardly mitigates the advice given in the US magazine Money, which tells women to marry their high net worth partner in countries where the divorce courts favour the fairer sex.

Before all women get tarred and feathered, though, who is really to blame for the phenomenon of the rich man and the often beautiful, younger woman? Surely it wouldn't exist without demand? The young and motivated female money-seekers are meeting the needs of the wealthy middle-aged man for whom having an attractive woman to put in the front seat of the new car is as much a sign of their worth as any other commodity.

As the wheels come off the illusion that all unions are made in heaven, is it time to admit that when it comes to love, women get what they settle for and men get what they can afford?