To think there’s nothing for me to gain from marriage?

I think that as long as you don’t start sacrificing your career to support his, lose your financial independence or have children there is no need to marry unless you want to/feel like it.

But if you slowly start doing any of those 3 things, you may as well marry to protect yourself and do so before the romanticism is gone, as if it goes, he would start noticing that with a higher salary or having a mortgage in his sole name it majes it a bad investment (for him) to tie the knot.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Exactly.

When I was young I had the rather surly attitude that it’s no one else’s business.

And yet I was passionately involved in community campaigns; I believed that humans need each other and that society is real and essential, and we are all inextricably in this together. I could even see that living with married parents could be safer for children, in this imperfect world, as long as the law protected them from violent parents.

By the time my future DH and I knew we wanted to share our lives, I was delighted to make our commitment public. We wanted to let all our friends and relatives know and to celebrate with a big party. We knew we couldn’t have children, but we embraced those of our combined families.

I wouldn’t think that you were devaluing marriage for other people. Everyone takes their own benefits and joys from different aspects of something, and if marriage purely brought you inheritance reassurance and financial stability, that’s just as valid as marrying for romance (and you’ve gone in to it informed with your eyes open about the legal implications!).

This is interesting, you have a long standing commitment. Why not get married as laws change marriage is one of the few things that stay protected.

Just curious

If he's not leaving his half of the property to you, you won't need to worry about inheritance tax either.

The only other thing is to make provisions for yourself i.e savings to buy the beneficiary out or investing in another property in just your name so you don't find yourself with nowhere to live.

Other than getting lasting power of attorney in place nope! No need

So what would you do if your DP dies and that you found that he's given his half of the house to someone else and changed his will and pension beneficiary to them?

It's also worth checking if your pension does a lump sum after death and/or a spousal pension and who they can go to.

Not necessarily. My MIL was excluded despite living with her partner.
His adult daughter said she was just a friend. They didn’t share finances and MIL still had her own house so no proof of cohabitation. They had been together several years and lived together all through pandemic. All funeral arrangements were done by the daughter too. This was only a couple of years ago. Added another layer of upset to an already difficult time.

I totally agree. and I find it very frustrating how women understand this. Marriage is very effective at protecting women who have none of their own money and for whom it's difficult to earn money: It's basically compensation and insurance for raising children.

In an era where women are by and large able to support themselves it makes less and less sense. The more money you have the more you put at risk by getting married.

Historically it was reasonable to expect a breadwinning man to make that financial commitment to a wife (and it still is in many marriages). If you are going to take a decade out of the workforce to have children (as many women do) you are totally entitled to that financial protection. But men almost never do this so why should a wealthy or self-sufficient woman put her capital at risk by marrying for a man who won't ever make the same commitment and won't face the same financial sacrifices?

I think men are wising up to the fact that they stand to gain more from marrying a wealthy woman these days than the woman will, and a lot of them are exploiting the emotional side of it for financial gains. It's only very recently that marriage has been perceived to be anything to do with love and in my view it's best to see it as a purely financial construct.

If it doesn't make sense for you (or your children) financially it's a huge millstone around your neck which could cost you your security.

My pension is the same. There's quite a lot like that still, so definitely worth checking OP.

Exactly what I thought as a fellow childfree person who got married out of love, nothing wrong with enjoying married bliss between the two of you

I would just keep an eye on the inheritance tax threshold vs your property value/savings etc. Marriage would mean significant savings if you do go above it.

In our case it was IHT liability and that neither of us could be beneficiaries of survivors’ pensions without a marriage certificate. If my bloke dies first I’d be impoverished without my survivors’ pension.

So sorry to hear about this. But honestly, the NHS will speak to anyone who is a partner/deemed as such. They don’t have the time or resources to check and most healthcare professionals are trained now to ensure they have checked someone is supported or reliant on someone being. If you’re the babes next of kin, that that.

^ this is exactly why we got married.
It cost less than £500. Giving notice, registry office ceremony, ring and a dress (in the Sale) for me, plus 5 certificates.
We didn't want anyone problems if one of us was ill, to stop some greedy relatives interfering, and no inheritance tax for the survivor when one of us dies.

Agree. Though, never assume if it goes wrong, the split will be easy. I was unmarried but with 3 kids. Only thing joint was the house. Fortunately by the time it ended I’d worked full time again for quite a few years, own pension, own bank account. Agreed 50:50 custody. He was difficult about selling the house but we have and I got my half cleanly! I’m well aware that had it been 10 years earlier when I was part time, it would have been better to have been married. But it’s much cleaner not to be if you are equal earners. Better than a small amount of tax relief.

My partner and I have been together 13 years and have one child.
We never felt the need to get married we know that we are committed to each other.
However, we have in the past experienced difficulties with various things due to not being legally married.
Our son is also severely mentally disabled and without going into specifics we have encountered a few issues due to us not being married.
So last year we decided to enter into a civil partnership. It cost £47 and took 7 minutes. We didn't tell anyone in advance and just used 2 neighbours for witnesses.
Another reason why we decided to do it is because I wanted to ensure that my partner was legally my next of kin with no ambiguity. I needed to ensure there was no way my mother could legally be considered my next of kin in any circumstances.

I think marriage is a very risky endevour precisely because it mixes love up with a legally binding financial transaction. I'm not sure business and emotions mix well and a lot of people get married without any idea of the implications if they end up divorcing.

For an increasing number of women a career provides more long term protection than marriage but obviously that's not the case for SAHMs or women who drastically reduce their work hours after having children.

I am in a long-term committed relationship (have been for 20+ years) with someone I don't live with (there are no children on either side). We each own a house and are the sole beneficiaries of each other's wills, have POAs in place, NOK noted with NHS, etc.

We looked into a civil partnership a while ago (I would never marry), but it would be potentially disadvantageous to us. A married/ civil partnered couple count as a single financial unit. If one of us sold our house (sole home), capital gains tax could apply as it might count as the dual financial unit's second home. Batshit and so off-putting.

@SoRainbowRhythms

So is buying a house together (which we have a deed of trust in to protect DH's sizeable deposit). Just because I wanted marriage doesn't mean I'm stupid.

No you weren’t stupid at all: your DH put up most of the deposit so you were right to get married: also I assume your house and other assets would be split 50/50 regardless of whether there is a deed of trust? I think marital law would trump the deed of trust?

So that exactly my point. It almost always makes sense to get married if you are the financially weaker partner (in this case you) . If you had brought the deposit to the table you would have been foolish.

And acts of love are all good and well but ultimately marriage usually outlasts love so it makes sense to base it on finances first and foremost.

So is buying a house together (which we have a deed of trust in to protect DH's sizeable deposit). Just because I wanted marriage doesn't mean I'm stupid.

I didn't see it as a romantic day out in a nice dress, I was it as an act of love. And that's still while understanding the financial implications.

I would not have children without being married. You basically form a business to raise the children together.

If you won’t be having children, I don’t think marriage is necessary