To not see the practical point of getting married?

You are planning a child together?
Real life reasons to be married first.
-Example 1- Mother became extremely ill during birth to point of needing to be in intensive care at the highest level for months, survival was at times not looking likely. Without marriage the father of the baby would not actually have parental responsibility that means that women's parents would make all decisions regarding the also very sick baby. Children's services would have to be involved and actually the father can't name the baby.
Luckily in this scenario they were married.
Example 2- Child is born with disabilities that require around the clock care. multiple hospital appointments and child will never be independent. Who will stop work to care for that child? The person who has to give up a career will lose out on pension, income, social interaction etc etc. It's usually the mother who ends up having to stop work and often the relationship breaks down. Marriage offers some protection.

Please do consider worst case scenarios they do happen. You can go from a healthy happy situation to death. illness and disability within the space of a day and yes it really does happen.

I will give you a single reason. And a good one.

Assuming the fertility treatment works and I very much hope you have a healthy baby, but just to give you a reason. If your baby is ill, before you have registered the birth ie you are both still in hospital only you will have parental responsibility.

Tbh, marriage left me wide open to the whims and spite of a man; remaining walled off rather than legally joined to him would have given him far less power to fuck me up as completely as he did.

Your life and financial security can change in a heartbeat!

I'm with you OP, I dont see any benefits. I lost everything in a divorce, marriage provided zero benefit or protection. I now have a child from previous marriage and want her to inherit my stuff, not new partner, which happens automatically if i stay unmarried but would require wills if i got married. I figure it's up to me to provide protection against loss of earnings via insurances etc, not rely on a partner who could also suffer loss of earnings.

In a medical sense NOK is whoever you decide, not based on relationship in the UK. Also your NOK does not make any medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated, that would be for your doctor's to decide. If you want anyone to be able to make medical decisions, then get Power of Attorney for health and welfare.

I think if you've set up your wills and Power of Attorney then tax is probably the only benefit, but as the higher earner you would probably be worse off in a divorce.
From a purely practical point of view there are probably small risks either way.

@Queenofswords88

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

As someone else has just pointed out 'power of attorney' and 'next of kin' are totally different issues serving completely different purposes, one could not be substituted for the other! Power of attorney means that you have control over and can make decisions about someones financial or day to day arrangements and can be done by anyone that the beneficiary chooses or nominates but in the absence of marriage NOK means that you or your partner would be bypassed in favour of say a parent, sibling or other close relative, even if they were not 'close' or aware of your situations!
I don't know much about civil partnerships so you would need to check out if you would be classed as NOK if you did go down that route...however, if you do have offspring it's a sad fact that the positive aspects of most legalities are all designed around parents being married and even if both names are on a birth certificate that might not be sufficient to avoid some annoying bureaucracies for one or the other of you at some time in the future...
It really is a minor thing to have to do and actually has very little to do with being 'out dated or anti-feminist' any more, it just makes life easier! 🙄

I wasn't for marriage for a long time but it reached a point that we became uncomfortable with the gap between our legal position and our private reality. We were committed life partners who wanted children - in the end marriage was a no brainer.

I think marriage is better at acknowledging non financial contributions - we pool everything but how we've contributed over the years has shifted in so many directions. Often the woman is disadvantaged by having children - they tend to become the main caregiver and the domestic load that may slide to the woman during maternity leave often never shifts back

If you had children how would that work? How would each of you change your lives and what would the financial implications be?

We went the Civil Partnership route as it offers legal and financial protections whilst not pandering to the outdated patriarchal practices of marriage. If marriage is not for you, a Civil Partnership might be… “Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits and also the ability to obtain parental responsibility for a partner's children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others”

If neither of you are going to give up work and own your house together its less of an issue really. You should make sure your will is up to date though as he wouldn't automatically inherit from you unless married.

Unfortunately the 'blanket' advice is good advice for 90% of women, because so many move into his house, give up work to look after kids, or dramatically reduce their earning potential. Count yourself lucky.

The other option is to wait to see if you have a dc as these little humans can make or break a relationship also wedding might be cheap but divorce isn’t. At the minute it’s not practical but long term for your dc it might be.

Yanbu. If you're more wealthy, don't do it. You'll get shafted on divorce. You're also expected to share your money and assets during marriage, ideal if you're the lower earner, crap if you're the higher earner.

We had no need to marry, I earned more, and as I own the house, I didn’t want him to be able to claim rights to it if we split.
But as we age, and I am slightly older, I realise that if I died, he’d have to pay inheritance tax and also would not be entitled to any of my occupational pension. So we just did a Civil Partnership, asked our 2 best friends to witness and come
out for lunch. Didn’t tell anyone except
my brother and nephew (my only relatives). If we’d had a child, I guess we’d
have had to think through the practicalities in. similar way. It’s a private arrangement about money and security and safeguarding rights, forget all the nonsense about fancy dresses and expensive occasions.

DH & I got married 3 weeks before he passed. (Long story)
If we hadn't gotten married dealing with estate would be so much more difficult than it is.
For that reason alone, I would say just go and get married, we'd booked a simple 2+2 wedding at the local registry office.

I agree that marriage or civil partnership can simplify a lot of admin. I'm married. I have always had a surname which is different to my kids...they are in their thirties.
Our dog took my surname because I paid for his insurance at the vets.
I know several people who got married as retirement age approached to simplify pensions and wills. If you don't want to be married a civil partnership would seem a good idea.

Woah. That's bleak.

I know a fair few couples in their 50s having quiet weddings for administration simplicity, and also they are fed up of calling their other half a girlfriend/boyfriend or a partner (which is sometimes a cause for confusion). For the ones I know best it’s been a quietly romantic day just for them and sounds really lovely and respectful reflection of their relationship.

Civil partnerships are identical to marriages in terms of rights and responsibilities - the only difference is you call each other civil partners instead of husband or wife. And civil partnerships are dissolved instead of getting a divorce.
They cost the same though.
And you can form a civil partnership without a verbal contract.
Good luck whatever route you choose, maybe chat to your local registration Service?

Euh. The dress???
in which other place can you wear this white superbe gown???
That is a very practical good reason.

It sounds like you're running through all sorts of legal instruments like trusts and wills and things to achieve what would be more easily achieved with marriage or a civil partnership... these are basically tailored to the situation you are in, and the financial pitfalls you are hoping to avoid... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

As has already been pointed out, marriage is irrelevant when things are going well, but of extreme importance when things sour. Marriage means that one person's life is not held at the whim / spite of the other, but is supported by law.

Right now, things are going well so marriage seems irrelevant to you. But you're planning on making changes (children) and, that brings two phrases to my mind. First, 'The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley'. Or, in English, plans don't always go as you'd want. Second, 'hope for the best but plan for the worst'. You can't depend on both of you continuing to work in good jobs, you can't take for granted both of you will continue to be healthy, you can't be sure any child will be born healthy (or at all). And you can't be sure to stay in love and want the best for the other.

The traditional marriage vows included 'for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health'. That's what you need to plan for. Are you sure you can set up those protections legally, without marriage and in a manner that cannot be rescinded by one without the other's knowledge? For example wills can be changed, but can be challenged by a spouse - not a non-spouse.

I sometimes think that the 'can't see the point of marriage' is the truly romantic point of view. Because it is romantic, isn't it, believing that that your partner will always love you, will never change towards you and would never fuck you over financially, isn't it? Whereas marriage is entering into a contract which binds both to minimum standards rather than chancing it all on the whim / spite of the other party.

Just in case its not been mentioned, if you have a child/children together, marriage offers significant financial support for the remaining parent.

Just for completeness, should note that the costs of the most basic civil partnership ceremony (in a registry, basic ceremony, one certificate) are exactly the same as for a basic marriage ceremony. The bare minimum legal ceremony is near exactly the same for both (substitute 'civil partner' for 'husband/wife') and the legal responsibilities and protections for both parties are in nearly every respect the same for civil partners as for married people. Obviously it does have a different name on the tin/certificate which might make OP feel different about it but otherwise I personally don't really understand why we still have it available as an option or rather why we still have a two tier system given both options are functionally identical - I would kind of prefer a french system where all state-registered partnerships are civil ones and then marriage can return to being a purely religious function but I don't see that happening any time soon.