Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

If OPs daughter had her bf's salary/bonuses and investments (instead of the other way around) she would very likely be able to have a comfortable maternity leave and not take big hit in terms of progression. By the time you've got to a place where you earn 85k and bonuses, you've pretty much established yourself in your field. With a 32k salary to start with, yes, she will take a big hit if/when she has children. Trying to fight for his money gives gold digger vibes esp. as her own salary is good but nothing to write home about. She needs advise from a good solicitor and she also needs to reassess the relationship and decide if this is the sort of marriage she wants. Maybe her bf should find someone like himself. Where they both bring in equal money and investments and they are both happy to ring-fence their pots and contribute equally.

I don't think a pre nup is bad in principle but it needs to grow with the marriage. So if they divorce after <5 years with no children that's one outcome, but if after 20 years of marriage and/or children then a different outcome needs to be agreed. The longer they are together and the more children they have then the more equitable it needs to be. In fact any children need to invalidate any 70/30 type agreement. And PP made a good point about infidelity and DA. She needs to be protected in the event that he cheats or abuses her so that she doesn't feel obliged to stay for financial protection.

That says it all really... 40% is a very high percentage for your daughter to pay, considering his salary and 'huge' bonuses. Why isn't it split to more accurately reflect their salaries?
So many red flags here.... sounds like he is very controlling and sees nothing wrong in this. Tell your daughter to run now, or at least do a lot more talking about all the long term consequences, especially with children and maternity leave, and everyday control throughout the marriage.

i also think it is a good idea for couples to formally protect the assets they enter the relationship with. e.g. the house deposits. however, once they are a married couple the rest of the house would be a shared asset.

None of this screams red flag - it sounds like he knows from experience (a) how important money can be not just in protecting himself but also in allowing him to look after those he cares about and (b) how much hard work often goes into getting that money. As others have said - pre-nups are not necessarily bad, even for the weaker party, especially given how often the weaker party doesn’t actually get all their “rights” under the law because the cost of pursuing it is out of their reach. They tend to only be binding when (a) they are fair (ie largely consistent with existing divorce law), and (b) both sides have been clearly advised by competent professionals. Just make sure you think her lawyer is good.

this is really sensible they are having these conversations before getting engaged, rather than getting swept up in the romance and pressure of impending wedding date and pushing them to the side.
marriage is a legal contract with huge financial implications and everyone needs to know what they are signing up to, and what will happen if someone elects to end this contract. if he was my son i'd be happy he was protecting himself, what if she decides to have an affair and leave him? equally, what if he does the same, she wants to ensure she is protected?
they need to talk about children and maternity leave - if she takes unpaid time off for children, or goes part time, will he pay into savings for her? pension? if not, then half his pension is at stake.

the alternative is that he doesnt propose and then your daughter is an unmarried mum with no legal protections at all. fine but what if she wants to leave him but is stuck?

I have sons and I would exactly be telling them to have an agreement and all the legal protections they can get. They will inherit money that has taken two generations of hard work to accumulate. I don't want somebody they are married to for a few years walking off with half of their assets that were earned with often back breaking work and a lot of sacrifice by their parents and grandparents.

I think you're right to be concerned. Relationships with this sort of discrepancy between what each party is bringing to the table can only really work when the person bringing the most doesn't see it as an issue. I think there's less to worry about in whether she'd be treated fairly on separation as she can't sign her rights away, and more about what their marriage will look like. A my money/your money model is doomed to failure unless both parties are roughly equal imo.

Put a clause in the pre-nup that says "in the event of infidelity or domestic violence by the male partner being the cause of their separation then the pre-nup is voided and she gets 50% of everything", let's see if he signs up to that...

While I understand the concept and the "fair's fair" logic of him hanging on to his investment, I wouldn't buy a house with him on that basis. It's not a level playing field and while in financial terms he's paying more £££ than your daughter, they're both paying 100% of what they can afford. It's not as though she has a choice or the ability to pay the same amount. Also, it'll never be a level playing field if they have children. As for him being generous, that's all very patronising if they are truly a couple. It also gives him all the control, which is a bit disturbing. I wouldn't mind betting that all of the examples he's given of the men who've "lost their homes" have children who needed roofs over theirs heads. I cannot get my mind around the idea that your daughter will be managing on what remains of her income and is married to a man who is substantially better off.

I genuinely can see his point of view, but personally I don't think I could marry a man or buy a house with someone who saw me as a potential financial liability.

Good luck having kids with a man that is not a provider.

Well he's very wise. My daughter owns her flat 100% but her boyfriend lives there. If they ever get married she will be getting a pre-nup as well.

I think lots people here underestimate being dirt poor and the worry of going back there

Perhaps encourage them to seek couples counselling if they cant have open dialogue about money and future financial planning as a married couple.

Pre nups don’t have huge legal sway in the uk.

HRTFT so maybe someone else has asked. But if this was your son what would you be advising?

Can't blame him. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be advising her to protect herself and her assets should the worst happen.

I agree with this but at the same time I think it's very difficult to make things fair and equal in a relationship where one partner significantly out earns (or is significantly wealthier than) the other.
I wonder how the daughter would feel if the boot was on the other foot?

Never get into a relationship hoping that somebody will change!

The you encourage them both to discuss what financial arrangements would look like after they marry and if they have children.

This doesnt have any bearing on his assets he enters the arrange with. They are his and should remain his.

Not so.
They are not binding but will potentially be taken into consideration provided both spouses had legal advice.

@Velveteenrabbitt she is being screwed over in advance.

When the time comes for pregnancy and babies, it won't be him who loses time, wages and pension contributions nor will he be the primary care giver and lose out on career advancement opportunities like many woman can be. Things like taking time off to care for sick kids can impact on promotions and advancement. How is she supposed to go back to school to study for new qualifications while Mr MoneyBags is out all day doing his thing and she has to manage the home and kids? She could (because woman are awesome), but it will be a struggle.

He will go on living his life and earning while your daughter is the one managing a house, life admin, kids and trying to earn in a career that is likely to stall while she is doing all that - and he wants a prenup!

He's just another cheeky male who thinks woman are gold diggers when we have our OWN earning power and we can do it while balancing kids.

I don't see anything wrong in ring fencing what he is spending now on the new house so he gets that back but the pre-nup needs to go. Or at the very least, your daughter should be financially compensated for any pregnancy time and birth injuries as well as body damage like sagging tits from breast feeding, child rearing time and costs of upgrading the house she suffers losses on as part of the agreement.

Get her compensated too! She should be made whole and be back in a pre-children state physically and financially if he gets to keep all his money "just in case".

are they ex-kids too?