Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

He’s very sensible. But if I was him I simply wouldn’t get married.

Think about it the other way round. I have been burnt by the rules that recognise that contribution to a marriage is not just financial. However there can be circumstances when the other party takes both money and emotional well being. Make sure she understands all the implications of marriage, it is a legal contract.
(speaking as someone who will have to give a mid 6 figure sum to my late husband's children despite him contributing nothing)
Editied to add, I appreciate how fortunate I am that I can do that, and money does not make up for the trauma my husband's children will have experienced.

I would add that if he's this concerned, she should really clarify how he sees things owrking financially longer term, BEFORE she marries him. So, for example, is he happy to continue with a split based on earnings, including taking on the bulk of the costs while she is on maternity leave and/or has to adjust working hours/career to manage childcare? That INCLUDES providing her with an income if necessary so that she can afford basic things like getting a hair cut or buying new clothes.

Similarly, how will the cost of child related costs be managed? She neesd to be sure he's not going to be one of those men who will say that she must pay the childcare or for days out with the DC etc.

How will larger purchases and expenses being split. Even if they're payinf or things proportionally, if he wants to go on expensive holidays, will that be coered by him as even a 40% cost fo rher would be hugely detrimental to her overall financial earnings?

In my experience, there are a lot of men who worry about this. they hear "horror" stories from their friends and get themselves into a state about it. But often, they're not intrinsically bad people, they just haven't thought about it before. If he's a good person, when these things are raised, he'll understand. If he's not, she should know now, before sh emarries him.

Very sensible of him.

I find it weird that people are constantly banging on about how people who are married should have joint finances, no separate bank accounts everything shared - except, and only, when the man makes a lot of money. It's so weird.

Pregnant they're not even engaged? 50% of marriages end in divorce and living together rates are even higher.

OP You have very little influence for his decisions, however you may be able to influence DD - Why is her salary so much lower than his? The reason I ask is that thankfully I have always been self sufficient financially, when married and now divorced. So I will never have to stay in an unhappy relationship due to being financially stuck. This is what I would recommend your DD focus on - building a career and financials herself so if the worst was to happen, she will be able to walk away, knowing she can support herself.

She should seek legal advice to ensure she is protected. A prenup in itself is not a bad thing, the problem is when one or both parties are not thinking about the entire lifetime of a marriage and how things can change.

The main questions to ask would be:
What happens to assets accumulated pre marriage
What happens to assets acculumated after marriage pre children
What happens to assets accumulated after marriage and after children.

Because based on the current set up, it seems likely that she wil become the primary carer to any children, as well as taking on the bulk of other domestic chores, so if they were to split after that, the key considerations would be 1. ensuring the children are looked after and 2. reflecting her contribution overall to the marriage by caring for children while he worked etc.

I had a pre-nup drawn up by a good firm of solicitors when I married. I was into 7-figures of assets at that time, plus income and savings. He brought nothing, and left with nothing from my assets. When we divorced, his solicitor told him it would take a lot of money to challenge the prenup. It is important that both parties receive independent legal advice prior to signing. They are not enforceable automatically in court, but they do give some protection (especially in the early years of marriage). Their biggest function is deterrent, as legal challenges are expensive. Some people are very much against them as they believe they go against the principle of marriage. However, they can be useful where there is a huge disparity in what people are bringing to the marriage. It is really important that she gets legal advice and plans for what will happen if she stops working to raise a family, or through sickness/ unemployment later on. In my present financial situation, I would never ever consider marrying again, or living with a partner. I have seen others being fleeced when things turn bad, and it puts me off for life. But not everyone who is wealthy feels the same way. I do understand your future son in law's position, but you are right to feel like protecting your daughter as well.

I would be less worried about the prenup than his attitudes towards women and the ‘poor’ men who have ‘lost their home’. In the cases where a woman has taken more than half it’s usually because her earnings have suffered as a result of being the main child rearer. Or they have a large mortgage and can’t afford to keep the marital home so they both ‘lose’ their home. I wonder if he’s also keen to enter into an agreement whereby he is able to do 50% of the childcare and housework so
that she can work on her career. I bet he wouldn’t consider the negative impact that might have on his career.

I think posters are confusing two things. The ownership of the house is DIFFERENT to a pre-nup. They’re not one and the same.

Owning a house as tenants in common, with unequal shares, is a normal thing to do when one partner has provided a much larger deposit and / or is paying a higher share of the mortgage. That’s understandable and reasonable here.

A pre-nup encompasses the entire assets of the marriage and may not be reasonable - as others have said it doesn’t take into consideration any changes to their circumstances - children, her suddenly becoming the higher payer etc.

I have to admit to slightly widened eyes when he said his reason was that many men end up in rented if they divorce. He’s obviously happy for her to go back into rented though!

This.
Feels like it could end up with him spending his money on whatever he wants while she's saving up to buy clothes she needs, and sitting in economy on a plane while he travels first class because he's treating her for the hotel and it's his money.

Maybe suggest the buy a cheaper house and contribute 50-50?

Ive said to him it needs to be fair and in the marriage would be uneasy if dd had to buy cheap clothes for eg and him with more income had much more spending money.. he said that - what people don't see is he does treat her - and he is generous- but again thats in his control

Red flag central here. You're right to be worried.

I understand his worries but a marriage needs to be equal and a partnership, I fear this one will end up the way so many I read of here.

She needs independent financial & legal advice - any pre nup must protect her & reflect her contributions to married life (which won't always be investments & earnings). A pre nup shouldn't be one sided.

Not much else you can do. Keep schtum and be there for her if it goes pear shaped

I think the two of them need to have a broader discussion about how a life together would work.

Everything can’t be about protecting your own position. What happens if someone gets a great job opportunity that requires the other to move? What if they have a disabled child? What if one of them loses their job? How will they handle finances generally?

I wonder if you have a problem with this because of how they are currently splitting finances? A 60-40 split when he already earns close to triple her wage plus bonuses is really not fair. No wonder he has more to put into their house. He’s got that from using her to pay more than her fair share of bills.

Why the fuck are you talking to him about it?!

I also dislike the idea of him 'being generous with her'. It's such an imbalance. It sounds like a horrible dynamic tbh.

I wouldn’t particularly want to marry somebody who was already planning our divorce in detail, in honesty.
I agree but im 60, I have heard way too many people in their 29s and early 30s say, well if it doesn't work out we can always get divorced.
First time I heard it was with my friends dd several years ago.
Marriage, for quite a few, seens to be a temporary relationship status!

Op, if it was the other way around and your dd was much better if financially, wouldn't you want her assets protected?

There is nothing wrong with what he wants; in essence, he's protecting himself. I'd say the same for a woman, fyi.

Any agreement she enters into needs to be a declining or sunset agreement, either a conditional or a fixed-date agreement, e.g., after 10 years or if they have children. The agreement is null and void.

She needs to go and see a family law specialist.

For people saying they are not upheld in the UK is just wrong; they are and have been upheld in the past, yes, on high-profile cases, but the principle in UK law has been set.

IANAL.
I think it isn't unreasonable but it it should have some time out clauses for duration of marriage and children.

I'd have no problem with it except that she absolutely must protect her full contribution eg maternity leave, possible impact on career prospects and pension. Who is paying what percentage of the bills? Funding holidays? Will there be a 'fun money' account where they both pay proportionately but each can access equally? And after all of this, will she be left with very little personal money each month?

You'd want it to be the other way round if your daughter was the loaded one ?

TBH I think that if this is the way he feels probably getting married isn't the best thing to do in the first place. He would be better off not getting married and keeping everything separate, which is a much better solution than a pre-nup.

As always with these threads, if it was a woman, everybody would be applauding her for protecting her assets.

I think he's being very sensible.

……And her husband was going to get pregnant, possibly several times, have time of work and get interrupted from his career?