Fiancé asking for a prenup

Who contributes to these? If you are on maternity leave or working part time will you get less spending money than him?
If you are in the UK then ring fencing the business but going on to have children and you going on mat leave/working part time and doing childcare will, AIUI, mean you have a claim on his other pre-marital assets anyway - he can't continue to build them up when you are married and have DCs, unless you do childcare - if he was doing the childcare, he'd have to scale back his business.

If you got married now, but split without kids in a year, I have no idea whether you'd get any of his business - that's probably the point to concede on - but honestly if he's just thinking business first and wife second, that's not what you want in a man.

Friends of mine got married in Switzerland years ago. They had a pre-nup because he had a business and wanted to protect his employees from being made jobless, should he have had to sell the company on divorce.
They did get divorced, he wanted a family life and she was very career-orientated, so it was good to have the framework in place and everyone understood what was what.
Yes, this is not at all romantic, on the other hand it is sensible and pragmatic - if there are peoples' livelihoods at risk.

I agree with this op.

You are - wisely - wanting protections on your side, and he is wanting them on his.

Romance is a lovely thing but the truth is that marriage is about a whole lot more ( and you know that because of your comments about it being non-negotiable if children are in the picture). Truthfully I think the people who go into marriage realising that are often the ones who actually make a good go of it. It's the romantics who run out of steam when up all night sleep deprived, fielding a sick child and their spouse is farting in their sleep.

I think it shows he is taking the whole thing as the serious step it is.

I know lots of people who threw caution to the winds of romance, marry in a haze of delusional lust and it all ended up on the rocks.

If you had all these assets and a successful business wouldn't you want to try and protect what you'd worked for? If they happened before, independently of your spouse?

Imagine having to give part of those things away to someone who you've fallen out with, and might have cheated or left you? These things do happen.

Legally he will have to provide for his children, I don't think there's any prenup that can get someone out of that responsibility. And anything accrued together during the relationship should be spilt if you do.

But not things either of you achieved before the relationship became serious.

Protecting his business is a way of protecting his future earning potential.
Having children is very damaging to a woman's future earning potential.

He wants to preserve and protect his future earning potential whilst expecting you to damage your future earning potential.

The problem with a prenup from the business is that if your divorce and it is upheld (they can be in some circumstances), you'd potentially have three kids and nothing from divorce. He could then arrange things to give himself no income so you get no child maintenance. E.g. by paying his salary to his new girlfriend. Hard no from me. He's either all in or he isn't.

I wouldn’t be marrying him, personally.

It sounds like he wasn’t keen on the idea of marrying in the first place and this is a way for him to keep some control when you’ve made it a pre-requisite for having children with him.

I wouldn’t want to have kids with someone who hated the idea of his life - and finances - being legally intertwined with mine.

A pre - nup is not common unless you are in the U.S maybe

Having a baby with a man is very risky, you will be bearing all the risks and the physical costs since you are the one who grows the child in your body etc. It's much easier for him to screw you over than vice versa. He wants you to take that leap of faith while he does everything he can to protect himself.
In other words, he's not taking a leap of faith but he wants you to leave yourself exposed to being exploited by him.

What? Does unconditional love mean being stupid? Protecting your assets is very common. Don’t want a prenup? Marry someone with similar finances.

What utopia are you living in? It's common knowledge that the motherhood penalty fundamentally disrupts women's careers, earning and wealth accumulation potential (not to mention health and other risks). Especially as men rarely fully lean into the domestic realities of marriage and parenting.

With comments like this you come across as a MRA scared that women are asking sensible questions.

You might not be asking for a legal contract regarding your body but you yourself said that you wanted ‘legal protection’ before having children. Is he not good enough to have children with? Maybe that was hurtful for him to hear.

I’m with your fiance here and think you can’t just have it your way. Either sign (with the correct legal advice) or be prepared to walk away.

From your OP and your follow up posts, this is not the man for you.
Find someone who loves you unconditionally, who doesn't have to be forced into marriage, and who will recognise the sacrifice you're going to make when you have kids because he knows it's a big deal and demonstrates that he will support his family financially even if the marriage breaks down.

Seriously, you're asking for trouble if you have kids with your fiance.

What's the "risk" here? You can take maternity leave and return to your career, put the children in nursery and carry on with your career. You can even share your maternity leave now so it is truly 50/50. She has only been in the relationship for 2 years, I imagine she is in her 30s so should have had enough time to save for a house etc herself, I don't understand unless she's bringing nothing to the party in terms of her own savings/assets and has no means to support herself, in which case she's looking for a meal ticket and he's right to run. There's no risk to her, it's win win, the risk here is on him, he is risking losing his assets on a relationship of 20 seconds. He just needs to find a woman who isn't after a meal ticket.

This x 100

I do not agree. It really depends on what’s in the prenup, not the prenup itself.

I have a friend who signed a prenup stating she wouldn’t receive anything—and in the end, after a divorce, she didn’t. That was ridiculous to agree to, especially since they had two children.

If OP and her husband want to have children, the prenup needs to reflect that—she will probably be financially relying on him. The prenup should acknowledge this, ensuring that both she and the children are protected and won’t end up in a difficult situation. That doesn’t mean she has to get a share of the company he’s trying to protect, but it should provide reasonable security.

OP wants marriage for protection- financial, emotional, legal, etc.- and I completely agree with that. However, you CAN still have financial protection even with a prenup. In fact, prenups are meant to be negotiated. It’s not about “how dare he protect his hard work” or leaving her on the street; it’s about clarity and fairness for both parties.

And honestly, nothing is more unromantic than arguing about money—but a prenup makes everything clear from the start.

It doesn't sound like you really trust each other @Aquea Also, 2 years together is too soon to be rushing into marriage. You barely know each other.

Going on everything you have said, I don't think you're suited. (Sorry...)

Oh, and yeah, a pre-nup isn't worth the paper it's written on in the UK!

!

It amazes me that people don’t get that marriage is a nuptial agreement. It is legally all about money. But it can be a blunt instrument and for many people doesn’t fit their circumstances. Which is why pre and post nuptial agreements are needed or can be desirable.

If the subject of pre nuptial agreements is unromantic, transactional and a red flag then so is a discussion on nuptial agreements. Personally if I was having children with someone who owns their own business I would be wanting a prenup that set in stone child support commitments. Cause divorce provisions and the CMS don’t really cope with that situation.

For sure, I'm not not arguing that – my point was more that OP doesn't necessarily have anything to fear from a prenup.

Reading back through her responses, it feels like the worry is not only that the romance has been take out of it (which I agree shouldn't be the focus – marriage is NOT always a romance), but that pregnancy and child-rearing for her is more of a leap of faith. Yes, marriage offers protection and yes, courts will be fair in a divorce, but we all know the realities of the real leap of faith it is for a woman because there are no legal protections when it comes to how good of a husband and father your partner will be until it actually happens. And we all know how easy it is for men to squirrel out of their responsibilities compared to women.

I suppose for OP it feels as though he gets a financial contract and all she gets is his word, because a marriage contract, sadly, just isn't robust enough.

Even more likely this leaves an additional bitter taste because OP has been given the impression for a while now that her partner doesn't really want to marry her.

and if OP takes the prenup to her own independent lawyer that lawyer will point it out.

And OP can have other things suggested in it, such as maintenance in case of x, payment in case of y, etc etc

But it is true: on here we often say that the partner with more assets is not the one who benefits from being married.

I think perhaps you misread my post? I’m on OP’s side.

@AqueaI think if you’re describing it as an ‘uphill battle’ already, before you’ve added kids into the equation this might not be the right relationship.

Before I had kids my friend said to me “your relationship needs to be 110% strong before you consider adding children, because that will test your relationship in ways you can’t imagine.’ She was so right.

If you are sure he loves you loads and is in it for the long term and that is also what you want maybe it’s ok.

If you have to threaten him to get him to marry you, then this is very much a “shut up ring”.
I get him wanting to protect his assets. And I get you not wanting to have kids before marriage due to the risk should it not work out.

It feels like he’s mentioned this pre nup to get back at you a bit. Honestly, I don’t think this is a good relationship. If he wanted to marry you, he would have to have been pushed

Like I’ve negotiated my love story

Probably because there is no love story?

Your OP has it all in this Freudian slip:

"I’m certainly not marrying for the sake of money alone". Well, you are. If not, if you plan to work FT, why does this matter to you?
You say you will carry his children and there is a risk of damage to your body - only his, not yours? what if he was poor? would you refuse to have kids with him.

Thank you for your input. 'Nonsense'? - It was a question I was asking and many other posters explained the situation quite nicely and intelligently. Thanks tho.