Fiancé asking for a prenup

Why do you assume he doesn’t want his children protected? Where is the basis for any assumption that he intends to deprive his children of what they are entitled to if their parents separate?

Pre nups can be mutually beneficial for both parties. It’s not just a case of him keeping assets to himself.

they are also not legally binding in England, although a divorce judge may well choose to uphold the pre nup, depending on the situation.

DH and I have a pre nup as he has family money. He has a savings account that I can’t touch, I have £60k he can’t touch. We would split any property 50:50, he would cover the children’s school fees until they leave full time education, he would pay X amount per month per child in maintenance. And the amount I would be entitled to, increases every 5 years.
I agreed to that because to me, it makes sense. I shouldn’t be entitled to the same amount of his money if we’ve been married 5 years or 20 years.

Of course it will be you carrying your children if you decide to have them as I assume you have a womb and he doesn’t. I don’t really see a connection with that and a prenup? That being said if you do have children, in the event of divorce the welfare of the children will outweigh a prenup.

My dd will be asked to sign one if she gets engaged as her partner has substantial family assets. I think this is fair although I will have the best lawyer look at it.

Well no because we have all been saying that prenups will be upheld unless it would be unfair to do so. Giving someone "nothing" would of course be unfair and that would not be upheld at all and no lawyer would advise anyone to try to negotiate a prenup on that basis. Ringfencing your pre-acquired assets that the other spouse has not and will not contribute to is nowhere near the same as trying to leave them destitute on divorce.
The fact that you can't spell Radmacher and seem to think it's unimportant shows how utterly little you know about family law. It's not the first AI thing that comes up but rather a seminal case that completely changed the legal position on prenuptial agreements. Any family lawyer knows exactly how important it is. The Law Commission has also recommended codifying the law on prenups in 2014 and the whole of financial remedies law is currently being debated for reform and that reform is likely to include statutory protection of prenups. You genuinely haven't got a clue what you're on about with your suggestion that people just sign documents that are highly likely to be followed in the even of divorce.
Prenups are particularly important in second and third marriages where people want to ring-fence assets to pass them on to children from the first relationships. They are not just for the ultra-wealthy, as the OP's scenario demonstrates.

Surely it means someone who runs a business that makes more than it costs to run. Could be anything from a modest craft side hustle to Alan Sugar.

Bit of a tangent, but I do think the dating market gets horribly tangled and knotted when people equate 'successful business owner' with wealth and status, when what it more often means is someone who already has a fuckton of responsibilities to other people and very limited time to call their own 😆.

OK. Let's say a rich guy marries a broke waitress (other clichés apply). They have two kids and live happily ever after. For the next ten years anyway. Rich guy was smart and got broke waitresses to sign a pre nup. She gets nothing if they divorce. Sounds great.

Ten years later, two kids and holiday home in the Cotswolds, they get divorced.

"Ah ha"! Thinks rich guy, she signed this hear pre nup. She gets nothing!

What do you think happens in the family court?

Do.you think the court is going to order the waitresses to move out of the family home and back into the bedsit she had when they first met?

No.

Do you think rich guy will kick the mother of his children out of the family home when the kids turn 18?

Almost certainly not, the kids would take a very dim view of it and reality would kick in. Daddy making Mummy homeless isn't polite dinner conversation.

Pre nups very rarely stand up to any form of logical, real world family dynamics.

Now, if you were already a multi millionaire. Had vast resources, you might be able to protect the bulk of your pre wedding fortune. What's a few million when you've already got 50?

But for most people, they just don't have any benefit in the real world. There usually isn't sufficient assets to justify them, and the complications arising from sharing a life together make the application of the pre nup very difficult.

People need to stop quoting the Radmacker case (it's probably the first thing that A.I comes up with when they ask).

Try not to think of it as an insult. All a prenup is doing is simplifying the process slightly should you decide to split up at any point in the future. It gives a helpful starting point from which to negotiate as it sets out what each of you have at the start of your marriage. I think this is particularly important when 1 or both parties owns a business as this is where things can get extremely complicated and contentious at the divorce stage.

If I was in his shoes and I had a business and other assets and there was an imbalance with what my partner would be bringing to the table in term of their assets, then I would want to do the same and have a prenup.

It is just the sensible thing to do.

I would be more concerned that your partner was not keen to get married to you. That would be a red flag for me and I would reconsider the relationship because of that.

That should read, 'solved' not "sold".

This is a REALLY bad deal for you OP. It’s really NOT the same as , say, him putting £100k into a deposit on your joint house and him seeking to protect this.

Remember that the assets YOU bring to the marriage - your domestic labour , carrying , giving birth to and raising the children will be joint assets, over which he will have a claim ( or he will have already benefitted from them during the marriage ). He will have a claim over YOUR pension, savings and assets but you will have no claim over his.

In addition, he will be able to avoid paying child and spousal maintenance,

Im not a lawyer but I know a lot about this from very bad personal experience. If you want to know in detail how this could work out for you,,please DM me.

Is the OP's fiance from that level of wealth do you think?

This problem would be sold by all those in favour of contractual relationships being together and those of us who are more free spirited being together. I'm surprised it wasn't apparent which camp the OP's boyfriend fell into from the off!

Being a parent and actually doing the parenting are not the same thing and we all know the lengths to which men will go to avoid doing any of the parenting, ditto avoiding financial obligation towards their children.
If he wants children then she is the asset.

Yes, because in the UK wealthy people protect their money differently — they don’t hold assets in their own name. I even have a friend whose money and house is under his mother’s name so the husband wouldn’t get anything after a divorce. They also use trusts so that the “individual” doesn’t technically own the assets. It doesn’t mean they don’t protect themselves — they just do it in another way.

Personally, I prefer a prenup rather than my husband transferring money to someone else or putting everything in a trust and not even knowing where it is or how much there is. A prenuptial agreement feels much more honest to me.

I don’t think those are exactly equal are they. He will also be a parent to those kids and have a financial obligation lasting until they are adults. He is bringing the business, OP is not bringing assets. He wants to protect the business.

If you are a man reading this and wanting a relationship don't think like this!!

That's hilarious - poor little men

I think this is entirely reasonable.

Would you want your fiance to have a say over your career if you split? To make decisions that might mean you'd have to give up your job and start again?

The business is just that - business. In most marriages it doesn't feature as something on the table at all. You have your separate careers but marriage here complicates things and he has responsibility for 35 people's livelihoods.

As long as he's happy to split what you build together then I don't see an issue. Make sure things like your pension are covered if you should give up work to care for children etc.

It could be a very sensible way for you to add your own protections.

Yes it seems a bit cold and transactional but unfortunately that's just the nature of the thing and it's not a reflection on a state of a relationship.

You can still build a life together separately to the business as any other married couples would.

If he has more in the house but you are paying the mortgage then that should be ringfenced as it is for millions of people who put in unequal deposits. They are considered essential so not sure why this is different.

Then OP should have no problem sourcing sperm from someone who gives their enthusiastic and informed consent. Instead of having to inveigle, cajole and bully her current guy down the aisle.

Well its hard to get a baby without sperm.

I actually think envisaging marriage as some kind of provision of sexual organ hire is a bit gross anyway, ("With my body I honour you, and with my womb I provide a service of value") no matter how hard the womb works. Shouldering a parental load I will allow plays a part.

Yeah but sperm ain't worth shit!
The woman with the womb does all the work.

Yes, I think there is an element of this op.

You are pushing him into something he doesn't want - or at least he doesn't want it on the terms you want.

He's being persuaded to bring his sperm to the marriage, when he probably doesn't actually want to be married. Her "willingness" to bear his children is dependant on him filling her demands for marriage. He should absolutely protect the existing value of his business. Any future increases would belong to both married partners, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that if OP already owned a property, she'd be advised to protect it from any bloke asking her to marry him so he could be "legally protected".

It sounds like the issue is less the prenup itself and more the overriding sense you have that he doesn't really want to marry and isn't fully committed, and the prenup is just another sign. Had he proposed more freely and seemed keen in all other respects, and then said that he did want to protect this particular interest but would always provide properly for any children... you still might not like it but you'd probably find it more palatable.

So just stay as you are.

Being with someone this short a time and planning a wedding, shouldn't make you feel sick to your stomach OP.

Just enjoy your relationship. Nobody needs to have kids and if kids are important to you, then end it and find another future.