Fiancé asking for a prenup

Agree this should be a huge trigger for him.

if the op responded with of course there should be a prenup. Your business should be protected, and I am marrying you for love and expect it to last a lifetime so is irrelevant, that would be a comfort.

but to say nah mate not sure I want to marry you if I have to sign that and can’t get my hands on your assets if we split, and starts spouting about how she has to be pregnant not him, should make this man really reconsider.

This. You also need to have taken your own legal advice. I'd say you're ok with the idea in theory but need to think about different scenarios (especially re a long marriage and/or children) and reflect that in the agreement. His solicitor will also be advising him that these things should be considered.

The fact that your response to a prenuptial agreement is not "sure, we're not going to need it anyway" is probably a trigger warning for him.

If you were a gold digger or a woman who wants to be single with a supported child then your actions would probably be:

1. Find man with some tangible assets
2. Get married
3. Have kids
4. Divorce and split marital assets.

It's indistinguishable from "i want to love you forever and have our kids together"

Scammers rely on emotional manipulation - its hard to distinguish from love.

Forget the lack of romance here. If you want to spend your life with him just sign it and move on. Assets from now on will be joint regardless of who works.

It could be said your reasons for wanting to marry are cynical and unromantic just as much as your partners request for a prenup is.

thank you for posting this.

I really don't see what the harm is in OPs husband-to-be has a prenup that protects the company as it is now - and that any assets accrued to the couple after marriage are divided equitably (taking into account any children etc)

if this were a man asking and a woman was the business owner for SURE mn would be in favour of a pre-nup to protect the persons current assets. It would be batshit not to.

Someone we know business wise, his wife left him. She did work in the business doing the paperwork. She got half. It's all over the local press his business has gone into liquidation owing 2.3 million. That's how fragile a small business is.

This 100pc and I know several women who have profited enormously from getting divorced.
Hope you have a long & happy marriage

I signed a prenup. To be enforceable in the UK it has to be FAIR. He cannot simply say he gets everything and you get nothing. It should also be adjusted every 5 years or court may throw it out anyway.

For example, mine says I must receive enough money to buy a home for me and any children in the area and lifestyle they are accustomed to.

It also states he must pay me child maintenance until the children are 21 or, if disabled, forever/ until they leave home.

And any money or assets acquired after the date of marriage is split equally.

He gets the family pile in return and his pensions. Which are both considerable.

So agree to it - but make it fair on you too. Get something out of it, security.

His business (in other words his earning potential) is something that he would be bringing to the marriage, in return she would be bringing her ability and willingness to bear children for him.

How old are you OP? Tbh your post and updates reads like you are going through the motions to tick off marriage and children rather than having any actual inclination to build a life with your partner specifically. Why you are having to talk him in to marriage when you already "plan to have children" is very strange - are you planning a life together or not? And if so, his prenup is no more unromantic or untrusting than your sensible rule of not having children while you're unmarried. You've only been together two years and it sounds like marriage is being pressured and hurried from your posts so absolutely sensible for him to protect his business that people rely on for employment and for you to not have children unless you're married. Although I'm not sure why you are convincing someone to marry you in the first place - that never ends well.

Split up.
This is not the man you are looking for.

Does your fiancé actually want to have children?

You have a clear plan to have children, with someone who will provide for them, and you too if you consider it necessary. That's fine. However you seem more interested in this hypothetical future than you are in the reality of where you are in your current relationship. You are forcing things.

He, quite rightly, while going along with you, is also moving to protect his existing assets, including his business and all the other people he is already responsible for.

You have a very cool-eyed hard-headed plan; why shouldn't he? The only reason this pre-nup would upset you is if somewhere you have an idea that marriage means you own all of him, and that you can take everything from him if (when) you decide you want to in the future.

Slow down. Find someone genuinely compatible to marry and have children with. Do you even like this guy?

If you are in this relationship primarily because you want kids, be honest, with yourself and with him. Don't do it. Or at least be less snotty about a mutually-agreed contractual arrangement.

Yes: we cross posted.

I think op is finding her stipulation is "romantic" because it involves saying she wants marriage, whereas his is saying he wants a pre-nup. But that's not a very analytical assessment of the situation. Both envisage a marital breakdown.

They are essentially both just taking sensible steps to make sure their very important relationship is built on firm ground that makes sense above and beyond the throes of passion - that fade, necessarily.

Maybe he'd find it unromantic if you didn't want to marry him without a claim on his pre-existing fortune?

Or that you don't want to commit to having children with him without marital ties. I think this is sensible of you btw - but it still could look "unromantic" from his perspective.

So he made it clear from the start that he's hesitant to marry, but you've drawn a line to say he has to compromise if he wants children with you; doesn't sound very romantic, and you wouldn't compromise on your red line because you want legal (financial) protection. His red line is protecting his business (legal and financial), so this is your compromise. Compromise should never be all one-way.

Prenups don’t mean you get nothing on divorce by the way. If it does, it is unlikely to be upheld as it would be unfair. Why shouldn’t he protect his business? Has the OP contributed towards it in some way?

Simply not true any more. Radmacher v Granatino. After this case, courts generally uphold prenups as long as they meet fairness and procedural safeguards (e.g., disclosure, no pressure, legal advice, time before wedding).

Just this very thread could be the start of a legal claim against a prenup, e.g., if the OP says she was pressured into it, didn't have enough time to consider it, etc but this thread shows questions and knowledge 6 -12 months before the wedding.

I'm going against the grain probably. I can see how this all feels very unromantic but marriage is a legal contract it's just become more romanticised over time. I'm a head person rather than heart so I think having these discussions is important. Well done on insisting on marriage to protect yourself & children when they arrive, obviously make sure any deal you make is reasonable then get on with your soon to be married life. I say this as a person who has observed many people getting screwed over in life (personal & professional)

So why has he agreed to marry you if he doesn't want to marry you? And why are you marrying him?

There's nothing wrong with him asking for a prenup. He wanted financial security just like you do, what's wrong with that? I think it's sensible. Why is it on for you to want security but it's not ok for him?

The feeling of it being unromantic isn't because of the prenup, it's because you've given him an ultimatum. I think you know he doesn't want marriage.

What would be fair is that they both benefit from marriage (men benefit to marriage too) and they both take out pre nups so they are equally protected.

The OP getting married is no where near the same legal protection as her DF. He gets married (one form of protection) and his business is protected.

I can't believe people think these two things are the same.

I think the key question is how solid is the relationship? Does he support you when things are tough? Does he genuinely see you as an equal partner? Does he pull his weight around the house? Does he make you laugh, and make you feel safe and loved? If the answer to all that is yes, then the prenup is fine, as long as you make sure it is fair to both of you. If not then the prenup is irrelevant, and you shouldn't be marrying him anyway.

Which is very smart thing to do. He has a responsibility for his employees and their career will he depend on the success of your marriage. You can negotiate some type of monetary compensation.

Except, she wants to get married to protect her and her children. He wants protection to just protect him.

Children belong to both, but the business just belongs to him.

Legally he will have to provide for his children
We all know that men find it very easy to avoid actually paying for their children!