to wonder if anyone would agree to a pre-nuptial contract?

[EdgarAllInPink]

Hardly the last word in romance is it? Your intended asks you to sign a pre-nuptial agreement to safeguard their interests in the event of divorce. Or vice versa?

Do you think it really helps a womans interests if her Ex-H signs a prenup with a second wife in order to safeguard his DCs from his first marriage? Or are existing safeguards eg Will, prev divorce agreement sufficient? - or vice versa of course - Women sometimes are the ones paying support to ex-partners.

Do you think that, in actual fact, it shows that your intended doesn't trust you, and doesn't really believe it is forever? Surely if you trust them enough to marry them, you trust them not to destroy you in a divorce?

news article here

But what if you accumulated wealth independent of him while you were together.
As others have said for the most part it's not relevant to most people and if one partner is out earning with a family at home the argument stands up that they've been able to do that because his OH has been running the household. But when you look at the uber-rich or lets say someone like Rooney or any sports star, they work short hours, could afford childcare easily (and probably avail of a good deal of it) and their ability to earn was earmarked long before they met their OH most likely even if the money was actually earned while they were together, but essentially the OH has had no bearing or input on their ability to earn.
I have no idea why these people don't have pre-nups where they are able to avail of them (still not available in Ireland not sure on other jurisdictions).

oops freudian slip able to do that because his OH has been running the household should reas "their partner has been"

Chil1234 - I agree in part that some people would be better protected but I have a real problem with the pick and choose notion of setting something like this up prior to marriage.

To me you either get married and accept all that that entails or you don't.

I think I would agree to a prenuptial agreement under which, on divorce, I did not share in any family inheritance that he was entitled to or any assets built up before we got together. And vice versa.

However I would want an equal share of any wealth that was earned and built up during the marriage.

And I would want a clause that said if we had children and I reduced my hours/stopped work in order to care for them, he would compensate me for lost earnings - both during and after the marriage - in the event of a divorce.

Prenups would be largely irrelevent in Scottish law as only money, pensions and objects accumulated during the marriage are split if you divorce.
If I had 500k in shares when I married and kept them in my name and divorced a year later they would be regarded as my assets not marital assets.
I think Scottish divorce law is more sensible than English.
There is also no (or very limited) alimony.

Why would anyone not have one? "Pre-nups wont affect wealth generated during marriage so it shouldnt be an issue for most people". Actually this depends on your agreement, it is possible to have clauses relating to future wealth in a pre-nuptial agreement.

"To me you either get married and accept all that that entails or you don't."

Does this remind anyone of that quote from Isadora Duncan -

"Any intelligent woman who reads the marriage contract, and then goes into it, deserves all the consequences."

my best mate had that quote on the back of the programmes for her wedding :)

"To me you either get married and accept all that that entails or you don't."

Unfortunately, that's been the only choice up to now. You and people who feel the same way can carry on just as before and go down the traditional route. Those of us who are less starry-eyed about the financial realities of a failed marriage at least have the option of doing something different.

My MIL and SIL in cahoots with one another, sometime before I got married but after we'd announced the engagement, decended upon our house for a "visit", the true reason being they intended to "work on him" in order to get a prenup.

They had very little idea of what I did as a living at that stage - it sort of hadn't really come up, they hadn't bothered to ask, so probably assumed I was some kind of office chick on an average Londonish salary.

I wasn't.

He didn't do anything but sent him on his way, but over the years they came to learn just how ridiculous they sounded.

I wouldn't sign a prenup - I wouldn't ask someone to sign one - I wouldn't get married if I were that concerned over my "fortune" or lack thereof, depending who I was.

They have previously meant little in this country though things are apparently changing.

I'd sign one to protect any assets/finances held prior to getting married. I wouldnt ever expect to take a share of these at someone elses expense after they have worked hard to get them.

If we lived in a country where spousal support was like the USA's, i'd not want that either in the event of a divorce.

TD - that's what i found so insulting - the assumption that i was bringing nothing into the marriage

i thikn in some ways pre-nup could cause a split, couldn't it? if there was resentment about what it entailed.

chil agree that any pre-nup can't be unfair or totally dis enfranchising to one partner. That would make some unenforceable though, as presumably the purpose is to gurantee something happens that perhaps wouldn't be guaranteed by existing divorce rulings.

Why does it have to be the woman signing the pre-nup? My mother arranged for me to have a pre-nup because 20 years ago I was the one with the house and the money and DH had yet to make any. Ma had been through three divorces and taken to the cleaners twice. The agreement merely stated that what I brought to the relationship was mine and should remain mine fair and square. Had I entered the relationship with nothing but my career prospects and if DH had plenty of cash and a nice little job like I had at the time I wouldn't have had a problem signing with the boot on the other foot.

Chill234 Sorry, while I agree 100% that cohabiation can be deeply committed, I do not think that it is for one second 'unfortunate' that cohabiting couples do not have same rights as married people.
I do not want to live in a country where the govt can deem me to be quasi-married just because I've lived with someone for a few years. My views are based on freedom of choice and not old-fashioned ideas about marriage. Simply put, if any cohabitee wishes to have marital rights, they can marry.

I think this will kill marriage myself but this is because I am a pragmatist and see marriage as NOT being about love and committment but about being a straight legal deal between people and a lot of that deal is financial.
For example, a sahm gets some financial recompense in event of splitting up.

There may be other reasons for marriage- wanting to be centre of attention on a 'big day', being recognised as legal next-of-kin if spouse dies intestate and so on, but the reality is that most of marriage is about money.
This will kill (marriage) off.
I know only fabulously wealthy people are doing pre-nups at moment, but I think it will filter down to less rich folk.

Marantha - I wasn't fabulously wealthy.

onceamai Sorry, forgive me- it's just that I suppose in the UK pre-nups are associated with great wealth.

I am not critical of any couple who have a pre-nup. I certainly wouldn't base my liking of them as people on it, and I do realise that marriages break down, but I still think having a pre-nup goes against spirit of marriage.
I thought it was supposed to be about 'two becoming one' and that meant sharing EVERYTHING.

But you do share everything while married marantha. Sharing everything in divorce now that's a different kettle of fish.