to want my boyfriend to propose to me

[woahthere]

We have been together for 8 years. I love him very much. We have a lovely little boy together and he is a great father to my other 2 children. I am very very lucky, BUT, I wish that he would propose, we have discussed it and I know he is quite a quiet person and i have said that if we got married we could do it low key because i know he would hate the whole big shebang. AIBU to want to make it official. I feel let down that all of my friends, his brother etc are getting married and I still never get that feeling of joy of having been asked. Every special occasion I hope that he will ask me and he never does and secretly it really hurts.

scottishmummy I have never ever anywhere referred to the term 'Mr Right' and never would - it's just not a term that I like.

Marriage does equal legally binding entanglement and jumping through hoops if you split. How exactly does stating this mean that I am 'effusing' about marriage? Explain it to me, I just don't follow your reasoning at all. How is that 'effusing' or 'effusive' in any way? It is just a statement of fact.

if her dp doesn't want marry then yabu
can't compel him or anyone to marry
it's not comparable give and take to compromise on house aesthetics, whatever on kitchen tiles for easy life. there is no compromise on such big significant legal undertaking

hope op is happy with her lot,and doesn't get too preoccupied

She is NBU to want it, but she WBU to force it. I haven't said anything about give and take and would agree there is no compromise, other than perhaps agreeing to make wills and obtain appropriate advice and documentation, insurance etc to protect her and the children if they split/in the event of death.

In what possible way is pointing out the harsh legal realities of the OP's position wrong?

If the reality isn't sufficiently "compelling" to the OP's partner, then I don't think it would be unreasonable for her to be pretty fed up with his irresponsible and uncaring attitude.

No-one can be forced to be married, but if they are in possession of all the facts and still reject their responsibility to their partner and children, then in reality, what does that say about them and their attitude to the relationship?

"hope OP is happy with her lot" - well she has made it pretty clear that she isn't. Her question was "AIBU to expect my boyfriend to propose to me?"

How patronising to suggest such an important issue is something she shouldn't be unhappy or "preoccupied" with. Anyone in her position would be both. If they could read and had half a brain, that is!

So just to make it clear, in answer to your question OP, no, YANBU!!

cannot compel him to marry despite what the legalities may confer

that in no way makes her dp selfish,olga,it's a curious summation just because one individual won't acquiesce and undertake a serious and legal undertaking to make his dp happy that he is not undertaking his parental responsibilities seriously.op maintains he is good dad, good partner. she cites no parental neglect. but frankly she's proposed, he declined. op has made it abundantly clear what her preference is...and her dp doesn't take her up on it. so all things considered, she reports a good life, nice kids, nice man of course I wish her well with that,and advise take stock what she has got. if he won't marry her it's pointless,and consumes a lot of emotional energy to dwell on an unfulfilled wish

so olga, you asked what does this say about those who chose to remain unmarried....it simply says they don't want to be married. for a plethora of individual reasons.

also no one has responsibility to marry their partner
it is entirely individual preference
I am unmarried, and have never wanted to marry.
partner and I had the significant issues discussion,prior to having dc

1. I dont want to be married, we did make legal and financial revisions with solicitor
2. I would not be housewife, when dc came I continue ft work
3. children have both our names

neither, he nor I have a responsibility to marry just because it confers legal rights or an antiquated societal notion of proprietary. and we discussed this early on, both concur. so no issue to resolve

Well bully for you, scottishmummy, I'm pleased to hear you and your partner are happy with your principled position. However, it wasn't your position we're being asked to comment on.

The question I asked was in relation to those who are not happy to fulfill their partner's wishes - not those like you where both partners are happy to be unmarried. That's a different situation entirely. Do you not see that?

you're being bitty over combative no bully for me whatsoever

if you peruse the thread you will see, numerous subjective accounts given by other posters as to their particular set circumstances. so despite your protestations,it's entirely legitimate to discuss ones own circumstances

think you'll find it's the mn norm.goes bit like this.....

op thread initiate discussion
specific answers to,and general sharing of facts not related to op post

Gee thanks. You really are patronising. I just don't want OP to get the wrong impression of the legal position from people like you. Which is why I keep trying. Anyway, I think we all know your story now. Very interesting. But not exactly relevant to her, or to her original question.

I thought the OP's partner's answer was 'maybe, someday'. Thus giving her hope that sometime down the line he would marry her. He could just be dangling the carrot though.

OP I know you said you love him, he's a great father but does he realise about the next of kin stuff? Can have serious implications if either of you is seriously ill/taken into hospital/in an accident or dies. His/your parents will be the NOK and so be the ones making the decisions.

scottishmummy- your own arrangement is of no consequence. But given you want to discuss it, is it possible he's just not that into you?

well you would say that,given you think unmarrieds are fibbing or deluded prufrock!

you're right he's not want a wifie and doesn't need a mrs

sweetlilytea,youre completeley wrong about NOK and consent. bad and wrong advice

in england nok, is not defined by law and can be any capeable adult. in scotland nok is also not defined there is no legal definition of Next of Kin in Scotland and it can be whoever a person appoints. Usual Practice was this would be deemed to be the closest relative (by blood or marriage) but it can in fact be anyone you choose. If there is any dubiety here it may be worth you nominating your next of kin in a written format if you wish. scotland did discuss whether cp would automatically be nok, but did not go down that route. in reality these days most trusts and gp acknowledged and aware nok not necessarily immediate family

common myth is that it is family only-this is not the case. you can nominate your next of kin, you must inform the NHS trust, GP etc.get it documented in notes this can be a cohabitee. all competent adult patients are asked to nominate their next of kin formally on admission to hospital. This is not simply a contact number but has potential significance, as the nominated person must be willing to best reflect what they believe would have been your wishes in the event of your incapacity or death. It is this person that staff would turn to for advice/guidance/help about your care if you were unable to respond yourself. For example, this might be because you are unconscious or unable to communicate due to illness or injury.
in the event of your death, it is your next of kin who would be consulted about bereavement issues such as making funeral arrangements, arranging a hospital post mortem or organ/tissue donation.

the role of next of kin is to express your likely wishes when you cannot.Your next of kin cannot consent or withhold consent for care on your behalf. But as your next of kin, their views on what you would have decided will be sought. These views will contribute to the decision that the clinicians caring for you (and who have a duty to act in your best interest) will make regarding your treatment and care. Thus, if you cannot make that decision for yourself, the final decision of care rests with the clinician in charge of your care.

If, in the case of an emergency, were a nok not nominated nhs would seek advice from whoever we believe to be 'closest' to you and best able to reflect your wishes; for example, your current partner or closest relative.

Historically, the next of kin was the spouse or nearest relative of the patient, but Your next of kin does not need to be a blood relative or spouse; they can be your long-term partner, cohabitee or even a close friend.

Whoever they are, you must ensure that the person you nominate is aware of the duty/responsibility that being next of kin may entail, e.g. they may have to make treatment decisions on your behalf Need ask them if they are willing to be nominated as your next of kin.

you can nominate your nok via gp and this will be recorded in notes

MrsJAlfred - thats exactly what I was thinking haha
scottishmummy, it seems like you doth protest too much! Bet if your dp proposed you'd bite his hand off!

Scottishmummy, that is fine as long as you get round to doing all the nominating etc, but how many do? My guess is not many. And if the worst happens, and you have a difficult relationship with your inlaws, it can make an extremely stressful situation even worse.

I have read many articles and heard many anecdotal stories about this - there's one on the other thread at the moment where the dp died and his mother took his ashes abroad. There was nothing the other partner could do to prevent this - had they been married she wouldn't have been able to do this.

i do hope people read the nok can be any capable adult you nominate

there is no formal paperwork but some sites will sell you a NOK card or free card at a nok site info here

But I cannot emphasise enough to let your gp know and hospital if you attending for appts

but sweetlily,your scaenarios can be avoided and youre incorrect that nok is automatically family

witj cohabitee and same sex becoming more prevalent, trusts and gp are more aware of individual familial circumstances

so your nok warning to op is not as clear cut as you posted

But what if you're unconscious/mentally incapable of actually nominating?? Or dead? Then you can't nominate can you?

I wonder how many co-habiting couples actually have the necessary legalities in place. And if you're going to get a solicitor to put paperwork in place to give you the same rights as married couples, then why not just get married? I don't understand it really.

are you being obtuse?one needs to have capacity to nominate a nok.so in your dead/unconsciouss its unlikely doctor will rouse you to ask

however as i have said any capable adult can be nominated as nok -make note to Gp get it recorded.

whyis it so hard to understand sweetlily that someone may not wish get married, but still make good sound provisions?

its as straightforward as not everyone wants to be married
quite simple

I.can't understand why people are refusing to believe that co habitant couples are making proper arrangements to protect themselves and their children in the event of a disaster!

ach,seeker we must be deluded and fibbers
just waitin to be asked

hell, or else people would have to consider
1.not everyone wants to get married. or is hoping for the bended knee

1. being unmarried doesn't mean irresponsible and yes one can make financial and health provisions to give adequate cover

Fine, I'm not saying you should get married. But there are enough real life stories around that say in the event of the worst happening people have not made those provisions. I'm not saying nobody does.

With a bit of luck this will be a wake up call to those who haven't.

i agree people should make sound and adequate provision for family and partner
and this can be undertaken whether married or not
there's a plethora of free advice online

Actually, I think wrt pensions you can't legally put anything in place - it has to be marriage.

There was a story of a forces girlfriend - who despite owning a home and having a child with him, didn't get the widow's pension when he was killed in the line of duty. It was an absolute disgrace, and one of the (more unromantic) reasons me & dh decided to marry. Not that he's in the forces, you understand - but he has a decent pension.

This was a good 10years ago though, so maybe they've changed things now?