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.

To be perfectly honest, you are right. I was aware a small minority do let unmarried beneficiaries, I didn't realise it was a common practice.

Like I said I don't support the law, just saying how it stands. Hopefully there will be more changes afoot with the increased number of committed cohabitants.

(only saying cohabitants as that's the legal term and my exams are in two weeks - trying to stay in legalese to make it stick in my brain )

I don't support the law either in this. On another thread (I have namechanged since) I argued for Helena Kennedy's stance that when a couple live together, have children together and are in every respect living as a married couple, they should have the same rights as married couples. I was shouted down by the majority, strangely enough, but I still support the idea. It is the case in Australia, and a few other places I believe.

however IMO the caveat is completion of appropriate paperwork, notification on nok, wills, parental rights, and joint tenancies to be completed,prior to acquiring a raft of rights. demonstrable understanding of ramifications

I don't think the act of simply living together should confer rights to property etc.sometimes people live together with no intention of shared finances etc

police
nhs
fire
local authority
all allow unmarried partners to be beneficiaries of pension if nominated

armed forces will pay civil partners pension but not unmarried partners

"Wonder if there are any women on here who's partners have been pestering them to get married for years but have so far refused?"

Me. Together 10 years, living together for 9. I told him from the start I never want to marry. He has asked many times and/or waxed lyrical about how nice it would be and how he has such great dreams of walking me down the aisle and how great I'd look in a wedding dress.

No, thankyou. He has given up asking me to accompany him to weddings we're invited to now, he either goes alone or we don't go.

He once asked me to marry him for tax reasons - so I agreed. I'll marry him when either of our personal estates are valued at over £325,000 or the Inheritance Tax band at the time.

And thankyou all for the financial concern, I am the named beneciary of his pension, life insurance, work insurance, nominated NOK, we have joint wills and mortgages and joint parental responsibility. We're both British nationals. I am a SAHP with my own assets nothing to do with him.

The very, very few legal benefits not open to us are a small price to pay for the insurance that we will never have a messy divorce.

MsEltoe
I wonder how many other SAHP's are in your position - with "own assets nothing to do with him". Not many, would be my guess.

And by the way - there can be messy separations as well as messy divorces, especially where children are concerned.

MsEltoeNWhine, thank you for eloquently illustrating what I have been banging on about for years.

There is no comparison with separating if not actually married

If the relationship breaks down you will find yourself un-nominated as a beneficiary and entiled to 0. How is that any protection? And a much larger % of cohabiting couples than married couples will find their relationship breaks down.

My studies indicate that a cohabitation separation can be just as messy where properties are involved - even more so if couples are tenants in common. bloody nightmare it would seem, and court involvement is still necessary.

Hence why I would prefer certain rights for cohabitants - it would make the general law easier (my studies would be easier too )

One other thought - everyone here is banging on about occupational pension schemes - but that isn't the full story. Comparatively few people are lucky enough to be members of these schemes. What about state pension and bereavement benefit?

some of you seem incapable of understanding
some folk (Inc women) do not wish to marry
nor do they pine for marriage
nor fear penury if unmarried and partner dies

just as some of you,value marriage and see it as integral defining part of who you are....others equally do not wish to be married and it's not significant or desired

India Knight wrote n article recently about the umarrieds. She thinks all women want marriage.

I am not sure what protection I could have. I am financially independent though and have no need for anything of dp,s and vice versa. We have one child now almost grown upland he is well provided for. Everything I have will be left to dp and vice versa. I can never understand this idea that all women wold be up shit creek without their partners signature on a piece of paper. I fully understand that it protects in the event of death divorce etc but I do think once the kids are grown and you are able to wotrk again you should also make provision for yourself. I know of all theprotection marriage gives and that's fine and a good thing if you feel protected. But it is nearly always spoken about in terms of the woman somehow being left high and dry which I am not comfortable with myself. We have been together 21 years and I trust dp completely but any scenario which woldmsee us no long together would have little effect on me in terms of money.

that might be significant if knew who she was?
who is ms knight

Sorry I pad!

Didn't say anything about anyone else now did I.

And it does guarantee we won't have a messy divorce. The clue was the big grin.

olgaga I would guess many people have their own assets to bring into a relationship, we just chose not to merge them other than in joint tenancy on the mortgages. I'm not speaking of vast estates, sadly.

India Knight is wrong

ReindeerBollocks I think you've got your joint tenants and tenants in common the wrong way round...

As for pension scheme benefits, there are various benefits that may be payable on death depending on the scheme. The scheme rules determine who is eligible to receive what, although many schemes provide for a lump sum on death that can be paid to anyone (normally either the member can nominate someone, or they can make an expression of wish and the trustees decide who gets the payment) and then a survivor's pension. Often the rules will state that the survivor's pension can only be paid to a legal spouse or registered civil partner, so I'm afraid your statement scottishmummy that " there is no blanket universal rule that it has to be married person" is just a nonsense. It depends on the scheme rules, and in my experience most schemes require the survivor to be a legal spouse or registered civil partner.

Clearly.

Maybe DP should threaten to leave me unless I marry him, in case he gets left on the shelf. Or maybe he should have too much wine and cry a lot about how he needs to be special?

I've just got no incentive to marry him. And as we all know, a desperate man is just not attractive to a woman. I can't possibly know I want to spend my life with him if I don't want to marry him, because the two things are mutually exclusive.

He should with hold all sex and babies and refuse to do any housework until I agree to buy him a ring. But then, if I'm not bothered about him enough to marry him and ensure his financial security by tying it to mine (which I'm not sure would work anyway) then I'm not much of a partner (apparently).

He shouldn't have moved in with me if he wanted to be married, should he. And certainly shouldn't have had children with me. I mean why should I buy the bull when I can get his man-milk for free?

emjsy reread your post to me,see the bit you write it depends on scheme rules Yes that's bit were you're are actually agreeing with me.as you see I am saying there is no universal rule, which you are acknowledging.you acknowledge it depends upon the scheme and the provision the employer makes

thanks for clarifying you accept there is no universal pension eligibility rule,and does vary individually from scheme to scheme

MsEltoe - that's rather dismissive of those who 've given up careers to mind children.

EmsyJ, it is probable that my information is not correct.

My understanding from my manual is that tenants in common hold equal beneficial interests unless one party can prove otherwise, and that automatic transfer does not exist for tenants in common when their DP dies. This is fitting with the rest of the information for cohabitants. However, this is on a family exam and not a property law question. Maybe therein lies the difference? I would love you to clear it up for me to help me understand it further.

I merely turned round things that have been said on this thread, MrsJAlfred, don't mean a word of it of course.