They all lived happily ever after

[ElderDruid]

Not sure how old the oldest MN's are but looking for some wisdom out of curiosity.

Many (not all I admit) who got married in a certain era, especially my Grandparents, took their wedding vows really seriously, it has been till death do us part. Wouldn't say either or many from that era were religious or overly religious, but even when at times it looked like they could barely abide each other, they were together, whether it crossed their minds to separate I don't know.

What was it that kept them together long after the honeymoon phase? When life with several children had its ups and downs. You hear rumours of other old couples that are together, in their day one may have been notorious for being unfaithful, or unpleasant. But through it all they stayed put.

Now divorce and separation is just one of them things. You don't get on, one party does something wrong, you separate and divorce. Or even when a couple was good together like my BF there were differences that meant separation and divorce.

When you've been together a while dynamics change, your 'love' life isn't the same, you're pretty much friends, you fall out, you make up. Life goes on day in, day out.

My DH talks about women the same way he always has, I often wonder does he think is the grass greener. He jokes about getting a man pad to escape to. I wouldn't be overly fussed whatever he does, I just want continuity for the DC's.

I wonder if people should strive for the till death us do part, it's really quite romanticised. But in reality I rarely see a happy old couple. Although they smile for the milestone anniversaries.

Do you believe in till death us do part? What are your beliefs about marriage?

My aunt was married to my uncle for over 50 years and they disliked each other but were dependent on one another. Ironically she was one of the most vocal protesters about my mum leaving her husband

I take my wedding vows seriously. But I would divorce if for example, my husband didn't, or we just weren't happy anymore. I am thankful I live in a time where divorce is relatively easy to come about.

That doesn't mean at all that I take it less seriously- although I do think it does for some people.

Screwinthetuna
No I wouldn't, because those things would be an illustration of the lack of respect he'd have for me and our marriage. I'm his wife, not his servant. He's an adult, old enough to know a house doesnt clean itself and food fairies don't fill the cupboards.

As for spicing things up in the bedroom to stop him watching porn? No thanks, I'd rather be single than reduce myself to that.

DH's great grandmother divorced her husband in the 1920s. He beat her, but not their first child (a daughter - DH's maternal grandmother).

When DC2, a son, came along, he was treated appallingly - beaten, forced to sleep in a coal bunker for minor transgressions, often not allowed to eat. The fear that her son would die prompted the divorce.

She moved to a new town and told people she was a widow. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to fear for your child's life but still feel like you would be the one stigmatised for leaving.

"What was it that kept them together long after the honeymoon phase?"
The social environment of the day, which was so very very different from today. To be divorced or separated put you beyond the pale and you'd most likely be shunned. The wife would be blamed for being barren/frigid/harridan/harpy, and probably treated as a bit of a prostitute because she'd had sex and so must be gagging for it. Unwelcome advances would be made. The husband would be seen in not so bad a light, but still not quite respectable.

Also, this was well before the equal pay act. My grandmother was paid less than half what a man would have been for the job she did. So real poverty beckoned of you split up, and there was no welfare state back then. Your family might not even help, because you were no longer 'respectable' (ah, that word turned up a lot back then).

So women stayed, men knew they wouldn't leave, and behaved accordingly. And often there wasn't a honeymoon period; having to get married (due to pregnancy) was incredibly common.

"I wonder if people should strive for the till death us do part, it's really quite romanticised. But in reality I rarely see a happy old couple. Although they smile for the milestone anniversaries."
It should be a goal, yes - but if the marriage isn't working then no, you should not strive for till death us do part. That will only make you long for death.

My parents were a happy couple. Together for 60 years; no doubts, rarely an argument. All my grandparents, on the other hand were unhappy. But they stayed together because to do otherwise was unthinkable to them.

I have been together with my partner happy for 25 years. I don't think you should strive for death us do part. What we should want is a happy relationship. To be with someone who really loves you and wants the best for you, and you feel the same about them.

Just an afterthought - the wedding vows. It's about more than 'till death'. There's also things like love, cherish, forsake all others, richer or poorer, in sickness or in health. Maybe if both partners stuck to all those vows, 'till death' would just come naturally.

A marriage isn't a marriage unless there's respect otherwise it's just people sticking together for convenience. If I had to explain to my DH that housework needed doing or it was my responsibility to up things in the bedroom stakes because he was watching porn just because I'm the woman then I'm afraid I'd much rather be divorced

I think you've got a point, OP. The whole LTB thing has become a bit of a MN joke for a good reason. None of us are perfect, and the LTB advice should really be reserved for extremes such as abuse. Falling in and out of love is subjective. You can learn to love a person. I think the older generation did a lot of that. Also they were united by their shared history, which is a stronger bond than you may think.

I think it's hard for the children, which is why I won't LTB just because he's being a dick. My children deserve both parents, and I don't care what anyone says, the fragmentation of split families has an horrific effect on children growing up. Yes they get used to it. Yes they even accept the step-parent. But they bleed inside, whether you see it or not.

I hate the idea that my children would have to split themselves between two home and always miss out on one parent at birthday or Christmas. These should be the exceptions, not the norm. I speak as a divorcee with regret, luckily we had no children though.

I am approaching my Golden Wedding. In tough times I wanted to leave but there was nowhere to go. Without a husband women could not get a loan or even buy things on H.P. I had no income and no savings. My family would have been appalled if we had separated, and the reprisals from them would have been unbearable.

I was often lonely and unhappy, but DH was a good father, a good provider, a good person and always faithful. With the wisdom of hindsight I can see that we were probably equally to blame for our problems. Or even that neither of us were really to blame. Problems are just part of life.

I think that If people choose to stay in a shit relationship then fine, it is their right to do so. But they can't judge others for not being prepared to put up with things that they don't like.

Fwiw having two unhappy parents isn't a healthy situation for a child to live in

I do think it's sad how unimportant vows seem now. Even on mumsent, people are advised to leave their husbands constantly.
"He doesn't help much around the house", "leave him"
"He watched porn", "leave him"
"He called me boring" "leave him"

But does it not occur to you that the men in those senarios ate breaking their vows? To love and honour and cherish?

My grandmother left a violent relationship approximately 70-75 years ago. Then married an Iranian man, my grandfather.

I find both of these things incredibly brave given how life would been in the 40s/50s. Divorce then mixed race marriages were not the done thing back then.

oh and ww2 happened. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that. My GMs didnt see their husbands for about 5 years.

I was often lonely and unhappy, but DH was a good father, a good provider, a good person and always faithful. With the wisdom of hindsight I can see that we were probably equally to blame for our problems. Or even that neither of us were really to blame. Problems are just part of life.

But the Hollywood dream is that you're always entitled to be made happy by your partner!

It's sad that so many people divorce just because they've fallen out of love. The wrong sort of love ebbs and flows, the right sort of love, like the love of a parent, endures and sticks at it through thick and thin, abuse or infidelity apart.

I think it's interesting that people often treat the child differently compared to their partner. I know the relationship is a different one, but we more easily have the agape love for our children (sacrificial and unconditional) than we do for our partner. I've got different scales for my children and siblings compared to my spouse. My expectation is much higher and I'm much harder on my spouse!