Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

House/kids/marriage - in what order?!

198 replies

Jaimejaime · 19/04/2017 21:48

Which should come first?! Confused

DP is 32 and I am 23. We are engaged and currently live in a rented property where we have been for 3 years. We have enough money saved for a deposit on a house and with our combined salaries can afford a nice family home. However, this will mean using every last penny of our savings up... meaning a wedding would have to be quite some way away. We are also keen to have a nice long honeymoon together.

In addition, we are keen to start a family relatively soon (I always hoped to have my first by 25 and be married first) which is also going to cost us not only in purchasing all the necessaries but we would like to have some money saved up to make up for my maternity leave etc.

There is no way we can afford to do all 3 at this moment in time so I'm wondering how you all did things and how it worked out for you?!

OP posts:
Trills · 19/04/2017 22:09

Live together first

House/marriage in any order after that

Kids never

Original poster
Jaimejaime · 19/04/2017 22:09

And yes DPs age is also a factor in our reasons

OP posts:
NameChange30 · 19/04/2017 22:10

DH bought his first flat when we were together but not engaged. I wasn't in a position to buy with him at the time but we lived together in the flat and he (generously) always saw it as "ours" even though it was technically his.
Then we got engaged and married, then we sold his flat and bought a house, then had children. I think that's the ideal order tbh, but if DH hadn't already been on the housing ladder, we might have bought a house before getting married.
FWIW I think you should prioritise buying a house. A wedding doesn't have to be expensive and you can do it cheaply before buying a house if you want, or you could save up for a wedding after you buy a house.
But whatever you do, get married before having children! At 23 you have plenty of time. Why the self-imposed deadline of 25?!

PumpkinPie2016 · 19/04/2017 22:10

We did house, marriage and then child (only have 1).

It was important to me to be married before I had children although I appreciate everyone is different.

In an ideal world I would have got married before buying a house together but funds meant it made sense to buy the house first and I am glad we did.

Original poster
Jaimejaime · 19/04/2017 22:11

Thanks everyone, this is really interesting Grin

OP posts:
Doilooklikeatourist · 19/04/2017 22:12

Each had own house
So house together and marriage at about the same time
Then children ( honeymoon baby )
And another 2 years later

TheHiphopopotamus · 19/04/2017 22:13

You don't have to have an expensive wedding. There's no way I would have kids without being married, for legal and financial reasons as someone said upthread.

There are so many threads on MN alone about women who have children without being married and end up being screwed over when the man walks away.

Don't underestimate the protection being married gives you

Absolutely this ^^

sailorcherries · 19/04/2017 22:13

I done child at 17.
Lived at home.
Moved in with an ex, his DD and my DS at 20 and engaged.
I ended it with him.
Lived at home.
Rented with OH.
Bought a house with OH.
Due a baby in 4 weeks.

Marriage is not on the cards atm. It worked for me, even that failed relationship in the middle helped me move on and grow up.

user262728 · 19/04/2017 22:13

House - marriage - children. Like that is quite traditional as I'm not in every other sense of the word.

NapQueen · 19/04/2017 22:13

We bought our house, married 2 years later (and was 12wks preggo on the day).

Moanyoldcow · 19/04/2017 22:14

I did house, wedding, child.

Don't spend a fortune on a wedding - definitely don't spend your deposit!

It's nice to have a house you can organise, adjust as necessary and decorate before baby comes along.

elQuintoConyo · 19/04/2017 22:14

Wedding (small and cheap) + child.

We rent. Gives us greater flexibility (we're not in UK). Actually, not bothered about marriage, but as i'm a different nationality from DH and we live in his country, we'd be nutty not to have married first.

Wedding and honeymoon weren't all that important to us in themselves, other than the legality, neither is owning property.

We have very healthy savings.

MadameMaxGoesler · 19/04/2017 22:14

And don't forget the 4th leg of the table: pension.

Cubtrouble · 19/04/2017 22:15

House first!!!

Budget for wedding, have holidays and trips and enjoy your life for a bit first!

Then children.

I did this. It worked and I don't regret waiting a few years for my children.

Good luck!

MooseBeTimeForSnow · 19/04/2017 22:15

House in 1993, wedding in 1995. DS born 2011. Lots of very nice holidays in between wedding and child and emigrating to Canada!

PeaFaceMcgee · 19/04/2017 22:17

Kid then house purchase and still not engaged. I had a big inheritance so financially secure.

IAmAPaleontologist · 19/04/2017 22:20

I say stop trying to plan so much! Take life as it comes. Children can be born into rented houses. You manage finances somehow, if you only have children when you can afford them then you'll never have any.

If what you really want is a nice honeymoon then get the wedding done first. Plus it is pretty useful in terms of legal rights should you split or one of you die. If you embark on house or kids before marriage then get paperwork in order.

Anyway. Sometimes you just can't plan. We did kids, marriage then house. Child 1 turned up unexpectedly, then we got married, had child 2, then the economy crashed and we were able to buy a house.

TheBrilloPad · 19/04/2017 22:20

We did marriage then two kids in 18 months. Still stuck in rented accommodation because we live in London and prices are crazy, and now we pay a bomb on rent and childcare. We probably could have afforded a small flat if we bought first, which might have been a smart decision in hindsight, but having the kids first was a priority for both of us, and I wouldn't change anything. We'll get on the property ladder at some point, im not fussed about it right now.

OlennasWimple · 19/04/2017 22:20

Engaged; house; married; children

Bluntness100 · 19/04/2017 22:20

House first, we were early and mid twenties, we bought and then lived there for two years and then got married and three years later had our daughter.

I'd advise getting on the property ladder first. The longer you wait the more property increases, buy your home together, the rest will come.

PuntCuffin · 19/04/2017 22:21

Both had own houses. Met. Got married. Lived apart for two years (work reasons). Moved together. Had baby no.1. Lived apart for 2 years (work again). Moved together again. Had baby no.2. Sold singly owned houses and bought one together.

smu06set · 19/04/2017 22:23

I would say house before kids as mortgage lenders look at disposable income, and childcare costs massively reduce disposable income.

We did house, marriage, baby Smile

OhTheRoses · 19/04/2017 22:24

Engaged
Married
Children

In that order. A marriage costs very very little:
; a wedding is more variable.

Do you want an expensive party or a legal union possibly recognised and blessed by God.

dimdommilpot · 19/04/2017 22:25

We did house then kids and have no plans to get married. He would but I feel no desire to do so. I am happy as things are.

thisagain · 19/04/2017 22:26

I would say definitely house and then baby, but how strongly you feel about the wedding will determine whether it goes before or after a baby. I did marriage, house, baby but in part, because my parents wanted us to marry first and we were happy to.