Ken Dodd marriage

[BringMeTea]

To be delighted he married his partner of 40 years 3 days before he died? I have known of several cases where unmarried long term partners end up with nothing and the government take the lot. Given his historical very public tax evasion case (which he won afaik) it must have put his mind at rest to know his partner would inherit.

[Bluelady]

Completely agree, it's one of the most respectful and measured threads here. There's so little knowledge about this subject, hopefully more than one person has found it helpful.

[BringMeTea]

I think Daisy must not have read my OP. Nothing unseemly there. I am really glad this thread has gone the way it has. If one woman makes herself more financially protected then hooray.

[CadyHeron]

I think this thread is typical of tasteless social media, discussing a deceased man's marital arrangements, whether their marriage was consummated and that he was tight with his money.Good god is nothing sacred.

I love Ken Dodd. I think this thread is making people think though. People out there are still thinking they're all good if they don't get married, but nope, they're not.

[CadyHeron]

Genuinely don't get the angst about marriage. You love someone and want to spend your life with them? What's so painful about getting married? It's a fantastic institution.

Same. (As a total aside, as a St Claires Enid Blyton fan as a kid, loving your name! )
Genuinely reading through the thread and not getting all the angst about not being recognised in law if DP dies.
It's not rocket science. You can live together and have a happy monogamous relationship for decades, but if you haven't made it official with marriage, you'll be legally left with sweet FA. Recognised with the same rights as a random passing girlfriend.

[Buxbaum]

I understand the objection to the historical purpose of marriage and I see why it has negative baggage for many.

But surely the (rightful) implementation of marriage equality in Britain (and hopefully soon in NI) has already rewritten and reframed much of that? The people who oppose(d) marriage equality are those who cling to the antiquated framework of marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. Their objection to marriage equality is that allowing same-sex couples to marry fundamentally redefines marriage. Marriage has been redefined by the introduction of marriage equality, and for the better.

[VanGoghsDog]

Yes, sorry, I did mean only with the full trust and participation of both parties, so only protected in law if you both do it, not from people being dishonest (e.g.chsnging a will without telling you).

[Bluelady]

The only person who doesn't have to pay IHT is a spouse or civil partner. And a certificate is required. You can't just nominate someone.

[daisychain01]

I think this thread is typical of tasteless social media, discussing a deceased man's marital arrangements, whether their marriage was consummated and that he was tight with his money.

Good god is nothing sacred.

[Beetlejizz]

Afraid not.

You can make a will but without marriage, if your partner changes it to disinherit you then you're going to find it extremely difficult to challenge it if you're not married. And you won't necessarily even find out about it until they die. There isn't a way for you to get that protection without being married.

This is the thing with a lot of the attempted replications outside marriage, actually. You're reliant on the other partner playing ball. Whereas if you're married to someone, the only way you lose those protections is if you get divorced. And you'll know if that happens. Basically, marriage makes it harder to get out of your obligations to your partner. Some people will see that as a positive, others as a negative.

[VanGoghsDog]

What is needed is a simple form to state who you nominate as your partner for iht purposes. Probably still need a lawyer to do it and cost c£100 or so, but would sort it.

I reckon practically everything else marriage offers (protection for kids excluded) can be covered with will, deed of trust, power of attorney (medical and financial), next of kin nomination (for Mental Health Act purposes) etc.

[OutsideContextProblem]

Yes normally marriage will revoke a previous will meditrina but if you state within it that “this will is made in contemplation of my forthcoming marriage to Mr/Ms X” (or similar phrasing - you’d need a proper lawyer to phrase it) then it will remain valid after the wedding. Much easier than doing it at the reception. And specifically that’s what Michael’s DP needs to do.

[meditrina]

Do remember, those planning deathbed ceremonies - marriage revokes your previous will

So invite your family solicitor to reception - s/he can draw up the will in anticipation of the marriage, bring it along and the wirmpnesses on your arraign certificate can do the new will whilst they are there.

[Beetlejizz]

Yes, do it! It'll be a right laugh.

[LapdanceShoeshine]

Oh do it, Michael! I’ll come too & be a witness

[MichaelBendfaster]

Why not fly to Vegas & have an Elvis wedding?
That has always been my fantasy wedding, as it happens, with Jackie O as maid of honour.

It's a fantastic institution That's your opinion, Margery, not a fact.

[BringMeTea]

Some great points here. Financial protection is feminism. Shall we get T shirts made?

[Beetlejizz]

To be fair Michael, if your DP wants to offer you a greater degree of protection than you have now, he could make a will benefitting you and, if he has a lot of assets as you say, give some of them to you. Marriage would be the best protection for you in your scenario, but there's not nothing available outside it. This still leaves you potentially getting clobbered with IHT if he dies first, but better 325k and 60% of everything above that than fuck all.

And honestly, I get why you'd feel miffed about having to marry if you want the full suite of protections, but I repeat, there is nothing remotely feminist or pro-woman about the situation you're in now. Zero. Have you heard of the intestacy provisions, and what they say about unmarried partners? Clue- not a lot. You must take action now, at the very least a will. Get your head out of the sand and do something actually feminist.

[MargeryFenworthy]

Genuinely don't get the angst about marriage. You love someone and want to spend your life with them? What's so painful about getting married? It's a fantastic institution.

[MargotLovedTom1]

Don't tell anyone. Don't change your name. Don't wear a wedding ring.

We had a registry office wedding and no one 'handed me over'. My father wasn't even there. I have the same surname I had before. I don't feel ANY different apart from knowing I'm in a much more financially secure position than I was before.

[LapdanceShoeshine]

There’s no “handing over” in a register office ceremony!

Why not fly to Vegas & have an Elvis wedding?

[MichaelBendfaster]

Outside, no, we don't have kids.

Beetle, that is a massive conundrum though. Feminist to make sure I protect myself rather than being poor – OK, I get that. But to have to do so by entering into an institution designed to hand over a woman to her next owner? I'm not happy about that.

DP is anti-marriage for that reason too. And more generally because he also resents the status quo that one form of relationship carries more inherent benefits than others.

I should say for the record though that every time we have this conversation, it's him who says 'We've basically got to get married' and looks up the prices etc, while I keep my head in the sand...

[Beetlejizz]

And I want to just say as well, much as I understand and accept some of the appalling patriarchal history of marriage, there is just about nothing less feminist than a woman being financially vulnerable, losing the roof over her head when her partner dies. Women making sure they protect themselves and not being poor is feminist as fuck.

[Beetlejizz]

Yes Michael's partner needs a will leaving the property to her as soon as possible. If it's left to anyone else without at least giving you an interest Michael, and if he dies without a will it won't be going to you until you're married, they can potentially kick you out before he's cold.

[LapdanceShoeshine]

I don't like the fact that marriage (however religious or secular) is the only way to obtain these tax breaks, when it's perfectly possible to have had a happy and solid relationship for decades without being married. It says loud and clear that marriage is best

It says loud & clear that marriage is documented. Unmarried widow/ers don’t get death benefits either. It’s a question of proof, not approval.

[OutsideContextProblem]

Michael unless you’re going to get married tomorrow then he needs to write a will yesterday. Worrying about paying tax of 40% on assets over 325,000 is completely beside the point if you’d end up with zero money and thrown on the streets by his DPs. You don’t say whether you have children together, if you do they’d get the house (though IHT would be due which might require you to downsize) but it’s a huge PITA if they inherit everything and you have nothing (what would happen if you had a huge bust up over an unsuitable boyfriend when they hit 18 and they threw you out?).

Caveat - I am not a practicing lawyer unlike some other people on this thread so may have missed an important wrinkle or two, but I’m absolutely 100% sure that the actual experts will back me up in saying that in your situation wills are properly urgent and can’t wait until the banns are read. You can make them “in contemplation of marriage” so if you do tie the knot later they don’t need redoing.