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.

But surely marriage is what you make it? It’s a partnership just like a civil partnership. You don’t have to be a chattel or an accessory. Depends who you marry, and what you both think about marriage.

Exactly, stormchaser 😊

To be honest I think there's more chance of civil partnerships being scrapped than extended to straight couples.

Sadly, Bluelady, I think you're right.

*We certainly don’t need both now.
A short plain register office ceremony should suffice to cover the legal requirements.

I literally do not understand the objections

If you don't understand the objections Lapdance, then you can't say with any authority that we certainly don't need both.

Please explain the objections, Time40

Alan Rickmansworth is another one who married his long term partner shortly before he died.

DP and I recently got engaged, for inheritance tax purposes, after being together 26 years. Quite a few people have looked very worried and gently asked us if we are both okay health wise.

Alan Rickman obviously

I got all excited thinking this was about Ken TODD and Lisa Vanderpump lol

Just saw your "male accessory" comment, Lapdance. It made me laugh, we met a lesbian couple a few weeks ago who never missed an opportunity to refer to 'my wife".

I don't really understand why so many people are gleeful about a rich man 'sticking up his fingers at the taxman'. You realise who's losing out by him doing so, right?

The taxman will get the money in the end when Lady Dodd pops her clogs. I'm pleased he looked after her.

Absolutely re deathbed marriage. Not a wise plan, even if it does appear to have worked out for Ken Dodd. You have no guarantee you'll get enough warning of your impending demise, and even if you do, you don't know what state you'll be in.

Best idea would be to either decide to get married and do that post haste, or assume you're not going to marry and that you'll die unmarried, and take legal advice to ensure you've put the arrangements in place that most suit you both as unmarried people.

Beetle, yes, that's right. And we know it's a fragile position. We've talked about it many times.

We are at the point actually of talking (grudgingly) about getting married. It seems perverse that we will probably do it as cheaply and unfussily as possible, with bad grace, when for a lot of people their wedding day is so important and joyful. I don't really WANT to be the miserable bugger getting married grudgingly, but the system doesn't really leave us any more choice.

reddress, I don't understand what people think the difference is between a civil partnership and marriage
For me and DP it's a lot to do with the term 'marriage' itself and its connotations of a woman being property to be given away. And also the fact that it is still the only way in which the state will, in legal and financial terms, recognise our partnership, despite us having been together happily for longer than many married couples.

Marriage and civil partnership both have another issue, though: that you need two witnesses for them to be legal. Neither DP nor I would want our wedding to be known about, which means either getting two people and a dog off the street to witness, or trying to find two friends who we could trust to keep schtum, and giving them the responsibility of never letting it slip.

He would rather just be able to write a will leaving the house to me, and not have to worry about the tax implications of that.

Alan Rickmansworth I didn’t know that.

Registry office staff are totally used to being asked to act as witnesses. Since your 15 minute ceremony is just to acquire a piece of paper, I really don't understand the angst about being "the miserable bugger". Treat it like a solicitors appointment to sign legal documents because, in truth, that's what it is to you.

I agree. Do it the way you want to instead of grumbling. If everyone did this, that is what would actually change the meaning of marriage, not people simply not getting married. Reclaim it for your purposes! Doesn't have to be miserable.

I don't think it's perverse. Marriage is a legal contract, it's fine to simply treat it as such. I agree, just behave as though you were going to the solicitors office. You sort of are.

Registry office staff are totally used to being asked to act as witnesses.

I didn't realise that was allowed; thanks. It makes me feel a bit better about at least the practical shenanigans.

I've tried to explain the 'angst' and why I feel me getting married would be perverse, and I'm not sure why people aren't understanding it. I think I've been quite clear. You don't have to agree, of course, but comprehending what I mean is different.

Buttery, while I don't entirely disagree, I'd rather we as a society tried to change the meaning of marriage by campaigning/lobbying for change, rather than just 'reclaiming' the existing framework.

There's no need for the change the meaning of marriage. Its meaning is whatever the couple involved want it to be. The vast majority of people are happy with it the way it is.

It's not that I disagree with you. I genuinely don't understand the objection to taking 15 minutes and spending £100 to obtain a document to provide legal and financial protection. I don't think I ever will so probably better we agree to differ.

We got married for tax and legal reasons. It is a cringey 15 mins but that's it. No religion, no ridiculous frock, no clutching dead flowers needed. Simple process.

None so fussy about state intervention as live in a country that does not have 'Democratic' in its name. Count your blessings.

Yes the stuff about the state knowing one's business is a touch ridic when people are on electoral rolls at the same address, when people jointly own properties listed at the Land Registry, when people have children and are both listed on birth certificates, when people have joint tax credit claims. I imagine we're about to hear from a flurry of posters for whom not one of these applies, but for the rest of you, do you really think the state doesn't know your business?

Michael please tell me he has already written that will - tax be damned.

I genuinely don't understand the objection to taking 15 minutes and spending £100 to obtain a document to provide legal and financial protection

It's not that hard to understand. Because no matter how much you talk about it as being a dry, short session, it is still bound up in an institution that neither of us wants to buy into. And because 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. Which I strongly object to.

BUT having said that, now I've heard that register office staff can be witnesses, I am feeling slightly less negative about it.

Beetle, it's not about the state knowing my business per se. See above.

special, I'm not interested in the 'country that does not have "Democratic" in its name' line. It's about as meaningful as parents making children eat by saying 'There are starving children in Africa'. And please don't be condescending about counting my blessings.

Outside, no. We will probably get married. It's the only sensible solution in the current context, much as we both resent it.

Wasn't addressed to you Michael. It's a common enough refrain on these threads though, often from people whose names are both listed on their mutual children's birth certificates etc.

As I said, I don't think I'm ever going to get my head round it but it's been a really thought provoking discussion. I really appreciate all of you who feel so strongly about not getting married taking the time and trouble to explain why you feel as you do.

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.