Women who have children before marriage

[FissionChips]

..but get upset when their partner does not want to/ has not asked to marry them , yet still insist they are too traditional to even contemplate asking their dp to marry them or just discussing it like adults.

I dont get it. Most of the complaining women give the child their partners surname as well which isn’t even traditional if the parents are not married. They live together for years. They are in no way following tradition.
AIBU to not understand why they lie about being “traditional “?

Toomanytealights of course it’s not “bollocks”, as you so eloquently put it.

Sure, a woman should have more respect than to try and bully a man into marriage because it will give her more financial security.

In an ideal world, a woman should have more self respect than to stay with a man who is happy to let her do the bulk of the childcare for their shared children and compromise her own career and earnings potential in the process, but is not willing to share his assets with her and give her the legal and financial protection that marriage confers. Unfortunately it’s not so easy to walk away from a relationship when you already have kids, so many women whose partners don’t want to marry them just end up staying and hoping the worst doesn’t happen. Sadly, it often does.

If you stay with someone until one of you dies then marriage costs you nothing, gives the lower earning spouse more security, and leaves the surviving spouse in a better position when the first one of you dies. If you’re not willing to do that for the person you’re with then I have to wonder whether you already have one eye on the door.

I think there are clearly a lot of partners bullied into marriage who pretend to love to keep the peace.I don't think this is any basis for any type of relationship and quite damaging. It's a huge hypocrisy that couples have to jump through such a hoop for security.

Not just costly expat, sometimes impossible. There are some provisions that literally only exist inside marriage.

So let me get this straight. There are posters who think love has nothing to do with marriage. The whole point of marriage is a legal contract.

It's more that love isn't the automatic reason for people to get married. If a previously unmarried couple decide to get married to avoid IHT, or to make it easier when they emigrate, or so the dad can have automatic PR as soon as baby is born, they don't necessarily love each other any more the day after the wedding than they did before. They've made their decision based on something other than love. The reality is that people marry for reasons like this all the time, and it's perfectly legitimate. Security isn't a dirty word.

Given that you're apparently in a committed and I presume loving relationship without marriage, it's something of a logic fail for you to assume the two automatically equate. It's perfectly possible to love a partner and not want to marry them. That's not to say many people don't marry purely because of love, and equally plenty of people who don't marry their partners take that choice because they don't care enough about them. But one cannot assume. If you would only marry for love and would never consider finances or legalities, that's fine. Other people are allowed to think differently.

Marriage is essentially a business transaction, it's sentimental and naive to see it any other way when comparing it with a committed, long term unmarried relationship.

It never ceases to astonish me when people say they can't afford a legal contract costing a couple of hundred quid when they have small children. Kids cost a hell of a lot more than a marriage certificate.

So let me get this straight. There are posters who think love has nothing to do with marriage. The whole point of marriage is a legal contract.

For example:

A friend of mine got married last year because she and her partner needed to be married to obtain a spousal visa. They're committed partners in life and love, but the decision to get married sooner than they might have otherwise done, because marriage confers a legal status that they can't otherwise obtain. They will have a wedding celebration at a later date, but expedited the marriage because of the legal contract.

Another friend got married when she fell pregnant because it was important that they had the legal status afforded by a marriage contract. They will have a wedding at a later date - the marriage was simply signing the register at the town hall to legally marry

They were as much in love before they got married as afterwards. But their legal status was very different and that was the reason for getting married as a matter of urgency

It is bollocks Tokyo because many long term relationships last a heck of a lot longer than many marriages. Some marriages don't make it 10 years,clearly many a married eye is kept on the door. How long do you have to stay together unmarried before it is seen that neither party has their eye on the ?

You don't need to be married to share assets either.

I think there are clearly a lot of partners bullied into marriage who pretend to love to keep the peace.

What's your basis for this?

Nobody should be bullied into marriage.

But if you truly love someone and intend to stand by them for the rest of your lives together, there is really no better way to put your money where your mouth is than to sign a marriage contract.

Words are cheap.

I think you’re confusing legal protection with emotional security. The latter is quite fluid and you might feel totally secure in a relationship one moment and then something might happen to change your opinion. The former is more rigid and not really to do with romance and being in love. As a pp said, it’s perfectly possible to have a ceremony or blessing where you commit to each other without the legal stuff. The relationship is still the same after marriage. Especially for me as we lived together for a year before we got engaged and another two before we got married. We were in love and still are, but marriage didn’t change that in any way.

But then, I didn’t get or do a big, down on one knee proposal, so I’m probably a cold fish .

Oh sorry that^^ was to @toomanytealights

Length of relationship is irrelevant. A couple who married yesterday has more rights than a couple who have lived together for 40 years. You may not think that's right, but that's the way it is.

You don't need to be married to share assets, but then nobody suggested you did.

In terms of relationships lasting, marriages last longer on average but I always think that's kind of an unfair way to assess it. Because most people live together before they get married these days, so if you have an unsuccessful relationship that breaks down after a year living together, that's probably going to count in the cohabiting not married column. Plus a certain number of happy, stable cohabitants will get married and continue living happily and stably, whereas married couples who are happy and stable don't really divorce then cohabit with each other afterwards.

Not that the length of the average unmarried v married relationship has anything much to do with the OP of the thread. But as I said upthread, people do like to obfuscate.

My basis is the vocab in here and the divorce stats.

Out of interest.What great life changing security would a married sahm with a husband on a low to average income,no savings and a joint mortgage have when divorced after 5 years?

My basis is the vocab in here and the divorce stats.

So nothing, then.

How does our low earning married SAHM know her husband is going to survive the 5 years before they divorce? He might die in 3 years and she might be extremely grateful for the bereavement benefits. The problem with the way you've framed this is that, alas, you don't get to find out in advance whether your relationship will end due to separation or death, nor when it will happen. Be much easier to plan if you did.

Probably none but she'd be a lot better off married if he died.

Ironically enough, even in that example which was evidently designed to minimise the benefits, the SAHP would potentially be able to take more of the equity on separation to reflect her financial sacrifices.

Maybe unmarried couples do plan,maybe some ensure that both would be comfortable should one die.

Not designed to minimise just true life for the maj. Few households have savings and most have average earnings.

Equity on half/ 3/4 a house ( presuming there is much equity to talk of) is often pretty shite...

Maybe unmarried couples do plan,maybe some ensure that both would be comfortable should one die.

It’s possible, but it’s quite tricky I think to provide the same level of protection as marriage without actually getting married. I don’t think you can just decide not to pay IHT for example. And certain benefits, (if you get them), you may not be entitled to after your OH dies if you aren’t married, where you would if you were.

To avoid IHT some people sign over property, but that could obviously backfire if the OH decides to fuck off with your house or whatever you’ve signed over to them.

My understanding is limited though, so maybe someone else will be along in a bit to correct me.

Just back to this thread. Poster asked me what I would have done if DH had refused to marry me ( we had a 1 year old when I suggested it) ? I wouldn't have had another DC without being married, obviously I would have asked why not and explained why I did want to get married ( much of what is written above re legal protection etc). If after I had explained all that he had still said he wouldn't, I would have had to reconsider the relationship I suppose.

@TheFatkinsDiet I posted this earlier, this might be helpful

IHT is the main tax advantage that can't be accessed by cohabiting couples, there are some others

Married couples allowance (although this doesn’t apply if either spouse is a higher-rate taxpayer)

Transfer of assets free of capital gains tax

Bereavement allowance

ISAs after death:
While ISAs can’t be transferred between spouses during their lifetime, they can be transferred on death to the surviving spouse while retaining their tax-free status.

Pensions and bereavement allowances:
Unlike married couples, unmarried couples who live together are not entitled to receive the state pension or bereavement allowance for deceased partners.

If you have a defined contribution pension, you can name your partner as a beneficiary and they will inherit your pension when you die, whether you’re married or not.

However, if you or your partner has a defined benefit pension - most common in the public sector or large corporations - there are specific benefits that can usually only be received by a widow or dependent child. If you’re married, the surviving spouse can receive a ‘survivor’s pension’, sometimes for the rest of their life. An unmarried partner is unlikely to be entitled to this, although it depends on the pension scheme rules.

Joint bank accounts:
If you are unmarried and you have a joint bank account, on the death of one partner, the other partner becomes entitled to the balance and can continue to have unlimited access to the account. However, a proportion of the balance will be taken into account when calculating the value of the estate of the person who has died.

If a married couple has a joint bank account, the money is owned jointly regardless of who put it into the account. On the death of one partner, the whole account immediately becomes the property of the other

There are numerous other protections that can be accessed via a cohabitation agreement, with regard to financial arrangements in the event of the relationship breaking down, but this will cost several hundred pounds to be drawn up by a solicitor. This sets out exactly what assets each partner is bringing to the relationship and how they should be divided in the event of the relationship breaking down. This includes your property, its contents, personal belongings and savings. It can also set out how much someone has contributed to the mortgage deposit and repayments.

And yes you are right about wills being changed: it's legally harder for an unmarried partner to challenge a will if their partner goes behind their back to disinherit them, than for a married partner

Of course, these are rights and responsibilities that couples may decide that aren't right for them - and thus they should absolutely free to cohabit without having the legal status of marriage enforced on them by virtue of living together. If you want to enter into a contract, you enter into that contract willingly and mindfully. But equally the lack of knowledge around 'common law' marriages leaves many unmarried partners vulnerable

Well in that case toomany, your answer is a potentially greater share of the equity. They could also use the marriage allowance, which would save them about £1000 during the course of their marriage. It's still a flawed approach to look at it from the perspective of when and how the marriage ended, since nobody has that information at the start, but nonetheless there are two benefits for you.

As for unmarried couples planning, yes some do. Although as we explored upthread, the majority of people don't have wills and the odds of the 40% who do all being cohabitants seems remote.

Additionally, the couple in your example don't have a lot of spare money, what with them not having savings. The reality is that people in this position sometimes aren't in a position to afford insurance. And remember that if they weren't married, they'd be £200 a year worse off, so maybe that's the £200 that would decide whether they can pay for life insurance or not. Our married couple on a low to medium income would thus be in a position where bereavement benefits might make a significant difference if one of them kicked the bucket before their 5th year divorce.

Some are also in denial. Once you start that conversation, you are in danger of hearing things that you don't want to.

I don't understand why they give their children the Father's Surname, tbh, including my own DD.

Today 01:29

this I met a lovey relationship councillor and she said this if your with somone for more than 3 years it’s higly likey they don’t want to marry you after all how long dose it take for someone to realise your the one cost is a red herring most town halls charge no more than 400 and this who get married after years years often don’t last because often one of the pair were pressured into it

My dh took 1 year to purpose he said he knew I was the one after 3 months and most people I know have been engaged in just about the year or two mark

My sister always claimed in her7 year relationship she didn’t want to get married that was until he asked

And the key here was she convinced herself because he wasn’t asking

Peanuts then.

The reality is marriage as a security blanket is ridiculous. It isn't that cut and dried. If you want real security look at your income,your future,your savings,your investments as a couple and as an individual.

Many unmarried partners will be properly provided for and many married partners won't have a pot to piss in in the event of death.