to think that "no ring, no bring" rule should not extend to long-term partners

[silvercuckoo]

Asking just out of idle interest, following a discussion with an old friend at the NYE party.
She's in a loving and committed relationship with her partner for around five or six years now, they have a young child, live together in a jointly owned property, run a business together. They are not officially married, and (I just guess, from knowing her and her views on the topic) have no intention to marry.

However, she was not invited to her DP's mother's wedding ceremony because she is not officially a "wife" or a "fiancée". She is a bit as she always thought that they are getting along well, and now it somehow feels she's not good enough (even though she's not into weddings herself). MIL insists it is just a balancing exercise of "drawing a line somewhere", and that they will be happy to see her at the evening reception.

I heard of the "no ring, no bring" rule, but I have never thought it applied to firmly established couples. In your opinion - ok or not ok?

Reaching back a few pages here, but just to say - of course marriages statistically last longer than unmarried partnerships Marriage is the social norm, so most people will get together, progress to living together, then either decide to get married or split up. If you're not sure you're more likely to delay that marriage decision, and of course more likely to split in the end.

That doesn't mean that all partnerships that don't progress to marriage will fail - there may, as in our case, be a good reason why people don't want to get married but are still completely committed.

Terrible MIL tbh.
I’ve been with my partner 18 years and we’re unlikely to ever marry.... mind if this gets me out of family in law parties woohoo! 😂😂