Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To hate it when people say 'if you're not married you're legally single'

150 replies

DrunkOnCalpol · 07/01/2019 17:51

Because it's not true, there is no law defining the marital status of unmarried people. If you're not married, legally you're just not married, but that description doesn't enable people to put unmarried couples down so effectively.
Some laws treat co habiting couples the same as married, some don't. Yes people should be informed of the legal differences, but there's no need for some people to essentially say serious unmarried relationships don't exist.

OP posts:
MountPheasant · 07/01/2019 19:35

The law is interested in your marital status, not your relationship status.

Legally an unmarried person is a single person. They may well be in a relationship though- single does not mean the same thing in the law. It’s nothing to take personally.

Klobluchar · 07/01/2019 19:46

My MIL has co-habited with same bloke for over 20 years. He is apparently entitled to half her house even if he has never paid a penny towards it (and he hasn’t, not to the initial cost of buying it or to it’s upkeep) because he has lived in it for so long. If he dies first, his kids are expecting the cash payment of half the value of the house. If they were married it would all go to her.

When he was very ill a year ago, the doctors wouldn’t even talk to her as she wasn’t next of kin.

It’s all fucked. Get married and empower yourself.

Bluntness100 · 07/01/2019 19:49

Op do you feel able to articulate why this is upsetting you? Why it matters so very much to you?

costacoffeecup · 07/01/2019 19:57

Why do you hate it? I don't really care. I actually quite like correcting people to Miss when they assume I'm a Mrs just because I'm old...

costacoffeecup · 07/01/2019 19:57

Well - past a certain age anyway!

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 07/01/2019 20:04

YAB fairly U.

It's true that there are some contexts where it wouldn't make a difference, and there are occasions when people bring that up when it's clearly not relevant. For example there was a thread where someone's friend was upset about not being invited to her unmarried but very serious partner's mum's wedding, because they weren't married. One of the responses was get married if you want treating like a married couple, which was fucking stupid.

So I understand the point you're making, in relation to examples where being married is irrelevant. However, there are a great many where if you're not married, actually your relationship means fuck all. Inheriting unused IHT allowance from a partner, for example. It's not putting down unmarried couples to accurately point out what the law is, and YABVU to suggest it is.

It's also a flawed approach to ask for people to provide you with the law saying someone is legally single. Rather, if there isn't a law saying a couple have the same rights as a married couple would in certain circumstances, then they don't. So eg the tax break for married couples doesn't mention the status of unmarried people in the legislation, it just specifies married.

Klobuchar where does she live? If it's England and Wales and they're not married but she solely owns the house and he's not paid towards it, he's not entitled to any of it.

Gentlygently · 07/01/2019 20:12

In the law that was linked there is a difference though. If you are the spouse, there are no further qualifiers needed. If you are not the spouse, as well as ‘having lived as if you were husband/wife’ there is also a time qualifier to that. (Obviously to prevent claims from v casual relationships). But there is still a difference.

ZenNudist · 07/01/2019 20:12

I think you are making single sound negative OP. Its not.

I refer to my pre child days as single. Mentally in my 'single' days I include the 9 years that i was in a relationship with now DH.

Its nothing to get worked up about.

Oblomov18 · 07/01/2019 20:12

Because it's true. You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder.

Which bit is not true? Hmm

KanielOutis · 07/01/2019 20:16

On my marriage certificate, DH's status is 'single'. Mine is 'previous marriage dissolved'. None referred to our relationship to each other, just to our position in law.

Bluntness100 · 07/01/2019 20:23

I wouldnt agree you were single, as such, but you are unmarried, and for many things the law does not recognise your relationship.

But again what's upsetting you about this. It's a situation you chose to be in, so why care how you're defined?

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 07/01/2019 20:26

Is it literally the word single you object to OP? Your first post sounds like it's the sometimes inaccurate description of laws but your second post makes me wonder.

If so, would it be better if, for example in a discussion about the lack of provision for unmarried couples in the intestacy provisions, instead of saying you're legally single posters said legally your relationship is irrelevant? Or some other wording?

I do see that there's a bit of an issue on here with people making erroneous claims about, for example, unmarried partners and medical treatment. That happens too often. But frankly it's less significant than the level of cohabitant butthurt going the other way, in response to posts that do actually give accurate information.

Namechangeforthiscancershit · 07/01/2019 20:29

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 treats cohabiteees in the same way as spouses when it comes to challenging a will. There are many other examples

No it doesn’t. Not when it comes to the size of the award. Spouses can try to get what they would have on divorce. Unmarried cohabitees get reasonable provision. Not the same at all.

What are your other examples?

MaisyPops · 07/01/2019 20:32

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick
I have a feeling this might go down the route of but you can live together for 20 years and be considered less worthy than someone who got married after 2 weeks. It's about time the laws were changed to give rights currently afforded to those in a legal contract to anyone who happens to live together. Aka unless you choose to live separately then the law automatically gets involved in your relationship whether you like it or not (so a few people who have a chip about being in a long term, unmarried relationship can feel better).

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 07/01/2019 20:35

Yeah, cohabitees really don't have the same rights as spouses when it comes to challenging wills, not in England and Wales anyway. You also have to have been cohabiting for at least 2 years, so some cohabitants aren't even covered. Whereas there isn't any such minimum time requirement for a married couple.

Bluntness100 · 07/01/2019 20:35

I'm not sure, I think there is something upsetting the op in terms of recognition of her relationships versus the recognition married couples get, but she's not very forthcoming,,,.

RiddleyW · 07/01/2019 20:40

The law is interested in your marital status, not your relationship status.

Depends on the law - there are tax laws and benefits that care.

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 07/01/2019 20:41

Could well do maisy.

Personally I've no objection to people discussing what they think the law should be. I don't myself think that people who want to live together without the legal implications of marriage should have that right removed because of the choices others make, but clearly people have the right to advocate for that.

I do however have a problem with people who muddy the issue when it comes to discussing the legal whys and wherefores, and I think the last sentence in the OP is coming dangerously close to that. If a comment about the law is true, so for example the way cohabitants are treated by the intestacy provisions, whether someone feels put down by that is beyond fucking irrelevant.

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 07/01/2019 20:46

Yes that's true riddleyw. Benefits law, for example. There are some areas of law where being an unmarried cohabitant is very different from not being in a relationship at all.

I think these discrepancies are part of the reason so many people hold incorrect beliefs about common law marriage and the like. A new partner moves in and impacts your benefit claim immediately. One of you dies without a will and they might as well be someone you fucked behind a bus stop. One can see where the confusion comes in.

RiddleyW · 07/01/2019 20:51

I think these discrepancies are part of the reason so many people hold incorrect beliefs about common law marriage and the like. A new partner moves in and impacts your benefit claim immediately. One of you dies without a will and they might as well be someone you fucked behind a bus stop. One can see where the confusion comes in.

Yes absolutely.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 07/01/2019 20:52

It's just a statement of simple legal fact, though. Just because your social arrangements appear identical to those of a married couple, it doesn't make you in any way legally married as it's the ceremony and registration that count in law and not the relationship. Marriage is foremost a legal contract.

A 6'6" 17-year-old is taller than most adults but still legally a minor; a 2'8" 18-year-old is shorter than almost all but the very youngest children, but is legally an adult - as height, although a common factor in differentiating the two groups, is not the legally-accepted criterion - only actual age counts..

Stirling Moss was a top-flight professional racing driver for many years and nobody ever doubted his excellent advanced driving abilities; however, a the time, he had never actually passed a driving test (I don't know if he ever did), so he didn't have a driving licence and, legally speaking, was not a qualified driver.

In law, everybody is a non-driver until they pass a driving test; everybody is a minor until they've lived for 18 years; everybody is single until they marry.

These are just legal facts and in no way a value-judgement of the strength of your relationship.

You can both absolutely hate each other - maybe never loved and only ever married for tax purposes - but if you've been through a legally-recognised ceremony and haven't since had it annulled or divorced or been widowed, you're still legally married. If you've been devotedly in love and faithful to your partner for 80 years, but haven't been through the ceremony, legally you're still no more married than a child is.

MaisyPops · 07/01/2019 20:54

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick
I agree with you.

The law is what it is.
It doesn't help when people claim otherwise because they would rather it was different.
That's how we get nonsense advice on here about common law spouses and it being totally fine to give up work for 10 years, live in your DP's house and because if you split you get to stay in the house until the kids are 18 and you'll get half the house when it sells because 'common law'.

brownmoose · 07/01/2019 20:56

Do people even say that?

zsazsajuju · 07/01/2019 20:59

As someone pointed out upthread there are laws which distinguish between a cohabitatee and single person. So not so simple as married or single, that’s it.

Dartilla · 07/01/2019 20:59

OP, if you are not legally bound to anyone who is not a dependent then you are, indeed, single, from a legal viewpoint.

If you're in a monogamous long term or co-habiting relationship then you are not single from a social viewpoint.

Legally an unmarried person, one without a contract, is therefore single.