To think that if you are committed enough to decide to have children....

[Oakenbeach]

....you should also be committed enough to each other to get married (assuming that you don’t have any objections to marriage in principle), and that it makes no sense at all for couples to plan to have children (and I stress ‘plan’) before deciding whether to get married.

Only certain people will get anywhere with challenging a will, it's far easier and yes less messy if legal connections are clear.

Dixie - yea the situation I knew of where the separated but not divorced wife inherited and got in death benefits and pension the partner had no idea her dead partner had even ever been married! Something which absolutely would have come to light if they'd married as he'd have had to divorce. Partners 21 years 2 kids and he'd never mentioned he'd previously married. Horrific.

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/marital_status_and_inheritance.html

It’s pretty clear that it would be hard not to get anything if you’re married.

oakenbeach ‘irresponsible, feckless and selfish’ eh? Not sure many people who know me and my partner would recognise those descriptors of us! 20+ year relationship, child after 15 years, wills, pensions, insurance, financial stability, shared deeds of house not to mention the love and mutual support through deaths, redundancy, infertility and the various other life events that have peppered decades together.

Alsohuman - that’s a Northern Ireland link you shared. Different legal jurisdiction to England where I am so we may be talking at cross purposes. It also says though that if there is a will ANd the deceased spouse had children or grandchildren, the living spouse would get one third. So, not exactly
straight forward. Again, this is all a lesson in being aware of your own circumstances and evaluating the relative risk to you.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/death-and-wills/who-can-inherit-if-there-is-no-will-the-rules-of-intestacy/

Who cannot inherit
The following people have no right to inherit where someone dies without leaving a will:
• unmarried partners (sometimes wrongly called 'common-law' partners)

You have to have been living together for 2 years to even be able to contest a will and I'm guessing you'd need to be able to prove that somehow too (not easy without the proof marriage provides) and there's no guarantee doing so will get you anywhere.

@lozster

You appear committed enough to each other to be married (which was my point) but haven’t done so (for reasons you will have decided). If that’s the case, I wasn’t referring to you.

My point has always been about commitment levels not about actually getting married (though if you “believed” in marriage that would be the logical consequence). I fully understand that a stable, long-term couple can be as committed as a married couple.

I fully understand that a stable, long-term couple can be as committed as a married couple

So, do you think that less stable couples should get married, as they are less committed?

Graphista - the information on intestacy is correct. I haven’t heard a single person on here who is unmarried say otherwise? I have heard many people say that this is why they have wills. It’s a good idea for everyone to have a will unmarried or married. Many solicitors run a will week where they write wills in exchange for charitable donations so you can get a will drawn up cheaply.

So, do you think that less stable couples should get married, as they are less committed?

No... I’m failing to follow your logic.

My point is that if your reason for not getting married is that you’re not sufficiently committed to the relationship (as opposed to other reasons) then you shouldn’t plan to have a child.

But lozster even with a will if you're not married you could end up cut off.

My point is that if your reason for not getting married is that you’re not sufficiently committed to the relationship (as opposed to other reasons) then you shouldn’t plan to have a child

Well then, marriage is irrelevant to your point, isnt it? Either you are committed, or you aren't. And if you aren't, clearly you shouldn't be planning to have a child. Pointing out that marriage gives you all sorts of lovely protections once the relationship is over doesn't seem to me a terribly convincing argument.

I often think debates like these are redundant on Mumsnet. It's irrelevant to the majority of posters as they tend to be self sufficient, feminist, intelligent woman with either a good job or the wit to have sorted out the papers in a different way to marriage. This is not the very large demographic of women that this discussion is relevant to.

Depends on your construction of marriage

Possibly the body of the thread should have read: you should also be committed enough to:

1. Get married.

OR

1. Have a civil partnership.

OR

1. By other legal means confer on each other all the legal benefits of marriage/civil partnership.

That should cover it.

In other words not get fucked over as so many MN posters do who have babies/move into houses of/give up own homes/jobs to uncommitted twunts.

Oh, and don't drive. I've lost count of PPs posting to say my relationship is compromised by my not being able to drive. I wonder how many men post this? Fuck all would be my guess.

lozter - there is no way a wife can be cut out of her husband's will.

Nor would she have to spend £1000s to battle a case, because it wouldn't get off the starting blocks.

UK law is not a fantasy or a whim, it's set in stone. A married couple can't disinherit each other like that. Doesn't matter how any attempt to do so is worded - no solicitor would advise 'yes, let's pursue this via court, you stand a good chance against his wife'.

I suppose a dodgy solicitor might, as he wants to screw money out of client.

@DeeCeeCherry In England and Wales a husband could absolutely not leave anything to his wife in his Will, and many do, especially if it’s a 2nd marriage and they’ve got children from a previous relationship.

The thing is with commitment no matter how committed someone thinks they are people change. They have different views, opinions and attitudes in their 20s to their 70s. Experiences change people for the better and worse and sometimes someone you once knew will become someone you do not recognise. Whilst children are a huge life time commitment they are only children for 18 years, marriage lasts a lot longer. Equally, yes a stable marriage can be great for children. However, many marriages can be destructive and create an awful environment for children. Surely then there are more important factors than the commitment of marriage.

My DH died unexpectedly at the age of 36, leaving me with two babies.
Because we had the financial protection of marriage, I am £130,000 better off than if we’d cohabited. I have received a widow’s pension for the past 27 years (and still do), plus the spouse’s death in service benefit from DH’s work, plus the bereavement allowance towards funeral costs, and the married inheritance tax relief.
I think any woman who has been refused marriage by her live in partner should see a solicitor and draw up some serious financial protection, especially before even considering having children with him. And also ask herself WHY he doesn’t want to marry her.

Dee Dee Cherry, it is as guineapig says. England and Wales do not have forced heir ship. You are demonstrating my point here about the consequences of marriage not being well understood.

Situation is this, marriage invalidates previous wills (but not when they have been made in anticipation of marriage) but wills can be made and altered post marriage to leave an estate to who ever you want. Can a wife dispute a will? Yes they can. So can a partner. So can a child. Does a marriage certificate add weight to a legal claim? Yes but so would a range of other facts.

I agree Multi this thread isn’t about marriage but commitment which can and does happen in many types of relationships.

These days marriage most certainly doesn’t buy you commitment which I think is a good thing.

I don’t think commitment is always in the best interest of a child. Sometimes people discover they really shouldn’t be together. Living with parents who discover they actually shouldn’t be together or where one is less committed than the other or where the marriage makes either party unhappy is not preferable for any child. Two happy parents sharing custody apart is far better.

babdoc - benefits have changed. Spouses who are bereaved would not receive my thing like that amount of money now. They could receive insurance or death in service payments but you can nominate a partner for that in most cases, you do not have to be married.

Because we had the financial protection of marriage, I am £130,000 better off than if we’d cohabited. I have received a widow’s pension for the past 27 years (and still do), plus the spouse’s death in service benefit from DH’s work, plus the bereavement allowance towards funeral costs, and the married inheritance tax relief

Similar should be available to anyone who is in a similar situation - it should not be demarcated by a choice to marry.

For example, if a DP is eligible for a death benefit then s/he should be able to confer this on an OH and a single person on parents, a sibling or friend.

YetanotherSpartacus, it’s all very well to say benefits “ should” be available to cohabitees. They are currently not, and such women will miss out on them.
And why “ should” they be? If people want them, the answer is simple- get married! Nobody is stopping them from doing so.
It’s disingenuous to demand the rights of a club while refusing to become a member.