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.

Iamheretoday - entirely possible to have a small, simple and beautiful wedding that suits you and your partners tastes.

Cookiedoughkid - but you're not marrying is a decision you've made based on your circumstances - that's not the same as being against it in principle. I'm not saying you're wrong but it could be argued the reason behind your decision is very similar to that of very many men - you don't want your partner accessing your assets. It's honest and sensible but it does mean legally you're not as committed to your partner as you would be if you married. Personally I couldn't even remain in a relationship with someone financially irresponsible like him.

Cmills

"We have wills. We also have pensions where we have named each other as sole beneficiary." all of which can be unilaterally changed without the other partner even knowing

Financially both earn similar wages separately are you going to continue working and earning same salary after child 2 is born? What if you're made redundant or company goes bust? What if any of you or the DC become sick/disabled? What if your partner does and needs full time care? and have joint savings accounts if either of you dies it's not uncommon for banks to freeze such accounts until after probate completed - much less likely if you're married

"Completely understand the financial reasons to support marriage. One day, we won’t need to worry so much as we will be married." what if something goes wrong before 'one day'? You're about to have 2 dc to consider who are reliant on their parents making sensible choices

"but why should I give up my dream of a white wedding one day" again 3 DCs dependant on their parents making sensible choices. I would argue 'not giving up my dream of a white wedding' not a sensible choice

Traditional white weddings can be done on a reasonable budget - I managed it many do.

Spending £10,000's on a wedding is ridiculous and meaningless in terms of the relationship and the legalities. It's falling for the insta showy wedding industry hype (and as I say I used to work in the industry) waste of money, especially if you don't really have it. But then people not living within their means these days and thinking they're entitled to certain expensive wants is a WHOLE other thread.

I personally think it is so tacky and lacking in class to get married after you have your children. Don't do it. Ugh horrible makes me cringe. Get married then have kids OR don't get married and have your kids. Please just don't have a tacky wedding.

I personally think it is so tacky and lacking in class to get married after you have your children

Why do you care?

How totally rude and offensive you are to call someone’s special day tacky because they have their children there. Probably one of the most ignorant posts I have seen on Mumsnet, and that’s saying something!

I also know for a fact 100% if myself and my partner were to split, married or not married he would make sure me and the children have the house until they are of an age to move out

You know for a fact? I’m sorry, but you don’t. You’ve not been there. The behaviour of people when their relationship’s break down is not predictable based on how they may have behaved when the relationship was working and happy. The input of others - new partner, family, friends - coupled with guilt and/or anger can have a very surprising effect on otherwise reasonable and decent people. I sincerely hope you never have to find out.

But since you ask, marriage makes a huge difference. It gives a legal framework within which your needs, your children’s needs and your then ex’s needs are considered and assets divided appropriately. It can stop the disposal of joint assets in one party’s name. Without it, your best deal is 50/50 and no chance of a pension share. For women with good earning power who have taken little time out to care for children and older family members, it may make no difference whatsoever but for many women, it means the difference between living an OK existence and poverty.

How about being financially independent so you don't have to marry a man to be financially secure in order to look after your child??? 2019 not the 1900s. Even in a marraige, I believe in total finacial independence. Money may not buy you love, but its the only thing that can provide security, not a man.

Who actually gives a fuck if you’re married before children or not...or not at all? Have we been transported back to 1819?

Some people still have standards.

Well there you have it: I could have written a dissertation on all the ways people would have missed the point of your question before one of them answered OP.

The question was: are children not a bigger commitment than getting married (basically).

The answer is yes.

But that answer makes folks uncomfortable, mainly the unmarried ones.

I started having kids with my husband before we got married because his bitch of an ex wife wouldn't divorce him out of spite, so we had to wait 9 years but we married as soon as the ink was dry and it was amazing to have our children there... we had an agreement on marriage from the outset or it would have been no kids from me.

My viewpoint: if I'm not good enough to marry then I sure as shit won't be good enough to give you kids so move along!

Personally I've no interest in how other people live their lives but I do love reading the excuses for their choices, makes for fun reading.

As for women having kids, giving up their jobs and dedicating themselves to their family without marrying: that is just ridiculous, do women still do that?

All of this enforces my view that keeping your career is the best thing for women.... every girl needs a fall back plan as men are so bloody unreliable these days.

As I tell my girls: there is 1 golden rule; she who makes the gold makes the rules.

How about being financially independent so you don't have to marry a man to be financially secure in order to look after your child???

Most women are independent, aren’t they, up until they point they throw in their lot with a partner? At that point, there are two salaries to play with and financial decisions are jointly made based on that joint income. I lived a lovely, independent, single life till I met my ex - but he earned way more than me and our joint salaries gave us options as a couple that neither of us would have had as a single person. We played the game as a couple - not as two single people. Neither of us was independent although of course, as a higher earner, separation was easier for him. I didn’t marry to be dependent on him, to milk him for what he was worth or anything else often said of women who earn less than their partner’s. I wanted a marriage, children, family, and I worked with my ex to build that. Marriage made sure that when he turned nasty, I walked away with something rather than the nothing he considered I deserved. My input may have been financially less than his to the marriage but I am still independent, bringing up three children without his support today. He hasn’t paid a penny in 10 years.

You are being unreasonable. Yes people planning children together should be committed to each other. A lack of a marriage certificate doesn't automatically mean a lack of commitment to each other. Plus what difference does it make to you, why do you care? As long as the children are loved and well cared for, it doesn't really matter if their parents have a marriage certificate. Live and let live, don't be so judgy.

The solicitor helped me understand that as long as I don’t give up work, I would actually be better off if DP and I were to split and we were unmarried than if we were married

This is the actual issue - women giving up financial independence and looking stunned (stunned I tell you) when he leaves and she is still left disadvantaged - piece of paper or none.

100% agree.

I agree. A baby costs a lot more money than getting married needs to! Weddings can often be about keeping up the Jones's and spending much more than is necessary. A wedding doesn't have to take place in a hugely expensive venue! It should be more about two people who love each other and want to make a commitment.

Smug marrieds always think everyone should marry. I Do not agree at all
However people need to have the big conversation early and be clear how to manage any big ideological differences of opinion

Have the big conversation when it gets serious
Big conversation
Married or cohabitate. At that point discuss your incompatible views
School. State or private
School Faith or Non denomination
Monies joint or sole
Working Both FT? SAHP?PT
Nursery or CM or do not use Childcare

If there are fundamental irreconcilable differences need to establish can one or both compromise or is it a deal breaker

'
Personally I've no interest in how other people live their lives but I do love reading the excuses for their choices, makes for fun reading'

You're a nasty piece of work aren't you?

there is 1 golden rule; she who makes the gold makes the rules
If your girls are alchemsys who have mastered chrysopoeia I’m listening
Other wise it’s a batshit maxim,sounds like something from a Martina Cole novel

^Alsohuman

I’m mystified by all the people who will get their partner’s survivor pension when they die, both of us had to provide a copy of our marriage certificate when we named the other as beneficiary and l’ve also known people get married for this specific reason.^

Jeez - be ‘mystified’ no longer. Without actually forwarding by personal paper work to you, my pension pays lump sum (x3 my
Salary plus contributions to date) to who so ever I wish (and nominate) and pension to a spouse or partner who is nominated. It’s like anything else, be aware of your personal circumstances. Lots of unmarried AND married people are not. We’ve had someone claiming a spouse has to make their spouse heir, someone citing death benefits that disappeared years ago and the insinuation here that those people who have nominated a partner on a pension are suffering from mass delusion.

The message to me is clear and mentioned on this thread by more posters than I have ever seen before. If you want to maintain security for yourself and your children, maintain your career.

My “dad” started beating my mum up when she was pregnant with me...thank god she wasn’t married to him and could get away easily!

All I said was that our public sector pensions required our marriage certificate before they allowed us to name each other as beneficiaries for survivor pensions. Barclays required my mum’s for her to access my dad’s. I’m simply stating facts.

And actually, seeing as this started out as being ‘won’t anyone think of the children’ rather than marriage v. not... why is the discussion not about how long you have been together before conceiving? Not that anyone should get to be the morality police but seeing as there are a few self appointed ones on here, shouldn’t your beef be more about not knowing each other before having a child, or having the right conversations, or having time to grow together? Given that there has been little talk of time together as a qualifier for conceiving, it’s hard to believe that this isn’t more about morality and superiority than genuine concern for child welfare.

Public sector pension you don’t need to be married to the nominated beneficiary

No alsohuman; you are stating YOUR facts not mine.

For ours you do. I can only speak from my own experience. I don’t have the benefit of anyone else’s. Strangely.

If you want to maintain security for yourself and your children, maintain your career.
⬆️⬆️⬆️This with bells on
I’ve always worked FT and I actively chose that in order to maintain career

Yes AlsoHuman you’re recalling your anecdotal experience about public sector pensions not a rigid rule
One doesn’t need to be married to be the beneficiary