Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

611 replies

Oakenbeach · 27/04/2019 09:29

....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.

OP posts:
frasersmummy · 27/04/2019 12:04

Slapping.. I am referring to the rules of intestacy. If you are not married and there is no will. You are not legally entitled to anything from the estate. It will go to kids or if no kids some other relative.
We had made sure the house was mine by way of a survivor clause (that's a scottish thing) and I was nominated on the life assurance. But all other assets technically belonged to our son.

Dp was on life support. The doctors did say they were happy to talk to me about the decisions but if i disagreed with them and it ended in court i would need to apply to be made next of kin. Luckily it never came to that.

We still have a few assets that its not worth paying probate charges for to get released.. Ds can apply for them when he's 16.

We are in Scotland so the property rules ars different and kids come of age earlier

But i believe the rest is the same in england and wales.

Just want people to realise its important to have a will

Fairenuff · 27/04/2019 12:05

The crap about "If he loved you he would marry you" sort of thing.

I don't see it like that. I see the day to day relationship as the love side and marriage as the legal side, so the complete opposite really.

So you can have a loving relationship without marriage and you can have a marriage without a loving relationship.

You can also have marriage and a loving relationship which I think is why people see it as the 'ideal' because it encompasses everything in a nice tidy bundle.

So if that bundle falls apart and the love side is lost, you still have the legal side which is your protection. It's thinking with both your head and your heart.

HowardSpring · 27/04/2019 12:07

YetAnotherSpartacus and whoever made the initial quote about naming of a significant other who is not a sexual or romantic partner - I also agree with that.

Pre DC I named both my siblings as beneficiaries of my pension. Then named DP. and now it is the DC. I also in my will when I was single and flatsharing with my (still) best friend named her in my will. BUt it should be easier I agree.

PennyMordauntsLadyBrain · 27/04/2019 12:08

I don’t understand why marriage and the differences with cohabitation aren’t taught at school during sex education.

It’s not the 1950s anymore- If people are making an informed choice on what works for them and their circumstances I don’t think anyone can moralise about it.

StrippingTheVelvet · 27/04/2019 12:09

Bit rich to say that you don't believe in marriage but then pretend that you are to other people....

BlueJava · 27/04/2019 12:12

YABU - not everyone wants to get married. I have been with DP for 20+ years and have 2 DS, we're not married and I see no reason to be. Before people start saying it protects women financially - I am the wage earner on six figures.

CupOhTea · 27/04/2019 12:14

Before people start saying it protects women financially - I am the wage earner on six figures.

What about your dp? Would he be ok if you left him high and dry (not that you would)?

Meandmetoo · 27/04/2019 12:17

"@Meandmetoo I used the term social currency and I'm afraid it is true in my experience. I quite agree that solely being married doesn't tell the whole story but I'm trying to put into words how things might be seen by society - especially when things go tits up. DH's employer for example specifically used the terms husband / wife in bereavement / dependent leave policies, along with parents-in-law. Thankfully his boss wasn't a complete knob and did allow people whose long term, cohabiting partners were ill to have time off."

That's not not being a complete knob, that's being a modern employer recognising the different family set ups and that the statutory right to time off for dependents covers anyone who is dependant on the employee, not just a spouse. And recognising the ER shit storm that would emerge if they refused those policies to unmarrieds in a relationship. Further, the boss probably just recognised the potential for a discrimination claim on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status given in a civil partnership one doesn't have the title of wife or a husband.

HowardSpring · 27/04/2019 12:17

I don't pretend I am married - and never have. I just sometimes don't want to explain to a hotel clerk or a flight attendant on a plane that my "long term partner with whom I have an exclusive sexual relationship which is also romantic and with whom I have two children" is sitting in row 5a or has left the key to the room with reception!! There is a word that does it briefly.
And if you look up the etymology of both "husband" and "wife" you will see that they actually have wider meanings. And, as you will know, language changes all the time. The word "partner" now has a meaning it didn't have thirty years ago, as does the title "Ms", (or should seventy year old "spinsters" - still be using it!?)

Fairenuff · 27/04/2019 12:17

Ok, the one thing that has changed is more financial security. My point is that people who say they don't want to marry because it won't change anything are not saying they don't want to marry because it will provide more financial security are they.

I'm pointing out that thinking marriage 'changes' something in a relationship doesn't make sense to me. If you wanted to change the relationship, you wouldn't be wanting to marry the person anyway would you.

So the people saying I won't get married because it won't change anything are coming across to me as saying they would get married if it would change something. Maybe I'm not explaining myself well Grin

I was happily cohabiting for 12 years before I married and we would have carried on the same if we didn't plan to have children. For me, it simply is a piece of paper and one that I wanted to sign for legal and financial protection.

A bit like making a will really.

SlappingJoffrey · 27/04/2019 12:18

Slapping.. I am referring to the rules of intestacy. If you are not married and there is no will. You are not legally entitled to anything from the estate. It will go to kids or if no kids some other relative.

Ah, I thought as much frasersmummy. Yes, you're quite right that the intestacy provisions are one area where marriage makes absolutely all the difference. Very much so! However that's not the same as next of kin. That said, I was very interested to read this:

Dp was on life support. The doctors did say they were happy to talk to me about the decisions but if i disagreed with them and it ended in court i would need to apply to be made next of kin. Luckily it never came to that.

I honestly didn't think this was something that happened anymore, the most recent example I was otherwise aware of was I think 2011. Would you be willing to say what Trust/area it was? As it might be helpful to other posters. Totally understand if not.

HowardSpring · 27/04/2019 12:19

sorry "still be using Miss" - typo

MissTerryShopper · 27/04/2019 12:20

I know people aren't going to like this, but I would not like my DCs to be 'bastards'. What really boils my piss are women who give their DCs the surname of the bloke. They carry the child, give birth, look after the child - usually putting a career on hold to do so - and the kids get the surname of the man. I have a friend who has been in two long relationships with a child from both and she has never had the same surname as her kids. WTF? As for people saying they are 'common law wife' - well, why are they pretending?

Don't worry, I've got my flameproof knickers on.

December2018 · 27/04/2019 12:23

@MissTerryShopper WOW!!!.... just wow!

Meandmetoo · 27/04/2019 12:24

bastards Grin, literally not heard that used to refer to children since my dps great gran who was about Yoda's age.

Meandmetoo · 27/04/2019 12:25

And around season 2 of game of thrones. Must admit I started talking like a Stark for a bit until i realised it made me sound like a bellend.

Darkstar4855 · 27/04/2019 12:26

YABU. My partner and I have a child and aren’t married. Marriage is not compulsory.

And before anyone starts making patronising comments about needing the legal protection of marriage I should add that our house is in my sole name and I have savings as well as a well paid job so I would be perfectly capable of supporting myself and our child if we did ever split up.

BertrandRussell · 27/04/2019 12:26

My ds amused himself for a while in about year 9 with a campaign to reclaim the word “bastard” to describe people like him. Grin

Myimaginarycathasfleas · 27/04/2019 12:26

The commitment when having a child is to the child.

The commitment when getting married is to your spouse

There’s no commitment to the child when having a child. You just have it..

countrygirl99 · 27/04/2019 12:28

Fairenuff I see your point and agree with you.

englishdictionary · 27/04/2019 12:29

There’s no commitment to the child when having a child. You just have it..

WTF

SlappingJoffrey · 27/04/2019 12:29

Children way bigger commitment than marriage. It baffles me when people think any differently. I can get a divorce and forget the person existed and move on with my life.

Cant do that with a child, children are permanent so the two are not really even comparable IMO

Children are a commitment to the child, not the other partner. Although even then, plenty of parents do walk away, forget the chilkd exists and move on with their lives. It's hardly unusual. And they don't even need to go through a legal process to dissolve the contract like you do with divorce.

Darkstar4855 · 27/04/2019 12:29

Oh, and @MissTerryShopper I chose to give my son his father’s surname. I don’t have any particularly strong attachment to mine and I liked the sound of his dad’s name better. Sorry if that “boils your piss” Hmm

Meandmetoo · 27/04/2019 12:30

Bertrand i salute your DS. If any small minded tit calls my DC that we too shall reclaim it.

Bastards and proud.

I've honestly not heard that word since dp's great gran called it my beautiful 1 day old ds. She was a silly cow though.

BertrandRussell · 27/04/2019 12:31

I have to say that giving children their father’s name automatically pisses me off too- but that’s nothing to do with marital status.