To think that it's shameful that England (I think Scotland does) won't recognise common law marriage?

[Rainbowhairdontcare]

I've never understood why that's the case. Some States in the US do, the same as Canada and even some Latin American countries. Given the statistics of cohabitation it would only make sense?

I've now re-read your latest post. I am sorry but you created a predicament and that is not a reason to ask for the law to be changed!
First you had an unplanned pregnancy, then you married so you could stay in the UK (so a cynical move if ever there was one) and your DH was a penniless student.

All of those were bad decisions on your part.You do not need to marry again. It's a romantic gesture and although it affords legal and financial protection to most people especially women and the children, it comes at a cost- literally.

I'm sorry but you messed up and although you are bitter it was all your own doing.

As stupid as it sounds JinglingHellsBells because I don't like the word "partner". I prefer to call my partner husband and he calls me wife but we often get looks.

My inheritance is from abroad, so it has to remain protected over there rather than here.

My notary's advice was to never get married again.

My ex said we never needed to get married because we’d have been ‘common law married’. I told him such a thing didn’t exist in the UK and he never believed me. After a serious illness scare, I said we needed to think about it but he said it was all rubbish. Saw an article the other day about a woman’s partner dying and her having absolutely nothing as they weren’t married and he finally believed me. There’s no entitlement to the widows payments (not sure the official name) and even with a will, things can end up being very difficult for the partner. If you want that security and you matter enough to them, you’ll be married. If not, I hope you have savings.

If marriage not for you then enter civil partnership, gives pension rights etc

@rainbowhairdontcare I don't believe it!!!

8 pages of comments and advice and it's all because you do not like the word partner.

Look, you can't blame the law for your own mistakes.
Many people lose wealth through divorce
There are ways to mitigate the impact but you didn't have good legal advice.

You either cohabit or marry and accept that you may lose some cash if it goes belly up. THat is the choice.

It's not the law that needs changing, it's your own behaviour and attitude.

But it will protect that people who want marriage rights and the other side doesn't want to get married for whatever reason.

I don't think it's morally acceptable for one party to enforce marriage on another unwilling party. You could end up with women in abusive relationships married to their partners without ever having actively consented to it.

I see marriage as a largely romantic concept. It's mostly about the dress and the public vows isn't it?

A wedding is (or rather, can be) about a dress and public vows. These things are not necessary for marriage, and have little to do with the legal reality of a marriage.

The legal stuff...that needs separating from the idea of marriage.

Marriage is the legal stuff. It is a legal status. Without that, it is meaningless.

@sleepyhead19 you aren't a widow if you are not married in the first place (if that is what you meant.) If you mean a widow's pension this only applies to widows under age 45 and of course you need to be a widow ( that is be married!)

A partner can name anyone though to be the recipient of their pension in most pension schemes.

It turns out that he was very abusive (took me years to see it) and even though he said he'd honour our arrangement he never did.

And yet you admitted you were happy to put women in abusive marriage at risk.

You didnt look into what the implications of your actions in the country you lived in.

You entered a marriage, which is a legal conytact, without finding out exactly when you were signing up for.

The law doesnt need changing because of your ignorance.

Why do you want your partner to have some of your assets? If you want him to have some of your money or you want some of his, make a will. You have become entangled in a mess of your own making. So just because of that, other people would end up with potentially half their assets going to their boyfriend/girlfriend after their death when they thought it would go to their children.

@JinglingHellsBells yes that's exactly what I meant. If not married, so not a widow, you get nothing if a spouse sadly died.
Yes you could be named in a pension scheme as a partner but how much you would get depends on the value of it and it may have reduced. It might not be of much help.
You could have a partner named on life insurance too but how many unmarried couples consider that?

Oh God, no! I'm married (with all the 'rights' that entails) and TBH if I were to become single I'd NEVER marry or live with anyone ever again. DH is lovely and I think that marriage is grand, but I wouldn't want to have to 'train' another one and I'd not want to risk my children's inheritance, even with a pre-nup..

I live where pre-nups are legally binding. My aunt remarried with a pre-nup and when her DH died it was all supposed to be cut and dried. But there was still a hassle with one of her step-DDs who tried to claim jewelry pieces that were gifts to my aunt as they were bought with 'her dad's money'. The pieces that had belonged to their mother were covered by the pre-nup.

But even with a pre-nup a divorce can be costly and messy. CL marriages usually have to be dissolved by a divorce and all that entails.

Much better to not marry and just settle things legally with wills and POA (or the UK equivalent) documents.

Look. You're either married or you're not. You can't be "unmarried" but still claim you are.

Reminder: marriage is a legal contract.

Take the emotion out of it and ask yourself if you want to enter into a marriage contract with your partner. All the other stuff is fluff.

"Common law" husband/wife means nothing and rightly so.

these men who refuse marriage to women they love with surely they'd just move out (or chuck the lady/kids out) just under the 2 or so year limit if this came in.
I am choosing to be unmarried to partner of 9 years. Its my house, we have no kids, we both want to leave our assets (he has a house he rents out) to our respective nieces/nephews). Its easier to be unmarried to achieve this.
Any defacto status would need an opt out so most people would just do that. Who wants these sort of wishy washy rights? either marry or be single, its clear then what rights you have.

Common law marriage is obsolete. It was used when people wished to marry but couldn't for various reasons. For example people who lived on remote islands etc.

As stupid as it sounds JinglingHellsBells because I don't like the word "partner". I prefer to call my partner husband and he calls me wife but we often get looks.
So reason #1 you want to impose legal contracts on those who don't want them is because you don't like the term partner and instead choose to use factually incorrect terms (this is all a bit like the self identified vegans who still eat egg and cakes).

My notary's advice was to never get married again
Reason #2 seems to be the fact you want a pick n mix approach to marriage because you've chosen decided to arrange your affairs in a certain way.

Why should every adult have to sacrifice the ability to live with another person free of a legal contract with rights and obligations to satisfy those who are too ignorant to get clued up on their situation or are too lazy to sort their own affairs out how they want? Why should the majority have to have their lifetimes of adult relationships dictated by a minorty for the minority's convenience? It all sounds rather dumb and/or selfish to me.

No. I think if you want to have the benefits of marriage then get married. I'm not comfortable with assuming a contract exists when people have purposely chosen not to pursue that contract.

It's right and proper that it is recognised. Many women fall victim to liars who say they will marry them, then they have children and bingo...the man refuses...or delays.

The woman, having lost time in pursuing her career due to child rearing is left with no rights.

More fool them, then. It's up to people to be personally responsible for themselves and their financial and legal decisions. There is already legal framework in place to give some, but limited, protection to people who are foolish enough to stake their financial well-being on another person: marriage and civil partnership.

marriage is a legal contract

Exactly. Which is why you can't become accidentally married even in US states that recognize common law marriage (as a poster suggested above). There has to be consent by both parties. That consent may be demonstrated by an agreement between the parties or more likely, by holding themselves out as married. Mere cohabitation is not enough.

Not this a-fucking-again!

You want the rights of marriage, just get married!

If you want the benefits of a particular type of legal contract, then undertake that particular type of legal contract. It's hardly rocket science. People forget that marriage is first and foremost a legal issue.

No, I think that what comes with marriage should be freely and knowingly entered into. It should be the choice of those 2 people that they are choosing the other person to be their next of kin, have the relevant provisions around finances etc apply. People shouldn't be able to accidentally enter into a marriage.

she doesn't really want the rights of marriage though, she just wants to be able to call her partner a husband

she wants some of the stuff being married gives, but she doesn't want the other side which might entail losing some of her money if they divorce.

You can't pick and choose @Rainbowhairdontcare You either live with him and get over this silly idea of wanting to call him a 'husband' (when he's not), or you marry and accept you may lose money if the marriage fails.

Do you think partner is somehow a lower status? Does it embarrass you? Does 'husband' give you more status, a feeling of permanency and social acceptability? If so, marry him.

No way should it become a thing here.

I would not want to be forced into a de facto marriage. If I wanted the benefits of marriage I would make the choice to actually get married.

How would you protect yourself if you didn’t want a marriage contract but you were De facto forced into one?! It means you could never cohabit in that case.

Much better to not marry and just settle things legally with wills and POA (or the UK equivalent) documents.

There ARE things that can't be settled. Such as pensions and tax. Assets, such as a house, or business, or investments, transferred between a legally married couple are tax-exempt. If unmarried, they are deemed to be transferred at open market value and tax based upon the open market value, meaning a hefty tax bill - there's no way around that. Same with pensions, being legally married gives rights to the survivor - rights which aren't available to non legally married.

The situation in Scotland has been pointed out to you OP but as well as that, the US are a lot less friendly to cohabitants than you're implying. It's only a minority of states recognise common law, most don't, and from what I've heard spouses have more rights there if anything. There are particular shares of benefits and pensions that accrue to a spouse after a certain period and those can only be waived if they sign to do so. And I think there actually do arise situations there where partners of years get excluded from involvement in medical decisions, funeral arrangements etc in favour of a sibling or child or whatever, because they weren't married. Whereas you never hear of that happening in the UK these days. So if anything, the US are more the other way.

And in answer to the question, no it isn't shameful. It is very easy to get married in the UK, inexpensive, and it's a legal contract with significant implications. It takes rights away as well as conferring them, so it's a very big deal to impose that on people who haven't actively chosen it. There had better be absolutely no alternative to that before doing something so drastic.

You could make it opt in, marriage but not called marriage, but that would still leave the problem of people who don't take that action then find themselves needing the protection. Because the sort of people who opt in will also be the sort of people who are disproportionately likely to make wills etc. That is, the ones who weren't unprotected anyway.