Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not understand getting marrying years after having kids and living together

380 replies

Lcats · 09/10/2020 17:47

What I really mean here is please help me understand. I just have never been exposed to this in real life. However I keep coming across such threads on mumsnet.

What I don't understand is - surely raising your child(ren) together is the ultimate commitment. So for people who marry say five years after having two children - does it nevertheless signify a new step in the relationship? Or is it merely a delayed celebration of the fact that you are already de facto married?

Among my friends those to whom being married mattered for whatever reason married before having kids, or after falling pregnant or having their first child. I have a few friends to whom being married never seemed to matter so they live together for years without. So I have no one to ask in everyday life.

OP posts:
LovelyLovelyMe · 10/10/2020 13:21

@Nicknamegoeshere

Of course, your experience is true and particular to you but I am speaking in general terms and, of course, there will be exceptions.

CrappleUmble · 10/10/2020 13:23

[quote Nicknamegoeshere]@CrappleUmble Exactly. Marriage was extremely damaging for me.[/quote]
Yes, it certainly sounds that way. And I think in order to have a full understanding, we must recognise that there's nothing else at all like a marriage/CP contract. There would be a lot of heartache saved if everyone went into whichever relationship state they have selected with eyes wide open and fully informed.

Nicknamegoeshere · 10/10/2020 13:24

@BrieAndChilli He changed the locks within four hours of me leaving due to escalating abuse. Lied on his Form E so my settlement was appalling.

Re the kids. Actually he would have been less likely to have got them 50/50 if we hadn't been married. We all suffer as a result to this day.

Miseryl · 10/10/2020 14:38

Because life doesn't always work to a perfectly planned pattern. DS was unplanned from a one night stand. His dad is the biggest waste of space ever, marrying him would have been disastrous in every way for DS and I. I was already a mum when I met lovely OH and we had DD who was planned. If I met OH years before having DS, we would probably have married first but it didn't work out that way. As it is, I out earn OH by several thousand and have far more value in assets so I'd be fine if we split.

LakieLady · 10/10/2020 16:14

Marrying my ex cost me nearly £100k.

I had had my own house for 16 years when we married, so had a fair bit of equity.

When we divorced 15 years later, I had to give him 47.5% of it, reduced from 50% because he had much better pension provision.

Cheetosforbreakfast · 10/10/2020 17:04

We were together and had a child for 9 years before getting married. For one thing weddings are Expensive and buying a house was more important. When we were settled and had more money we got married. The legal side of it is important, very important.

I’m not sure what you don’t understand really!

Graphista · 10/10/2020 17:22

@Scaraffito

I think it's pretty rare now to have NO assets to split. People may not have much but most at least have a car.

I agree that the other extreme of thinking it "sets you up for life" is also of course unrealistic.

But I do think that it makes thing easier in the immediate instance of split/critical illness/death for people

In particular critical illness, it's much easier to be recognised as acting for your spouse (medically, legally, financially) than it is as a partner.

@MsTSwift I've noticed as someone who doesn't and likely never will own my home, there's a lot of home owners and/or women in mortgaged rather than rented homes who don't even know their status re tenants in common etc and don't understand the differences

@Nicknamegoeshere while amusing you're missing the point, if you're not married to your partner and don't have a will or anything he may not get to oversee your funeral.

I am financially independent, have a better paid job than my partner and don’t need any of the current protections afforded by marriage.

Well you are in the position most men are in, you may not think you need the protections but what about the partner you are supposed to love and care for and the children? Life can turn on you, unexpected critical illness, serious accidents and premature death can happen to pretty much anyone - what position would your partner and children be in if you were to become critically ill or die?

What if your oh were to die young and unexpectedly? You wouldn’t necessarily want or feel able to continue working full time while grieving and supporting grieving children.

I think getting married after years and children is better than not getting married at all, although I don’t understand why people have children before the protection of marriage agree with this

Well I have been married and now I'm cohabiting and I can guarantee that my DP is more of a true partnership and committed relationship than my marriage was. surely you know, having been through a divorce, that you don’t really know a person until you split from them? While things are ticking along nicely I can understand it feeling “better” but in the event of a split people can do a total change in their treatment of you and marriage limits the damage they can do to a degree.

@AutumnGoldLeaf - see it particularly a lot in celebrity relationships, but it very much happens in “real life” too, they’re in a co-habiting relationship with someone for many years but don’t marry, then they split and quickly marry the new person. The first person was in their mind a “placeholder” which is a shitty way to treat someone. A “mr/miss right for now - but not forever”. Men in particular do that horrible thing of being with a woman, co-habiting but saying they’re against marriage AND Kids, wasting the woman’s fertile years then sodding off with a younger model and marrying and having kids very quickly with them.

Often, the one who doesn't think it is important is the one who simply doesn't love the other enough. They generally think it is important when the right one comes along and that is as old as the hills.

Exactly!

I’ve met/known of SO many couples in real life where one (usually the woman) claims to be “not fussed” about marriage when the truth is the other (usually the man) is the one that doesn’t want to marry, usually for selfish reasons like not wanting to protect the more vulnerable party and the children.

I’ve been flamed on here for saying if a man hasn’t proposed (genuinely not lip service “getting engaged but never actually sorting getting married” to silence the woman) within 3 years then he’s unlikely to marry, and probably isn’t fully committed to the relationship. That view is formed from many years of experience, both personal and witnessed/told about.

I know one couple have been “engaged” for 15 years! He clearly has no intention of marrying and won’t even be open about finances. Meanwhile they’ve kids and she has at points been sahm and now working part time to facilitate his career and him building up assets.

That was rather my point, marriage is an important commitment but it doesn't guarantee a successful relationship I don’t think anyone has suggested it does? If anything this thread has been more about the protections provided if it’s not successful

That said statistically married couples stay together longer and are less likely to split than co-habiting ones but there are all sorts of reasons for that.

weddings are Expensive weddings can be BUT don’t have to be expensive, getting married needn’t be expensive at all. Most places in the Uk it’s possible for around £150 if you stick to the formalities

Lcats · 10/10/2020 17:34

Sorry for not participating actively in the thread. I am only catching up on reading all the responses now but it was very educational.

I am indeed not from the uk as some posters have spotted and actually had no idea there is no such thing as what I called de facto marriage in my op. In my country proven longtime cohabitation equals marriage for almost all legal purposes. So this was the biggest contributing factor to my confusion I suppose.

In my personal opinion the fact that marriage has legal status on the UK is even more of a reason to get married the moment you enter a serious relationship in which one of the sides is likely to have potential vulnerability (or have a similar contractual agreement instead). This should then have nothing to do with the ceremony which can happen later if convenient...

OP posts:
PicturePerfectSortOf · 10/10/2020 18:09

I actually don't think having children together is seen as the biggest commitment to another person these days.

For lots of people I know, marriage seemed to be the thing that most people viewed as 'the big thing'.

B33swax · 10/10/2020 18:24

Most people don’t own cars, they’re on some kind of scheme.

Autumngoldleaf · 10/10/2020 18:24

Graphista very true.

For man or woman, their strong stance against marriage would evaporate, if that ONE person came along who said it was non negotiable.

Lcats · 10/10/2020 19:24

@PicturePerfectSortOf

I actually don't think having children together is seen as the biggest commitment to another person these days.

I just cannot wrap my mind around this, based on my life experiences. It is the biggest commitment I had made in my life, and I think it is generally accepted to be so. I mean we are on the site called mumsnet, there is no wifesnet Wink or netwives...

OP posts:
VinylDetective · 10/10/2020 19:26

[quote Lcats]@PicturePerfectSortOf

I actually don't think having children together is seen as the biggest commitment to another person these days.

I just cannot wrap my mind around this, based on my life experiences. It is the biggest commitment I had made in my life, and I think it is generally accepted to be so. I mean we are on the site called mumsnet, there is no wifesnet Wink or netwives...[/quote]
Because the commitment is to the children, not the other parent.

PicturePerfectSortOf · 10/10/2020 19:28

I mean we are on the site called mumsnet, there is no wifesnet wink or netwives..

Well yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with commitment to another person as per your thread? I think everyone agrees becoming a parent is a big thing in someone's life.

My point was, and I'm not saying this is either right or wrong or how I view things personally, that a lot of people don't see having children with someone as the ultimate commitment to that person these days.

PicturePerfectSortOf · 10/10/2020 19:29

And yes as per Vinyl above, the commitment that comes with having a child is to the child, not necessarily the person you have them with.

GrumpyHoonMain · 10/10/2020 19:32

I think usually it’s because people aren’t sure about their partner. marriage is still the biggest commitment you can make to another adult and so people quite rightly want to be sure. I pity people who waste the best years of their lives thinking their other half will change their minds about marriage - they probably will but not for them.

Miseryl · 10/10/2020 19:42

I don't know why people can't wrap their head around the fact that not all children are planned, given the level of premarital sex that we have? it is obvious that a significant chance people will have unplanned kids out of wedlock, however reliable certain types of contraception are? There are so many different types of situations which may result in a child being born. People talk about commitment but unless we have a society where people don't have sex until they marry, you will frequently find unmarried parents 🤷‍♀️

FredtheFerret · 10/10/2020 19:48

We eventually married (second time for both) when we felt we were becoming old enough for a serious illness to be a real risk to both of us. We had lost several people of around our age - both family and friends - and decided we needed the legal protection of being each other's 'next of kin' in case of emergency. Before that we weren't bothered. But we could see the financial and legal ramifications if one of us died or became seriously ill and the other was simply seen as a cohabiting partner.

ChanklyBore · 10/10/2020 19:50

I will consent to marriage for inheritance tax reasons later in life, when my estate exceeds the inheritance tax threshold. My partner would prefer marriage but seems fine with this compromise.

What I don’t understand is the idea of having a big party for a comittment that can, and will in many cases, be dissolved. and to promise something that cannot be promised. When I have a wedding/party it will be to celebrate decades of commitment and they can not be undone. My children and grandchildren can come. To me it makes perfect sense this way around

Rosebel · 10/10/2020 19:58

We decided to get married just because we wanted to. We got engaged when eldest was 8 months old but we didn't get married until she was 7 and her sister 5.
Things like getting pregnant, job loss and house move kept delaying the wedding. Finally we just decided to book it and get married whatever happened.
I can't really say financial security played a part, I just wanted to be married to him. Yes children are more of a commitment but getting married is almost like showing you are a unit and an extra commitment to your family.

Miseryl · 10/10/2020 20:19

And nothing is a commitment to someone unless you want it to be. I had children because I wanted to have a baby and be a mum, not because I wanted to form a commitment to their dads.

Lcats · 10/10/2020 20:21

Well yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with commitment to another person as per your thread?
Well because you will have to spend about 20 years rising a child with this person?
It is usually quite tricky and incredibly expensive to do so without living together.

Obviously this happens but I doubt it is “common” to have children together but to be unsure whether you will raise them while living together (accidents aside).

OP posts:
Pumpkinnose · 10/10/2020 20:25

Surely it’s for tax. Unless I’m wrong, if you’re not married you have to pay inheritance tax and lots of people have no idea of this! Very good reason to get married, even if no one else knows.

LovelyLovelyMe · 10/10/2020 20:36

People can have children on their own-usually women and they do.

It's not that much of a commitment to the other parent-you can have a baby to an test-tube these days without knowing who the donor is.

But Marriage-that's a leap of faith together- a belief that this person is the one for you. There will be no other. Of course, that feeling doesn't always last but it's enough to say that at the time, you thought it was.

It is still an unavoidable fact hat we all know of people who weren't fussed about marriage who do end up married to someone else. We read of it on these boards often enough.

It is still the only way we have to declare how important someone is to us. Sure, you can have an informal ceremony, go to a solicitor, get stuff tied down but at the bottom line, there just isn't enough there on the emotional side.

I know lots of people who live with their boy or girl friend will scoff at that-I don't suppose they have much choice but to scoff-but I think most people feel marriage is a way of declaring love, a leap together and even if it all falls out of bed-at least at one point the love was strong enough to tie the knot.

Anyway, tis an old story-everyone believes in marriage when they find the one and don't want to lose them. It doesn't matter if they have children with someone else-they generally leave to marry the one. Not always of course, but often enough to make it an old tale.

Graphista · 10/10/2020 21:12

For man or woman, their strong stance against marriage would evaporate, if that ONE person came along who said it was non negotiable.

Yes that's generally been my experience

Op re children not being a commitment again that may well be cultural as here in the Uk the shitty laws and lack of enforcement of child maintenance and non resident parents staying in contact with their dc means it's way too easy for the non resident parent to walk away and not have to do a damn thing for their child from that point onwards.

Even the benefits system makes it so nrps can have as many dc as they like with different "partners" whereas the resident parent is penalised if they have more than 3.

It's very slightly more difficult for them to do so if the parents were married but generally yes it's pretty awful.

Maybe where you are it's different?

Well because you will have to spend about 20 years rising a child with this person? very much not the case here

Swipe left for the next trending thread