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

[Lcats]

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.

Apart from my husband want to call me his wife and I want to call him my husband, it is some sort of financial security for me and our children if something happen (divorce or death) as he earns 3 times more than me.

We bought a house and had a child first, I've never been that fussed on marriage, and am in the fortunate position that I have more financial security than DH, so wasn't in a rush hah. But we eventually had a low key registry office wedding just to make it official, and a big party a few weeks later for friends and family who wanted to come.

@CakeRequired I was married to my evil ex-husband before we had two kids together. It made things far worse being married to him - gave him much more control than had we not been married. But then that was mostly to do with the fact that he was/is a controlling narcissist! Still, marriage made things worse in my case.

@Friendsoftheearth

As time progresses and women become truly independent, I doubt marriage will be as popular as it is now, I doubt children will be much of a priority either.

We see this development in Japan and part of Asia especially. Women simply don't want to get saddled down with a man. Why would they when they can have a better life outside of marriage. Ditto kids.

Some women are deciding it is not for them, that equality theory does not always match the reality. Women usually end up with the lions share of the responsibility, mental load, stress and bodies that are never the same.

I agree with this.

Because it’s much easier to sort things out when one person dies. (Finances, banks etc etc).
After 30 years together, it is the only reason we are contemplating marriage.

MN is keen on marriage but the reality is that most of the legal protections and benefits it offers can be replicated via other administrative processes if you can be bothered to deal with those separately (and of course the idea that it confers protections travels hand in hand with an assumption that women are the more financially vulnerable in a relationship). People who do handle those matters outwith the institution of marriage, or alternatively who don't care about them in the first place, and then go on to get married anyway are a bit of a mystery to me too, OP. In my experience, such a marriage seems to act as a renewal of commitment to each other, and is often a way of cementing a relationship that's had problems, such as after an affair. I guess an exception may be couples with complex financial issues that dovetail well with the provisions of the marriage contract. All the bollocks about NOK is just that. Your NOK is the person you name as NOK - and could just as easily be a partner, parent, child, sibling or friend as spouse. Astonishing that people still believe this stuff. I notice a lack of mention on the thread about civil partnerships for straight couples, which became an option at the end of last year. I think MNers just like weddings!

I'm interested in this too, OP.

My DH and I met last year, got engaged in Feb and were planning a wedding for August (quick, yes. But there were practical reasons). When lockdown hit and it became ever clearer that an August wedding in a different part of the country wasn't going to happen we decided to have a simple wedding as quick as we could in our local church with our parents.

We fell out with a group of DH's friends over it. They had been planning their wedding for two years despite living together and having kids together. They are now put out that they've had to cancel due to Covid and are pushing it back to next year. They could not understand why it mattered so much to us to be married sooner rather than later and they turned pretty nasty (whole other story).
If it was just the legal stuff then why haven't they done it sooner or why would a quick trip to the registry office suffice? In their case, the party genuinely matters and I would genuinely love to know their reasons....

I know it doesnt have to cost a fortune and we could have got married for a fraction of the price years ago if that was what we wanted, but everyone has ideas of how they want their wedding to be, and I dont mind waiting to be able to do it the way that we want to do it.

I don't get it either - I can't say I really care, but I don't understand why you would be committed enough for children - who will be there for the rest of your life - but not committed to marry if you plan on doing it later anyway.

Get marry or don't, but the weird order is strange to me.

I also find it sad, the idea that living with a partner is such a bad experience that some thinks it means losing your freedom, independence, happiness and your best years. I am not saying it's not true for some, but it's pretty shit. It should be the opposite and for most of us it is.

It would be pretty insulting to pretend that ALL women are muppets and lose out by going into a serious relationship

With children it is much easier to all share the same family name, and you feel like a unit - a family I guess - there is absolute certainty. For me marriage was about security and certainty. We were taking our vows to be together for life. It felt very meaningful then, as it does now we have been through so much together.

Had we got married ten years after the dc were born I don't think I would have felt so comfortable during their childhood. I would have made more defensive choices - in case he left me in the lurch. I would only have had one child to start with, as I would need to know I could cope on my own etc. I would work ft from the beginning, even if would be better to stay at home whilst they were little.
It becomes more about trust when unmarried, and hope that it works out.
Marriage can also feel strong, solid and safe, and whilst pregnant and with a newborn you feel quite vulnerable - I did anyway!

I definitely think marriage is important with children in the frame, and as you get older, and you know you will be there for each other during ill health, bereavement and the barrage of stress that can come with middle age! The babies are actually only the beginning so I have learnt!

We got a civil partnership after 10 years as we realised we wanted each other to be able to make medical decisions for each other should the worst happen. No children. We had 2 witnesses job done, less than £200.

@CremeEggThief

Honestly, in some cases I think it's an attempt to save a failing relationship. I have heard and read about quite a few relationships where the couple have married after being together years and having as many as 5 or 6 kids, only for the marriage to break down after a year or two.

Yes it can be. Having a baby can be too.

I also find it sad, the idea that living with a partner is such a bad experience that some thinks it means losing your freedom, independence

I am not sure marriage puts an end to freedom and independence but having young children in the most part will, if you are going to be any kind of parent to them. By default you can't just jet off in the middle of the night. Although I would say having children can bring immense happiness and be your 'best years' - so they are not the same.

You can be married, and not have children and be all those things.
You can be unmarried and not have children and be all those things.

Children are the real game changer for freedom and independence.

Do & I have been together for 20 years, 1 15 year old Dd. Neither of us care about being married but we will do it for inheritance tax reasons at some point (it will be a no frills job, not a big wedding)

Children are the real game changer for freedom and independence.

absolutely!

Not sure why so many posters pretend it's a MAN the greatest enemy to your freedom and happiness however. If nothing else, when you have children, it's someone taking half the burden, but even without children, how can another adult stop you from anything.

I was not married to my partner for 25 years and after having several children. We just weren’t interested, we are quite devoted and always felt “married“ from day one, neither of us but especially wanted a wedding.

Them I had a critical illness which I was lucky to survive, and I realised that if I had died, it would have been much easier for my partner if we had been married in terms of money, pensions etc. So we got married, in our jeans, just us and the kids.

Least romantic reason to get married ever, and unexpectedly the happiest 10 minutes if my life. It was amazing.
,

YABVU in your framing of the issue. Raising children with a partner doesn't innately involve any commitment to that person at all. It's a commitment to the child, or it's meant to be anyway.

Well I have three children ranging in age from 4 months - 13 years. I can safely say, without a shadow of any doubt, that my ex-husband has been far more of a burden and freedom-taker than my kids have / could ever be!!

After we got together:
2 years: bought a house
4 years: Had dc1
5 years: Got engaged
6 years: Had dc2
10 years: Got married
13 years: Had dc3
16 years: Still together

There was no big reason we didn’t get married first...we just weren’t that bothered.
Then we decided we’d like to, and after getting engaged we saved for a bit, life was busy and time goes by 🤷🏻‍♀️

We aren't married, own a home with equal shares and have 1 dc but my wage has actually increased since I had him and dp and I are on equal levels work wise.

We will get married at some point, it just isn't a priority at the moment.

I know lots of long term couples (with and without children) who aren't married. I don't view them as less committed than me and DH

Been with do for 18 years, 2 kids and a house. We both earn equally well. He supported us obviously during my mat leave but my earnings have not been compromised because of the children. Being married wouldn’t offer me more security, I have created my own security, on my own merits.
I love him, but can’t be asked with the fuss and cost of a wedding. I’d rather do a loft conversion. Practical to a fault. Who said romance was dead

Ok, this is a bit grim, but: while it is true that anyone can die at any time, the longer you spend together = the older you are both getting = the more likely it becomes that someone is going to die.

Or just get very ill.

You could have kids when you are 25, 30, 35, thinking "nothing is going to happen to us!" - and you might think that reckless, but a huge number of these "reckless" people get away with it and are still fit and well when they are staring down the barrel of 50. It makes sense to get your affairs in order as you get older, because, frankly, you are definitely both going to die; and the overwhelming likelihood is someone is going to die first, and leave the other.

@WorraLiberty

I think it's normally the legal side of things.

I understand even less why women (and it nearly always is women), have children on the promise that one day the man will marry them.

There are so many threads on MN where the man has gone off the idea. No wonder really, since at that point they have everything they want without the legal obligations.

Agree with this PP (“nearly” always the women though? 😁)

for me personally (and I do not care what other choose to do, this is my personal red line) I would not have children with someone I was not married to, for financial, security and practical reasons, not much to do with morality.

BUT: for some people, it's not that important, or they can't afford the wedding that they would want at that time, and choose to wait until they can (but not put off having children in the meantime). Or they don't realise until after having children how much they love each other. Or a thousand other reasons, I suppose.