To call him my husband?

[WingingItMumma]

My partner and I are engaged and have been for over 2 years now. We have been together 5 years and were friends for 4 years before that. Towards the beginning of the engagement, we lost a baby and then fell pregnant again and my mind was all over the place with anxiety because of the previous loss. We then had the baby and 4 weeks later, lockdown happened. Otherwise we would probably be married by now. (I don't want a huge, takes years to plan wedding). The only reason we haven't popped to the registry office when it was safe to during COVID is that his 2 brothers live abroad and he doesn't want to get married without them there (which I totally get!).

But, we are living like we are married. Everything is the same between us as it would be a happily married couple, apart from a piece of paper. I hate referring to him as my partner, or worse, boyfriend (he's in his 40s, hardly a boy!) and the term fiancé gives me the ick. If people refer to him as "your husband" (trades people, shop staff etc) then I don't correct them. But is it weird to actually refer to him as my husband if we're not technically married?

Just to note, I don't call him my husband at the moment. I just want to put feelers out to see if it's socially acceptable. I also realise I'm a chronic over thinker and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter.

Personally @terfinginthevoid I'd prefer my marital status to remain private much as men can.

It really irks me that women by default, have to advertise it whereas men don't 🙄

I totally agree.

I'm Miss Family Name currently as that's the title I choose to go by. I am divorced (woohoo!) When I marry I will remain Miss Family Name. Again, the title I am choosing to go by

But at what cost are you "Sticking it out," @Treatscatscrave?

I'm sorry, I've forgotten the country that you point out as an example where living together for a period of time means there is no difference between being married and living together but it sounds a policy full of potholes. One of those is, as you mention, having to take out safeguarding measures, to protect assets.

Bur surely even if a widow re-marries and wants goods to go to her children from a previous relationship she needs to have some sort of method to safeguard those assets? If she died suddenly and there is nothing in place wouldn't her assets go to her husband? Our laws have been in place for some years, and people know how it works - I've not heard of any massive problems. I do however know of someone who lived with her partner for many years in another country (where the laws have now changed) and when he died, without a will, she was entitled to nothing. How is that fair?

We will agree to disagree. Marriage is just not seen as so important here, and while people do still get married no-one actually cares if you are or not, and even some older people live with their partners but don't get married.

Perhaps it's a result of coming from a family with a rich tradition of divorce, but marriage seems like an utter delusion to me. My mother left two marriages with the clothes on her back - all the "legal protections" in the world would not have induced her to set herself up in opposition to the abusive men she had married to claim what they saw as being theirs. Nor did those experiences recent her from buying the lie again and marrying yet another abusive man.

The lesson I've learned is don't get into anything you can't get yourself out of if you have to. By all means live with someone, love them, have children with them, share what you can but protect what you need if one day they were to turn out not to be who you thought they were. And for goodness sake don't believe when you make the vows it's anything more than a magic spell, that it protects your future in any way that is really enforceable when the chips are down. Men lie, lawyers are clever, shit happens. You have to be ready to live your own life at short notice, married or otherwise.

You can legally consider him your common law husband without actually marrying so it’s fine

@BubblyBarbara

You can legally consider him your common law husband without actually marrying so it’s fine

What nonsense. “Common law husband/wife” isn’t a legal term and it’s dangerous to spout such ignorance that it is.

@VeniceQueen2004 I couldn't agree more. Left my abusive ex-husband with just the clothes on my back. Within hours of going he had changed the locks on the house. Was left homeless. Luckily my parents took in myself and two small kids (3 and 6) for six weeks until I could get enough money to privately rent. A church charity donated the basics to us then luckily - some clothes and toys for the kids and a double bed that we all slept in until I could afford some bunks.

@Nicknamegoeshere

So sorry you've been through that and glad you had family to help you out. Hope things are better for you and your kids now x

@BubblyBarbara there’s only such thing as common law husband.it has no legal status
Don’t be advising nonsense

@VeniceQueen2004 Seven years on and we're still in rented but I now have a fiancé and a new little one so it's good in that respect. However, ex-husband is still so angry and is taking me to court yet again for more custody of the kids. I regret marrying him so very much.

@BubblyBarbara there’s NO such thing as common law husband.it has no legal status
Don’t be advising nonsense

@WingingItMumma hope you are ok, I knew you meant this lighthearted, but that, I'm afraid was your biggest mistake. It was never going to be taken that way and was always going to be taken exactly where it went.

I would feel really weird referring to him as my husband when he's not, even to people I don't know.

I would choose other half (although I do love the idea of referring of him as "lover" ) I have friends who hate calling the father of their kids, their partner but they unlike you, don't intend on marrying so have chosen to go with other half.

If your other half wants his brothers there (which I understand) put a little time limit on it and just say, if Coronavirus is still making it unsafe in a year (insert your time limit that's acceptable) we will then do it just the 2 of us.

@BubblyBarbara

You can legally consider him your common law husband without actually marrying so it’s fine

😂😂😂😂😂 Erm. Nope.

Partner gives ambiguity to whether he’s a man or a woman - and whilst I don’t care what people think of me etc, some may feel uncomfortable about how to address it & convos to awkward with ‘they’/‘her’/‘partner’ unnecessairly (as in no one wants to tread on any toes. If I were gay, then I’d state so more clearly

No one feels uncomfortable that’s in your head.

I have been using the title Mrs for years, as its the correct title for an adult woman

I’m afraid that’s incorrect. It’s the correct title for a married woman. It is not the correct title for an unmarried one. You can use miss or ms. Mrs is factually incorrect.

"You can use miss or ms. Mrs is factually incorrect."

I've travelled with flight tickets that have Mrs on them and never had any problem. It's not 'correct' but I don't think there's a law against an unmarried woman using Mrs if she wants to.

"You are an unmarried adult woman, and so you are Miss whether you like it or not."

Um. I'm an unmarried woman and I'm Ms (not Miss) whether you like it or not.

Well what problem would there be,so long as ticket name matches passport name? No one will demand to see a marriage certificate

Mrs, Ms, Ms are social nomenclature, they aren’t a protected or privileged title.so technically anyone can use them. However history & habit mean
Miss
Mrs
Ms
Have certain connotations, as discussed

@Gwenhwyfar

"You can use miss or ms. Mrs is factually incorrect."

I've travelled with flight tickets that have Mrs on them and never had any problem. It's not 'correct' but I don't think there's a law against an unmarried woman using Mrs if she wants to.

No of course there is no law against it, I never suggested such a thing

You can call yourself a princess, a doctor, or anything else you please,. There is no law against that either.

It doesn’t mean it’s correct.

@Bluntness100 does that mean op can refer to her oh as Lord Crapbag to her Princess Consuela Bananahammock?

Yes lord is an unprotected title, so, one could use it

"Mrs, Ms, Ms are social nomenclature, they aren’t a protected or privileged title.so technically anyone can use them. However history & habit mean
Miss
Mrs
Ms
Have certain connotations, as discussed"

Exactly, but OP doesn't HAVE to follow that history and habit does she?

No, she does not
Currently she is Iimbo, waiting on him, marriage plans on hold
However he could marry if he wanted to albeit a smaller wedding

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@Bluntness100 does that mean op can refer to her oh as Lord Crapbag to her Princess Consuela Bananahammock?

[/quote]
Yup. You can literally use any title you wish. You can even call yourself queen mumsnetter and it’s not illegal.

Such nonsense on this thread. You can fully protect yourself and your child financially in other legal ways (should you need to).

Remember - and I stress I'm certainly not anti-marriage by any means - there's good and back, security and lack thereof, on both sides. If you're married and your DP turns out to be abusive, he can refuse to divorce you and make your life a nightmare. He can take a share of your inheritance etc.

Marriage, for me, is a wonderful thing. But there needs to be some balance here. Many women are higher earners & there are other ways to protect yourself - it's totally inappropriate condescending and incorrect for people on here to suggest you're failing to protect yourself and your child by not being married.

Do it as and when it suits you. But either way, make sure you're protected financially, should you need it, OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. As many on MN have sadly found out, marriage is not an airtight way to financially protect yourself & your DC.