To mind that DSS wants to have children so they can go to the wedding?

[snowisfallingallaroundus]

I suddenly feel old and judgy and didn't think I was.

DSS has been with girlfriend for a number of years. Lovely couple. Bought a house together last year and now announcing they are planning to start a family. Great. They then start saying they want a family before having a wedding as it would be more fun for the kids to be in attendance and involved.

I've surprised myself at my reaction. I've said nothing to them (and never would) but in my head I'm going WTF. House, kids then marriage? If marriage is important do it before children. You don't deliberately plan it the other way. Oddly them not getting married but having children didn't elicit any reaction in me.

AIBU? Am I old and out of touch? Is this how things are done now? Any insights into why I'm feeling such a reaction?

Proudboomer that is the opposite of my experience. The couples I know who had kids pre-marriage have all got married 9 or 10 years later and are still together. Kids are all approximately 13 or 14 years old now, so these are twenty year relationships, or thereabouts.

I would hope that if my sons cared enough about a woman to want to have children with her they'd be wanting to offer her the commitment of marriage. And if she felt the same way, ditto. People who are focused on the wedding day not the marriage should not be entering into the long term commitment that children involve.

Oddly them not getting married but having children didn't elicit any reaction in me.

Some posters need to read this part of the OP. OP doesn't take issue with having children without a marriage, but is rightly (in my opinion) about them wanting to delay marriage so their hypothetical future children can be there.

I know my view won't be popular but I really don't understand deliberately having illegitimate children. Plus there always seems to be a fuss over the surname of children. Glad my dd got married and had my 2dgs afterwards.

If both of their names are on the mortgage and they're so far financially independent there is no need to hurry.
Married men can leave you up the river too, there is countless threads of non paying ex husbands who fiddle their earnings to deny their ex maintenance.
At least they plan too some day.

@somethingonthecarpet

I think you are a bit out of date, yes. I think big white frou-frou weddings are out of date and a bit cheap these days also (even if they cost tens of thousands). No idea why I've started to think that. I feel small weddings are just a bit more 'real' for some reason. Not sure if I'm catching a trend on the wind subconsciously or just getting old and tired!

Have I missed the part where the OP said she thinks a big frou frou wedding is important and a small one isn’t?!

I thought this was about the OP taking issue with delaying marriage to have future children involved in a wedding. Not big weddings versus small ones.

I know a few couples who had their DC and then married 10 years or so later. At least they know how strong a couple they are once faced with the stress and struggles of raising DC. Too many people rush into marriage 3 years or less of being a couple. Then they divorce.

YABU. You sound old fashioned and judgemental.

I very much wanted to be married before having children. If DH had not wanted to make the commitment of marriage I would have had doubts about having a child with him.
However I have friend who have been together for 35 years with children and not married, and others who were together for 35 years, had children, and then married recently.
I agree with pp about small children and weddings though ! Lots of added stress if you have a toddler in tow.
I understand that not everyone wants to marry, but for women it is a good idea to marry pre children. I do agree with you that if you do want to marry then why not marry now ? It sounds as though they think a child is a cute accessory.

I’m engaged and pregnant with our first who we were trying for before getting engaged. Wedding planned for summer 22. We had bought our house together before getting engaged. Sooo done it completely backwards. The way we see it is that we want a nice wedding but we’re not willing to put other stuff on hold for it (ie house deposit or savings for when I’m on maternity).

At 27 and 31 we’ve got two houses that we rent out with not huge mortgages plus savings. We’d be a lot worse off if we’d done the wedding first and for what gain?

Our friends were supposed to get married last May was postponed to this May though probably won't be able to have the wedding they planned under current guidelines and have just announced they are having a baby in August obviously got fed up with waiting for a wedding to happen.
No judgment from me we were married before we tried for a baby but don't judge what others do.

illegitimate children is outdated phase and should be scrapped like other outdated phrases.

Ehh, I would think it’s a bit weird but wouldn’t trouble me too much. Life is a rich tapestry and all.

We’re getting married this summer with our 3 year old in tow, but she was quite a big surprise- I wouldn’t have planned it this way, although I am looking forward to how cute she’ll be in her flower girl dress!

It's so foolish, especially for women, to not have the security and legal rights marriage brings before having kids.

I personally think the reason of "oh we want our kids to be in the pictures" is ALWAYS said by the man and is probably said because he doesn't want to get married at all

@LaceyBetty

Oddly them not getting married but having children didn't elicit any reaction in me.

Some posters need to read this part of the OP. OP doesn't take issue with having children without a marriage, but is rightly (in my opinion) about them wanting to delay marriage so their hypothetical future children can be there.

What your full & frank reasons are and what you tell your (step) parents, can be two very different things.

It's totally normal to have kids and not get married or get married later. Cannot think of many people who have decided to get married first. Yea, protection is good but that doesn't necessarily have to be marriage. It is important that the couples know their rights and not rely on some assumptions.

That being said. I find the reason (so kids can attend the wedding) Is a but odd. Oh well.

We did it that way around too, got married after 18 years together. Our 15 year old DD (at the time) was my bridesmaid and our 4 year old DS was our page boy. It's fab having them in our wedding photos and I wouldn't have done it any other way.

Weddings before children (together) feels like the start of a new chapter in a couple's life, whether or not they go on to have children. If they have been together for ages and already have children together, it just doesn't feel the same to me as they are already committed.

I literally never heard that getting married gave legal protections until I joined MN. I never wanted to get married - but we did, when our kids were 3 and a baby, plus stepson.

We didn't do it that way round because we wanted the kids there, but I can't imagine I'd be bothered either way if someone told me that?

Yeah, I am interested in what the wedding is about, if you have it later after years of living together, and you have also already dealt with the legal stuff.

The part of the wedding that actually makes it a wedding is all the stuff about committing to each other in some kind of permanent (or intended to be permanent) way.

If you don't have the wedding when you buy the house and have the kids, is the implication that you are not committed in that way? It seems like abad idea to buy a house and have kids with someone you aren't committed to.

If you are committed when you do those things, what is the wedding five or ten years later about? You are already married, in the sense that you form a committed family unit. Especially if you have already taken care of the legal implications in some way.

It mainly seems like the "wedding" is seen as a chance to have a party and wear a fancy dress and such at that point. But the things the customs are about have already been established.

YOU didn't/don't deliberately plan it that way, but it's their life, and their choice.

FWIW, I agree with you that I would personally want the marriage first, but I wouldn't judge people who do it in whatever order they want to, or not at all.

@RickiTarr very true. But the OP has said her "issue" is with them wanting kids at the wedding, which I do think is odd. Agree with you and other posters who think that may not be the real reason they want kids first.

Planning to have a child out of wedlock just sounds horrible.

@SushiYum

I know a few couples who had their DC and then married 10 years or so later. At least they know how strong a couple they are once faced with the stress and struggles of raising DC. Too many people rush into marriage 3 years or less of being a couple. Then they divorce.

YABU. You sound old fashioned and judgemental.

And what if they aren't a strong enough couple, and her name isn't on the house deeds, even if she's been sharing housing costs, and so she's left with whatever savings (or debts) are in her name and a need to rely on CMS payments that can be ridiculously low or non-existent.

@buckingmad you mention that there's no benefit to rushing, and odds are that's true. If you jointly own your properties, if anything happened to him you'd own them, and if you split, you'd have half, and that is significant. However in the unlikely but possible even that something bad happened, there are still some further benefits, especially if you are the lower earner. If, for.example, plan the wedding for 1 year's time, then you delay for another because you're pregnant again - and you never go back to work between, especially because doesn't make sense because your salary is lower, and then you split... if married you'd be likely to have a split of over 50% of those properties, of your savings and of his pension. Without marriage, you'd have a lot less, and he'd walk away with higher savings and pension, higher earnings and you would be literally holding the baby. It's not necessarily likely, but it's happened to others. Marriage isn't just the big day - you can always get a quick registry office job done first on the quiet and hold your proper wedding later.

Fine to have your kids at your wedding.
Odd to plan your wedding around people who don’t exist yet, you have no idea when they might arrive, or what their needs might be.
My concern is that their imagined plan could be very different to their lived reality. Who knows what the future has in store and they could miss the whole thing waiting for the perfect moment.
I got married when I was ready to get married. I looked to have l kids when I was ready and then I had them when it happened.

@SushiYum

I know a few couples who had their DC and then married 10 years or so later. At least they know how strong a couple they are once faced with the stress and struggles of raising DC. Too many people rush into marriage 3 years or less of being a couple. Then they divorce.

YABU. You sound old fashioned and judgemental.

But it's better to rush into having children together? I'd rather rush into a marriage and divorce that tie myself to someone for life having had babies with them.