To only get socially married?

[Enormousnamechange]

Hi all

So here's the thing - DP is ambivalent about getting married (he'd do it for me but equally if we never married he'd be just as happy), and I have come to realise that all the things I want from marriage come from the social side rather than the legal side if that makes sense. I'd keep my own name regardless, and can't have kids so we won't be having any of our own, and financially I'm in a much stronger position and will likely be for the rest of my life for one reason or another. From what I know so far, getting married would if anything being a bad idea for me.

But I'd feel so sad never being someone's wife, and to grow old watching my friends get married. Never getting to do the dress and have the party. Never being able to introduce this lovely man to people as my husband. Having everyone wonder why we never got married and if we were really committed. You get the idea. But these doesn't seem like good enough reasons!

I have wondered about doing everything except the legal bit, and as no one would think they were entitled to know my legal/financial situation in any other circumstance they wouldn't need to know here either. We would live our lives after the non-legally binding ceremony exactly like any other married couple. I suppose it could 'come out' if we were to split but not need to go through a divorce.

The thing is I've never ever heard anyone else even think about doing this? It seems to totally solve my problem but I also don't know how people would feel - would they feel betrayed and lied to? But equally I feel that the particular ways in which DP and I are legally bound to each other are not other people's concern. DP's views on this are that he's bought in whatever I'd like to do and he quite likes the idea of being socially not legally married.

But what do you think? Have I lost the plot? Would you be upset/annoyed/amused if you found out you'd been to a wedding of two people who weren't legally married?

YABU - No sham weddings please
YANBU - Seems harmless enough

@Babyboomtastic

I'm not sure you should get married.

I'm admittedly a bit of a romantic, but your posts sound a little odd to me.

I didn't go into marriage too protect myself, but to give my husband the protection he deserves, and vice versa.

That your are thinking primarily of your assets and more about what would happen if you were to split than if your were to die or I've of your become ill, speaks volumes to me about how you expect this relationship to go. I'm a 'hope for the best plan for the worst' you're lesson, so I do get why it's a consideration, but this is also the person who you presumably love more then anyone in the world, and your want to plan your future, and love a fraud because your are more worried about seperating than things working out?

Marriage isn't able a pretty dress or fairytale day 🤮 but about combining your lives and being eachothers support for the rest of your lives. It makes you vulnerable as well as conferring protection.

If you want to call yourselves husband and wife, that's your choice, but you won't be if you specifically reject what that means.

This is how I see it as well.

I got married because I wanted to give all I had to my DP. I wanted to share my life, my 'assets', everything. I trust her completely and vice versa. I am completely committed to being together through everything - for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.

To me, that's what marriage means, and is what makes marriage a bigger commitment than living together.

I'm not completely naive. I do know that divorce happens, and I can understand getting a prenup if you have large differences in savings. But everything you're saying sounds like you don't want to make that commitment to him, so I don't really understand why you want everyone else to think that you have made that commitment?

People saying it gives you legal protection come across as a bit hard of understanding since that's only if you have less assets or children

Not at all true. Plus OP doesn't appear to have considered giving HIM legal protection.

Seashore- really well put

If you are only thinking five years ahead, which is fine and very normal when you are young, then you shouldn't be thinking about marriage.

Lifelong commitment means forever. When you're old and things go wrong.

When you are young and healthy you can never imagine things going wrong.

A lot of people on mumsnet are older and therefore know that whatever you believe, wish or plan life throws curve balls.

He still won’t be your husband though if you have a non-legal wedding. And your friends and family will still not think of him as your husband. You’ll still be in the same situation that you are currently in.

the "he's just a boyfriend" line is exactly why I'd want to do get socially married. He's not just my boyfriend, he's my life partner, best friend etc. I'd hate to be in my 50s and 60s and have people still consider him "just a boyfriend". Feel quite emotional about that
But then you don’t want to get married because you fear what would happen if you split up.
For me this is exactly the difference between a husband and a boyfriend: you trust him/the relationship enough to commit to a life together, even knowing that if it ends it will have consequences.

As a guest I wouldn’t mind being invited to a «social» wedding, and I imagine would quickly forget it wasn’t a standard wedding, ie would genuinely see you as husband and wife.
However if you were to lie to guests and pretend you were married I would find this very odd.

I’d get married. Even if you’re in the stronger financial position and you don’t anticipate that changing, look at it as protection for your spouse. It’s protection for both of you and for inheritance and pension purposes. Anything to protect yourself from the tax man.

If you decide to have a “sham marriage” , there is no reason you shouldn’t invite people but be very careful to make people aware that it’s not a legal wedding.

If I gave up a day/weekend to go to a wedding and all the expense that it entails, I’d feel slightly like I was duped to find out it wasn’t legal.
However if I got the invite and was made aware it was a Together Forever ceremony or whatever, I’d possibly still go but at least I could make a decision based on all the facts.

I find this bizarre on so many levels....

Why are you focused on what happens when you split up? That wouldn't hopefully never happen (and I say that as someone on their second marriage!!) you come across quite selfish!
Never mind lying to everyone you know, why go to the trouble of having a 'wedding' without actually getting married?
Surely the solution is a marriage with a prenup rather than a fake marriage!!

I like the comment that the only way we experience other people’s marriages is socially. That’s so true and I think what OP really wants Is for other people to see and validate her relationship in a very public way. Why she needs that validation is an interesting question.
I remember at my old place of work a 20 something couple spent over 35K on a wedding at a castle with a moat, a diamond ring from Debeers and a Maldives honeymoon. They were divorced within 12 months paying off massive loans. Basically like kids playing at real life but with tens of thousands of pounds of damage.

If you're intending to be life long partners, without legally marrying - then you need to get something sorted regarding things like pensions, houses, assets etc. You need ot make sur eyour will is good and clear if you die before him.

Where is your pension etc going? Usually it would be to Husband - but you won't have one, so where will it go? You might have to get him (or whoever) named as the recipient.

If you own a property together, where does your half go? Are you going to leave it to him in the will? You say he doesn't want anything, but that might actually change if you die and he's faced with being homeless or buying your half off your next of kin.

If you own your own property - who will inherit that? You need to state in your will.

What if he dies before you? same questions really. Are you likely to be homeless? Has he got arsehole next of kin that might happily grab his half of a house/assets? Leaving you potentially financially worse off?

As long as you both have watertight wills saying where assets go to etc, then there's no real issue. (unless Auntie Marge contests the will etc)

or are you happily going to cut all ties to him i the event of death?

Everything you own/that is your asset will go to your Mum/Dad/Siblings as per intestacy rules? etc

and his similarly not going to you.

(which would be the same if you split up)

but after 40+ years together, your might feel quite differently when the time comes!

Why don't you have something like a commitment ceremony or hand fasting ...some call it...you could call it a humanist /civic wedding...
Having been through a wedding even though its not my usual thing as hate being centre of attention...it is different as is a public way of expressing that...so I can see where your coming from...

@DropDTuning

I'd be interested to know which aspects of my marriage you'd describe as 'very patriarchal'. I don't believe there are any.

The social norm/traditions of:
The man being the one to propose.
Engagement rings.
White wedding dresses.
Bride being walked up the aisle by her father.
The groom, best man and bride's father being the ones to give speeches.
Throwing of the bouquet.
The bride taking the grooms surname.

Not saying that all marriages incorporate these, but the ones that don't are the exception to the rule.

What would happen if you decided to get actually married after a few years? Another wedding?

I'm focused on what would happen when we split up, because it's a big part of the decision when it comes to getting married. If we were talking about a different decision, I wouldn't keep going on about it. To me, it's integral to the decision which is why I keep talking about it. It is a possibilty and I should account for that in my decision-making.

With regard to DP's protection - DP has his own fairly well-paying career, he's not a vulnerable or naive person in any way. He accumulated debt independent of me that currently prevent him from establishing himself beyond taking care of that debt. Additionally, is that not a decision for him to make for himself? If he wanted that protection, I would gladly give it to him. He is ambivalent about it either way. People have mentioned that I'd be torn to shreds if the genders were reversed, but is that true?

"Hi, I've been in a relationship and lived with MaleEnormous for four years. I've got a good, stable job that pays fairly well but I have to put the majority of my earnings towards paying off a five figure debt I accumulated in my early twenties. I'm happy as things are, but MaleEnormous is contemplating whether marriage will be the right step for us in a couple of years and what our options are. I will be happy whatever he decides. MaleEnormous is mulling over the idea of having a commitment ceremony, and acting married following this ceremony without having completed the legal side of things in order to protect his financial situation. MaleEnormous also has a good, stable job at a similar wage but has a much more established financial situation and owns our house. Is MaleEnormous BU to not want to marry me properly?"

If you don't actually make the legal commitment which you don't want to endanger your finances by doing you don't get the dress and the party.

If we decided to get married after the ceremony with friends and family, we'd do it quietly in the registry office with the minimum fuss. We'd already feel like we were married, so why do it again?

@Enormousnamechange

I'm focused on what would happen when we split up, because it's a big part of the decision when it comes to getting married. If we were talking about a different decision, I wouldn't keep going on about it. To me, it's integral to the decision which is why I keep talking about it. It is a possibilty and I should account for that in my decision-making.

With regard to DP's protection - DP has his own fairly well-paying career, he's not a vulnerable or naive person in any way. He accumulated debt independent of me that currently prevent him from establishing himself beyond taking care of that debt. Additionally, is that not a decision for him to make for himself? If he wanted that protection, I would gladly give it to him. He is ambivalent about it either way. People have mentioned that I'd be torn to shreds if the genders were reversed, but is that true?

"Hi, I've been in a relationship and lived with MaleEnormous for four years. I've got a good, stable job that pays fairly well but I have to put the majority of my earnings towards paying off a five figure debt I accumulated in my early twenties. I'm happy as things are, but MaleEnormous is contemplating whether marriage will be the right step for us in a couple of years and what our options are. I will be happy whatever he decides. MaleEnormous is mulling over the idea of having a commitment ceremony, and acting married following this ceremony without having completed the legal side of things in order to protect his financial situation. MaleEnormous also has a good, stable job at a similar wage but has a much more established financial situation and owns our house. Is MaleEnormous BU to not want to marry me properly?"

You do know that marriage doesn't mean you take on that debt, don't you? And that your finances can remain completely separate apart from sharing household bills etc?

I think it's a lovely idea - you could perhaps badge it as a commitment ceremony rather than a wedding. But I really don't see why people are getting so worked up about it. If you were my friend/family member I'd go, have fun and buy you a nice present just as I would if you were getting legally married. I say go for it!

If I were you, I would have a commitment ceremony only because of your financial strength. I would ensure LPAs and Wills and any other legal documents were in place to cover the legal side as much as possible, recognising it’s it all.

My pension is significantly better than DH’s & I put a lot more into our property than he did (he has paid more of the mortgage since). These would be a massive factor in any hypothetical divorce situation. I didn’t really realise this when we married at 29, it’s now in our 50s.

I’d then call him husband or anything you want, it’s just a name / word. Anyone offended by you calling him that, well, who cares. Just be breezy about it.

The reason people are asking about why you are fixated on what happens when you split up is it's demonstration that we are not committed.

Yes its sensible to think about it. But if you are actually committed and love and trust someone then it shouldn't be a barrier.

You just want to have your cake and eat it!! You must know by now that we can’t have everything 💯 perfect. You can’t manipulate a centuries old legally binding agreement to make yourself feel better about having a boyfriend not a husband! I think you’ll either have to just get married or keep your assets you yourself and pay the price - you have a boyfriend, not a husband. FWIW, lots of people go through the exact same thought process as you before deciding to propose/accept proposal. I mean essentially splitting everything you have with someone is huge...it’s part of being husband and wife...

I think many, many people have weddings for social reasons rather than legal ones. There’s no logical reason to spend tens of thousands of pounds on a party.

We’ve only quite recently started to unpick religious marriages from legal ones, I don’t see this as massively different.

If I were invited I’d probably be thinking of it along the lines of a baby naming ceremony or a vow renewal.

The term is no longer generally used but surely this is a Dec facto marriage and our DP is your de facto husband? In your circumstances I’d be quite happy to introduce him as “my husband”.