Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Another reluctant ‘groom’

337 replies

Unlovedandinsecure · 01/06/2021 23:33

Unlovedandinsecure

Hi all,

Been with my partner for a long time, have children, he owns the house but I work full time. For a long time I didn’t think about marriage as was busy working and raising my children, so I was otherwise occupied! Then a few years ago I started thinking about our future and how we are not related so cannot make decisions for each other etc. I brought this up to DP and he said something along the lines of ‘I’ll do things at my own pace’.

We had a pretty rocky patch after that as I felt he had had enough time to know what he wanted but things improved and he made noises about marriage being a possibility. Today things have come to a head and I have told him our relationship is over as he had been deceitful - he has no intention of proposing but hasn’t had the decency to let me know!

I completely understand that some people don’t want marriage and that’s fine. What isn’t fine is not being honest and upfront about it.

I’m heartbroken and angry in equal measure as if I’d been told the truth from the outset I could have made a decision as to whether to stay or go. It baffles me how you can claim to love a person but intentionally hurt them.

I know these threads are ten a penny but just wanted some advice, even if it’s to tell me how stupid I have been!

OP posts:
wishingitwasfriday · 02/06/2021 10:20

@SengaMac

as a pp has said, if the sexes were reversed then the advice would be for the woman to not marry.

If it had been a complete reverse, and the guy had been main carer & worked p/t as OP has done, would that woman not be told that she was being selfish and was treating her partner unfairly?

From various threads I've seen in the past, no. She'd be told he was a cocklodger, that she'd be better off without him but that she should take the kids as they need their mum (even though he's the primary carer)
Pyewackect · 02/06/2021 10:24

Utility

JSL52 · 02/06/2021 10:26

Your next of kin can be anyone you nominate. We're not married but are NOK at in hospital records.

JSL52 · 02/06/2021 10:29

@MobyDicksTinyCanoe

Marraige is a financial contract. If hes a higher earner with his own house he'd be a fool to marry. Especially as he already has children as this will effect any inheritance.

You dont need to be married to be listed as next of kin or to make wills. Stop trying to force the poor bloke down the aisle when the only person who stands to benefit is you. You dont have children so there is no reason to marry.

Not just a financial contract , there could be other reasons. They do have children.
JSL52 · 02/06/2021 10:32

I'd be concerned you've been helping to maintain and run a house and children for 20 years and will leave with nothing.

Leaninghouse · 02/06/2021 10:32

I might be missing a post here so apologies but what have you contributed financially to the house op? I know you have worked but was that money being spent on mortgage/ Bill's? What was the agreement when you first moved in together?

SapatSea · 02/06/2021 10:34

If he was to agree to marriage now would it feel like a hollow victory? Would you still truly want him?
What is the value of the house? What would half that be - that amount is more than you are "worth" to him.

Did you contribute to the mortgage or improvements ? - if you can prove it then you could have a better case for "beneficial interest" in the house. Did he buy the house before or after you got together, if after then check he didn't get you to renounce any interest in the property when he applied for the mortgage.

Did you basically pay for all the food, CT, everything for the DC as a lot of women do, which meant you couldn't save? It's hard to accept that your P would let you spend all your money, scrimp, save and deny yourself things, banjax your career whilst he is hoarding "his" asset.

Shedbuilder · 02/06/2021 10:37

@JinglingHellsBells:
IHT allowance is £325k and that's fixed till 2026. If you're not married and you haven't done clever things like form a trust, you pay 40% on anything over £325k. Even if you've left it to the person you've lived with for 30 years.

If you are married and leave everything to your spouse you don't have to pay IHT on your estate. When you die they inherit it all, free of IHT, even if it's millions. When they die the first £650k of the estate is IHT free (2 x £325k allowance, theirs and yours).

Despite never having been a high earner, and having only ever inherited small amounts, if I died unmarried tomorrow the tax man would want at least £100,000 from my estate. My share of the value of our house has gone from around £190k six years ago to more like £260k now. Those old SIPPs and ISAs and my old public sector pension and private pension fund and the value of my small business all add up. This has reminded me that I either need to marry my girlfriend or invest in some advice from a financial planning specialist.

HumousWhereTheHeartIs · 02/06/2021 10:45

There comes a point when you want to share your life fully. Marriage is as much about the commitment to each other as the financial protection. If one person is unsure then the emotional commitment is in doubt. I can fully understand why you feel hurt, OP. No answer from him makes you feel that he is doubtful about your future.

aliloandabanana · 02/06/2021 10:46

This is an awful situation. How could he spend, what - 20 years with someone and raise children with them, knowing he didn't really want to be with her? To those saying it's not deceitful, it is. He's known for years that she wanted to be married and he's strung her along!

For those saying that if the roles were reversed everyone would be saying don't get married, keep your money - really?! Not if it was a happy relationship with children and a shared home. This is what happens when people keep their finances separate and are more interested in money than their families or partners. It's disgusting. And he'd let you go without making sure you were financially secure? What an awful bloke! You'll be well rid.

lynsey91 · 02/06/2021 10:59

@GalaxyGirl24

I feel for you OP, I imagine that when kids come along first it's hard to find the time, let alone headspace , to consider other big events like marriage.

I would either be discussing this again and explaining the reasons why you want to get married. If not, I'd stop paying towards the mortgage and let him know that you're doing this because you want to save for the future as you don't necessarily have the legal protection of marriage. It's not unfair to him really as you sound like you've been the main carer for the children and also, I would agree that in some ways if he knew marriage was important then yes it is deceitful as he should've said ASAP.

My parents didn't get married until I was a teenager, they had neither the time nor money to until that point.

Oh come on, plenty of couples get married when they have young children.

It's not difficult at all to just have a registry office wedding if marriage is important to you.

Atalantea · 02/06/2021 11:04

@MobyDicksTinyCanoe

Marraige is a financial contract. If hes a higher earner with his own house he'd be a fool to marry. Especially as he already has children as this will effect any inheritance.

You dont need to be married to be listed as next of kin or to make wills. Stop trying to force the poor bloke down the aisle when the only person who stands to benefit is you. You dont have children so there is no reason to marry.

You dont have children so there is no reason to marry.

OP wants to be married - thats reason enough
OP wants to be able to do all the things that married people do, including financial security, lower inheritance taxes, ability to make decisions on care etc for spouse.... all of those are reasons

Blossomtoes · 02/06/2021 11:06

Society is set up to allow this to happen to women

Society used to be set up to protect women. Back in the day when it was frowned on to have children outside marriage a woman in this position would have been rare. Now there’s widespread drinking the “piece of paper” koolaid and women are getting shafted.

We need to teach our daughters to be old fashioned and not entertain the idea of having children without marriage.

JinglingHellsBells · 02/06/2021 11:09

@Shedbuilder Yes, I'm aware of the limits and the taxation on the excess. I think you need to get some legal advice because you may be able to leave your share of the jointly owned home to your partner without marrying and without paying IT. Though of course they are the ones who would lose out on it as it all is, because you would be dead.

category12 · 02/06/2021 11:11

Society used to be set up to protect women. Back in the day when it was frowned on to have children outside marriage a woman in this position would have been rare.

Well, not really - stigmatising having children out of wedlock was not a good thing. Please see forced adoptions in the 1950s/60s & 70s and unwed mother's homes.

I think we can all do without that sort of "protection".

Shedbuilder · 02/06/2021 11:13

I'm not sure my demise would be a great loss (the day started with a row) but I thank you for the sentiment!

JinglingHellsBells · 02/06/2021 11:13

Society is set up to allow this to happen to women

No, society has evolved as the PP says and it's now considered acceptable to have children outside of marriage, which was highly frowned on even 40 years ago when practically no couples 'lived in sin' as it was called. In my lifetime, children born outside of marriage were always called illegitimate(and worse.) It's only in the last 20 or so years that so many families have sprung up where the parents are not married.

JinglingHellsBells · 02/06/2021 11:14

@category12

Society used to be set up to protect women. Back in the day when it was frowned on to have children outside marriage a woman in this position would have been rare.

Well, not really - stigmatising having children out of wedlock was not a good thing. Please see forced adoptions in the 1950s/60s & 70s and unwed mother's homes.

I think we can all do without that sort of "protection".

You are conflating 2 different things @category12

Single women becoming pregnant with no man around to offer and support, and couples who are together and have children, but who aren't married.

Big difference.

dyslek · 02/06/2021 11:16

I was in a relationship with someone who loved this tactic, just not saying either way. Its a massive power trip to keep someone hanging on. And then to make the other person feel like they are asking too much when they are just trying to set out basic respect and equality for the relatioship so both parties can feel secure not just one.
Bin the fucker, he will not get any better with age. People who do this are a drag anyway and youll be much happier and more secure with your own life.
Also your kids will inherit, which is what matters most anyway, so fuck him.

alwayscrashinginthesamecar1 · 02/06/2021 11:16

I'm afraid you've been a bit of a mug OP. This is a conversation you should have been having a very long time ago. I think after twenty years that ship has sailed. As others have said, you need to go to a solicitor to see if you have any claim on the house. Once you know where you stand legally and financially you can decide what to do next. Personally I wouldn't be able to forgive someone who wouldn't at least make things financially equitable after such a long relationship.

JinglingHellsBells · 02/06/2021 11:17

[quote Velvian]@JinglingHellsBells of course he can, but I doubt very much that he will. If they break up, he is unlikely to leave his house to her is he?

It is all dependent on OP doing his bidding with no financial security at all. It is shitty, duplicitous behaviour. How many women believe in 'common law marriage' and how did that myth come about and for what purpose?[/quote]
I think there are two points here and I'm fully aware he could change his will.

The issue is whether he does or doesn't want her to have his house- that's not been established, has it?

I'm saying if he wants her to inherit the house if she dies first, she can, regardless of being married or not.

JinglingHellsBells · 02/06/2021 11:17

she dies first= he dies first

category12 · 02/06/2021 11:19

You are conflating 2 different things

Please explain how you can have one thing without the other?

"Frowning on" having children out of marriage stigmatises single mothers, which results in poor outcomes for the women and children involved.

Normalising it results in a move into people not marrying before they have families.

Blossomtoes · 02/06/2021 11:20

@category12

Society used to be set up to protect women. Back in the day when it was frowned on to have children outside marriage a woman in this position would have been rare.

Well, not really - stigmatising having children out of wedlock was not a good thing. Please see forced adoptions in the 1950s/60s & 70s and unwed mother's homes.

I think we can all do without that sort of "protection".

You’re referring to a time without contraception or legalised abortion, that’s what caused those dreadful things.

At that time if a pregnancy occurred in an established relationship a registry office was booked. Obviously we can’t do without that sort of protection or there wouldn’t be endless women ending up in OP’s position. Because let’s be clear, it’s almost always the woman who gets shafted.