to want to get married after 8 years and 2 kiddies

[twospecialgirls]

i think i deserve a wedding and i really want to get married to him and have the same name as my children dp says we cant afford it

to the op,i totally agree with madamez's last posted advice to you. better in your situation to have a happy dp, than an unhappy dh.
however, as madamez thinks this is a hijack, well, threads do evolve....
i do believe that a man who cant even be bothered to show commitment by having a simple legal document, is lacking in a great many desirable traits.
the party and frock have nothing whatsoever to do with what i am advocating. if anything, they detract from it. seeker's reinvention of the marriage contract is no doubt just as good, but why reinvent the wheel?
and if you do decide to reinvent it, it makes more sense to do so before the babies arrive. not after. just like it makes more sense to read any legal contract before you sign it, not after.

Pukkapatch, well we might want to reinvent the wheel if we could see a way to remove the vicious spikes off that wheel and make it roll more smoothly... the traditional formulations of marriage are based, like it or not, on the idea of one man (her father) selling a woman to another man (her new husband). In a proper formal church wedding ceremony, the procedure starts with an instruction to give the woman to the man. Not everyone's happy with the idea of women being handed over like parcels from one man's possession to another's.

yes madamez, but none of that is actually legally required is it? what you need is a registrar, or other person decided by the law of the land, two witnesses and the couple. and thats it. everything else is just trimmings.
some societies dont even require that. if modern indian films are to be believed, all that is required for a valid hindu ceremony is a holy fire, and No human witnesses are necessary.

I've skipped some pages, so someone may have covered this, but from a legal point of view you are in a very insecure position re finances if you are not married to the father of your children (particularly if you have given up work to bring up kids and/or the family home is not in your name). I worked in family law for a few years and was quite shocked at what a difference it makes, and now no way would I have anyone's children without the protection of marriage!

It may have a few (good) tax implications for him too, depending on your family assets.

This is c and p of my earlier post in case anyone missed it. Apart from not getting a widows pension, there is nothing that I or my dp miss out on because we are not married. A few simple forms, a very small amount of money and it's sorted.

"No need for marriage. All fathers named on a birth certificate since 2003 have automatic parental responsibility (before that it takes a simple legal declaration) and properly written wills take care of everything else. job done."

www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php

Happy reading, Madamez. Your "metaphorical rude gesture", whether or not you were aiming it at me, was aimed at the opinion I expressed so I felt the need to find some support for this "idiot"'s view.

Weddings (not marriage, not anymore), as practiced "traditionally" certainly do have problematic elements. Those I was uncomfortable with were dispensed with when I got married. I promised to cherish, not obey, my dh and my father escorted me but in no way "gave" me to my dh. My dh did not ask my father's permission or blessing and I'd have been livid if he had. There was more that I won't bore you with. Suffice to say that we entered into the institution of marriage for reasons both romantic and practical because of our enduring commitment to one another. I stand by my assertion that anyone unwilling to do that is less likely to be sufficiently committed to make the relationship last "till death us do part".

Of course some people get married without the necessary commitment (perhaps seduced by ivory satin and lots of gifts) and others have the commitment and the longevity but eschew the formalities but the statistics, like it or not, are on my side. So there!

well i had a "proper formal church wedding" and nobody was intructed to give me to anyone

Yje problem with the statistics is that they compare married parents with all other parents. It is obvious that married parents are going to look statistically more stable and long lasting and committed when compared with a group that includes everyone else.

Why not elope and then just have a party when you get back?

My husband and I went to Las Vegas for 10 days and got married for less than £5K all in - AND we stayed at the Bellagio, went out every night etc... (and that was the honeymoon too!) I had a Donna Karan original dress which I got from a second hand designer dress agency - only cost £200

You can hire a registry room in London (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is lovely) for £75 which fits 12 guests in and then go for a meal afterwards... I reckon you could be all in for a grand...

I'd say, if you want to get married, go for it! Seriously, how much do you think you COULD spend? There's always a way to make the day special without blowing the budget!

Seeker, what is wrong with that? Is it not just possible that the reason that married parents look more stable and committed is because (statistically) they are?

I quote:
"Cohabiting relationships are fragile. They are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income. On average, cohabitations last less than two years before breaking up or converting to marriage. Less than four per cent of cohabitations last for ten years or more." (my emphasis)

This does not mean that marriage is a guarantee of a longlasting and stable relationship. It simply means, imo, that couples with strong, secure relationships are more likely to get married.

So to the OP, of course you should get married since you say that you really want to be married to your man. I hope you get the wedding - and the marriage - you deserve.

No, because people entering into a marriage are by definition committed to the relationship. A significant number of the couples classified as "co-habiting" are not stable and have no intention of it being a long term relationship. It is not comparing like with like. At one end you have couples like me and dp and many others on this thread. At the other you have a couple who shack up for 6 months before moving on - there is never intention to make a long term relationship. Marriage is not some sort of magic glue - it's just that the sort of people who get married are probably the same people who if the weren't married would still make a stable family. I resent the fact that officialdom puts me in the same category as the 16 year old shackeruppers!

Seeker, you cannot escape the fact that those who are committed to one another are more likely to marry.

I thought we had already pointed out on this thread that marriage is not a guarantee of commitment - we all know, or know of, people who've got married (whether they were conscious of it or not) for the wrong reasons and have ended up divorced.

Is it not reasonable to assume that most couples who have children together intend to make a long term relationship whether or not they get married? I certainly hope so. I think that what the statistics show is that couples who intend to have a long term relationship are much more likely to succeed if their commitment to one another extends to getting married.

If officialdom puts you "in the same category as the 16 year old shackeruppers" is it not because you have done nothing (other than not split up yet) that would allow them to know that you are different?