Controversial marriage question

[wedding12341]

Thinking about another thread on here where someone has moved in and had children with their fiancé who has now changed his mind about getting married. Someone on the thread said it is just a small minority of women that are disadvantaged by marriage.

Eg - the woman brings more assets / money to the marriage than the man.

Based on the above

If you were one of these women in the minority (or your friend / daughter was) - Would you advise them not to get married?

Is the intention not to marry due to your higher earning status?

Would you have gone ahead with it if he did propose?

When we got married I brought a lot more capital, but he has much higher earning power. I put the deposit down the first place we bought together, and on the first one we specifically agreed that the ownership (tenancy in common) was 70% my name, 30% his. Next place obviously some of the deposit was value of first place although again mostly my deposit, and as he'd paid more of the mortgage of first place I offered he could own more of current house, but he insisted it remained at 70/30 split. I feel like we both got advantages in different ways,

Yes and if we divorced, we'd split everything evenly. Maybe partly because we got together very young and built everything together, this seems completely fair.

Has it changed, or has the advent of internet meant that now we’re more aware of a wider range of opinions, outside of those of our social circles?

Yes, I don't want him to get any of what I've worked for as I want that all to go to my kids.

He has kids - his can go to his kids, mine will go to mine.

We live in my house, he pays towards bills (I have no mortgage) in proportion to his income as against mine. He doesn't contribute to any repairs or maintenance of the house (on purpose so that he can't claim an equitable interest) and we have a cohabitation agreement that we drew up with solicitors (he had his own solicitor and I had mine).

Depends on their priorities.

For example, is this woman more bothered about reducing inheritance tax liability for the surviving partner than protecting assets in the event of separation? No right answer.

Well I've known a lot of people and have never known anyone to not just merge assets for a first young marriage. But I'm old enough to remember when living together without being married was rare.

I was and am one of those women, I am also married. I don't see why men with more assets should be expected to marry and share with a spouse but women are told not to.
My husband works bloody hard has retrained in a new career and has doubled his earnings with more potential for progression. I still out earn him and maybe always will. He's also a hands on partner and father which MN doesn't expect so I think sometimes colours responses

This is my sister’s situation- she’s the higher earner and owned a house outright. The marriage is unhappy and she’s talked about divorce- he basically does nothing while she does everything while also earning twice what she earns- and she’s been advised that divorcing him would mean losing half the house and paying him maintenance. (They have a DD) She’d definitely have been better off not marrying, in retrospect.

Hindsight is 20 20 though. If you’re able to foresee this sort of situation, you probably shouldn’t be together at all. And of course things might have gone differently - he might have been a great husband and dad (presumably she thought he would be or she wouldn’t have married him). And she might have lost her job or become ill, who knows?

I am in that minority and I do sometimes wonder if I was naive and that if we split I’d be better off if we hadn’t married. However you don’t know what the future will bring and DH could start making a lot more money putting us in a different scenario

I don't agree with this:

If you’re able to foresee this sort of situation, you probably shouldn’t be together at all.

I can foresee it because I've already been divorced once, and I've worked bloody hard to get myself into a good job and financial situation, and I don't want that benefit to go elsewhere other than my kids.

I don't see myself splitting from dressinggownofdoom wearer.

Yeah, this level of normality isn't going to be found in this thread.

And in my experience, it is usual for those with family assets to take steps to protect them prior to entering into marriage 🤷🏻‍♀️

Well, maybe that's what's different, because I've never known anyone with family assets as such at the age of early 20s. Everyone I know has built their life and assets together.

If my DH wasn't around I have no plans to remarry. In the unlikely event I did I'd do it very differently though. Got to protect the assets for the children of the first marriage now.

Sounds normal and like a healthy partnership to me.

I own a house outright, my other half has no assets. So no we won’t get married. He has offered to sign a document to say he has no interest in my property but I would need to investigate the legal standing of that before I considered it.

Like I've said on another thread. Pregnant with second child and no plan to get married. My finances are separate and all mine. I'm good with money. Always have been. His finances are his. We are both happy with this set up.

I’m the higher wage earner and brought owned property into the relationship. We’re not married. House is in my sole name. Every so often I offer him the opportunity to go on the deeds on the basis of a trust document reflecting my contribution to date. He declines. If we split up I walk away with everything. Definitely would not be the case if we were married.

I don't understand people having a child with someone, a lifetime commitment, but unwilling to share finances. Surely if you can't agree on money or share finances then why would you bring a child into this world. Marriage is a contract but so is agreeing to have a child

Marriage is meant to be a total partnership between two equals, for life.

The vows made in the presence of God at the start include “With all my worldly goods I thee endow”, and refer to the couple becoming one flesh.
If anyone - male or female - is planning how to avoid sharing their assets, or to sequester them in the event of a divorce, then they really should not be getting married in the first place. They obviously don’t intend to commit to a marriage, merely a sexual relationship for their own benefit, of debatable duration.

Presumably he has some other qualities though?

I think if someone is in the situation where they're thinking "I won't marry this guy because I think he's a lazy scrounger who offers nothing but will take half my assets on divorce" that's a pretty hefty question mark over the relationship as a whole.

When you enter into any situation due to a relationship, be it a house purchase, pregnancy, marriage, you should first look at the legal implications and, vitally, what would happen if the relationship broke down. Too many people are being emotional making these decisions when they need to be logical and practical.

I own a house outright and have a child. I'll never marry. Why would I mess with the security of my child's future inheritance and my own wealth?

If I inherit from my parents I plan to put it all on the mortgage. If we split DH will get half the house but I'm fine with that. Everything we built we have built together, the house is part of that. Divide down the middle all the way. I know he would do the same the other way around.