Fiancé asking for a prenup

[Aquea]

Fiancé and I have had a relatively short relationship. We’ve only been together for two years. I basically had to make it very clear that I would not be having children without being married. Just for legal protection. Got a bit of push back on that in the early days but I did say that marriage was a non negotiable for me and if that wasn’t for fiance then he and I should part ways.

Anyway, now we are engaged. Fiancé has asked I sign a prenup. Fiancé has his own successful business. We’re not talking a champagne lifestyle but he is comfortable enough and owns several assets. His business is fairly large - employs 35 people. But the margins are small and the overheads are massive.

I don’t have an issue in some regards as I’m certainly not marrying for the sake of money alone. I plan to carry on working FT.

But the actual concept is extremely cynical and unromantic. It’s really made me feel shit. Like I can’t be trusted. I’m kind of sick of indirectly having to convince fiancé that I am good person to marry.

We plan to have children.

it just feels like it’s one thing after another. Ie having to explain my reasoning for wanting to get married and now a prenup. The path to being engaged just seems already so negotiated.

@Jamjarcandlestick "he’d just want his Lego back" is the best thing I've read on MN in a long time, thank you 😄

A relative of mine signed a pre-nup. I would advise caution because of what happened to her. He was ok, but a bit of a cold character before the wedding. After the wedding he gradually got more and more controlling, she had no access to his finances, she got pregnant and he coerced her to be a SAHM because he could afford it. He paid her a very small amount of money and that was all she had access to, cut her off from her friends, every decision was made by him. He engineered situations to cause conflict between her and people she cared about. He controlled who she spoke to and where she went. I haven’t seen her in many years because I was one of the ones that got frozen out.

Your BF might just be protecting his finances, but it can also be a sign that he’s controlling.

Dump him .There are plenty of men that understand the sacrifice a woman makes for them when they carry their children and are happy to marry.

I can understand prenups for already divorced/widowed people who have dependants already and assets that need ringfencing for them. But this guy sounds like the kind that watched too many 'she's only after your money bro, make sure she gets nothing if she wants to escape bro' podcasts. They will never be happily married, best to move on.

"Take him to the cleaners" is not uncommon on this site. As I pointed out earlier, if OP had the business, posters would be urging her to protect it as apremarital asset. It's reasonable and sensible that he would do the same.

It's up to OP to decide if it's acceptable to her.

This.

And it strikes me that he might want the pre nup because he thinks (even if wrongly) it will help him avoid you having the financial protections you are marrying in order to achieve.

I agree with others.
You've said ‘marriage before kids’ so you ‘don’t get screwed’. He wants a prenup so he doesn’t get screwed.
Simple.

But you are asking for a legal contract that lays it all out. Because that is what marriage is. One big all encompassing nuptial agreement entirely based on money. He wants to add to it with a further agreement that fits his circumstances.

All the romantic vows, which are purely ceremonial, don’t change the fact that marriage is a nuptial agreement and it is transactional.

It's the correct thing to do, to protect one's business.

Most people do not lose their earning capacity and job if they divorce. People who have built up their own business stand to lose their job if they do not have a legal agreement in place.
Why would you not sign it?
Supposedly it will protect anything you own before marriage too.
If you are upset about protecting your spouse's business, maybe you don't care about him enough to marry.

A lot will depend on what the prenup says.

But I wouldn’t like this either and it would be a big unromantic red flag for me. Having to convince him that marriage comes before children would also be a red flag.

The principal behind a prenup is not the same as recognising the financial protection of marriage. It’s the direct opposite.

Marriage recognises that you are a family and have pooled resources. It recognises that one partner may not earn as much as the other, or one may become ill, or one may take time off to care for children, and the protection goes both ways. That is a marriage and that is what family does.

He sounds cynical and untrusting.

Thank you for your input. 'Nonsense'? - It was a question I was asking and many other posters explained the situation quite nicely and intelligently. Thanks tho.

Like I’ve negotiated my love story

Probably because there is no love story?

Your OP has it all in this Freudian slip:

"I’m certainly not marrying for the sake of money alone". Well, you are. If not, if you plan to work FT, why does this matter to you?
You say you will carry his children and there is a risk of damage to your body - only his, not yours? what if he was poor? would you refuse to have kids with him.

If you have to threaten him to get him to marry you, then this is very much a “shut up ring”.
I get him wanting to protect his assets. And I get you not wanting to have kids before marriage due to the risk should it not work out.

It feels like he’s mentioned this pre nup to get back at you a bit. Honestly, I don’t think this is a good relationship. If he wanted to marry you, he would have to have been pushed

@AqueaI think if you’re describing it as an ‘uphill battle’ already, before you’ve added kids into the equation this might not be the right relationship.

Before I had kids my friend said to me “your relationship needs to be 110% strong before you consider adding children, because that will test your relationship in ways you can’t imagine.’ She was so right.

If you are sure he loves you loads and is in it for the long term and that is also what you want maybe it’s ok.

I think perhaps you misread my post? I’m on OP’s side.

and if OP takes the prenup to her own independent lawyer that lawyer will point it out.

And OP can have other things suggested in it, such as maintenance in case of x, payment in case of y, etc etc

But it is true: on here we often say that the partner with more assets is not the one who benefits from being married.

For sure, I'm not not arguing that – my point was more that OP doesn't necessarily have anything to fear from a prenup.

Reading back through her responses, it feels like the worry is not only that the romance has been take out of it (which I agree shouldn't be the focus – marriage is NOT always a romance), but that pregnancy and child-rearing for her is more of a leap of faith. Yes, marriage offers protection and yes, courts will be fair in a divorce, but we all know the realities of the real leap of faith it is for a woman because there are no legal protections when it comes to how good of a husband and father your partner will be until it actually happens. And we all know how easy it is for men to squirrel out of their responsibilities compared to women.

I suppose for OP it feels as though he gets a financial contract and all she gets is his word, because a marriage contract, sadly, just isn't robust enough.

Even more likely this leaves an additional bitter taste because OP has been given the impression for a while now that her partner doesn't really want to marry her.

It amazes me that people don’t get that marriage is a nuptial agreement. It is legally all about money. But it can be a blunt instrument and for many people doesn’t fit their circumstances. Which is why pre and post nuptial agreements are needed or can be desirable.

If the subject of pre nuptial agreements is unromantic, transactional and a red flag then so is a discussion on nuptial agreements. Personally if I was having children with someone who owns their own business I would be wanting a prenup that set in stone child support commitments. Cause divorce provisions and the CMS don’t really cope with that situation.

It doesn't sound like you really trust each other @Aquea Also, 2 years together is too soon to be rushing into marriage. You barely know each other.

Going on everything you have said, I don't think you're suited. (Sorry...)

Oh, and yeah, a pre-nup isn't worth the paper it's written on in the UK!

!

I do not agree. It really depends on what’s in the prenup, not the prenup itself.

I have a friend who signed a prenup stating she wouldn’t receive anything—and in the end, after a divorce, she didn’t. That was ridiculous to agree to, especially since they had two children.

If OP and her husband want to have children, the prenup needs to reflect that—she will probably be financially relying on him. The prenup should acknowledge this, ensuring that both she and the children are protected and won’t end up in a difficult situation. That doesn’t mean she has to get a share of the company he’s trying to protect, but it should provide reasonable security.

OP wants marriage for protection- financial, emotional, legal, etc.- and I completely agree with that. However, you CAN still have financial protection even with a prenup. In fact, prenups are meant to be negotiated. It’s not about “how dare he protect his hard work” or leaving her on the street; it’s about clarity and fairness for both parties.

And honestly, nothing is more unromantic than arguing about money—but a prenup makes everything clear from the start.

This x 100

What's the "risk" here? You can take maternity leave and return to your career, put the children in nursery and carry on with your career. You can even share your maternity leave now so it is truly 50/50. She has only been in the relationship for 2 years, I imagine she is in her 30s so should have had enough time to save for a house etc herself, I don't understand unless she's bringing nothing to the party in terms of her own savings/assets and has no means to support herself, in which case she's looking for a meal ticket and he's right to run. There's no risk to her, it's win win, the risk here is on him, he is risking losing his assets on a relationship of 20 seconds. He just needs to find a woman who isn't after a meal ticket.

From your OP and your follow up posts, this is not the man for you.
Find someone who loves you unconditionally, who doesn't have to be forced into marriage, and who will recognise the sacrifice you're going to make when you have kids because he knows it's a big deal and demonstrates that he will support his family financially even if the marriage breaks down.

Seriously, you're asking for trouble if you have kids with your fiance.

You might not be asking for a legal contract regarding your body but you yourself said that you wanted ‘legal protection’ before having children. Is he not good enough to have children with? Maybe that was hurtful for him to hear.

I’m with your fiance here and think you can’t just have it your way. Either sign (with the correct legal advice) or be prepared to walk away.

What utopia are you living in? It's common knowledge that the motherhood penalty fundamentally disrupts women's careers, earning and wealth accumulation potential (not to mention health and other risks). Especially as men rarely fully lean into the domestic realities of marriage and parenting.

With comments like this you come across as a MRA scared that women are asking sensible questions.