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.

How old are you OP? Tbh your post and updates reads like you are going through the motions to tick off marriage and children rather than having any actual inclination to build a life with your partner specifically. Why you are having to talk him in to marriage when you already "plan to have children" is very strange - are you planning a life together or not? And if so, his prenup is no more unromantic or untrusting than your sensible rule of not having children while you're unmarried. You've only been together two years and it sounds like marriage is being pressured and hurried from your posts so absolutely sensible for him to protect his business that people rely on for employment and for you to not have children unless you're married. Although I'm not sure why you are convincing someone to marry you in the first place - that never ends well.

His business (in other words his earning potential) is something that he would be bringing to the marriage, in return she would be bringing her ability and willingness to bear children for him.

I signed a prenup. To be enforceable in the UK it has to be FAIR. He cannot simply say he gets everything and you get nothing. It should also be adjusted every 5 years or court may throw it out anyway.

For example, mine says I must receive enough money to buy a home for me and any children in the area and lifestyle they are accustomed to.

It also states he must pay me child maintenance until the children are 21 or, if disabled, forever/ until they leave home.

And any money or assets acquired after the date of marriage is split equally.

He gets the family pile in return and his pensions. Which are both considerable.

So agree to it - but make it fair on you too. Get something out of it, security.

This 100pc and I know several women who have profited enormously from getting divorced.
Hope you have a long & happy marriage

Someone we know business wise, his wife left him. She did work in the business doing the paperwork. She got half. It's all over the local press his business has gone into liquidation owing 2.3 million. That's how fragile a small business is.

thank you for posting this.

I really don't see what the harm is in OPs husband-to-be has a prenup that protects the company as it is now - and that any assets accrued to the couple after marriage are divided equitably (taking into account any children etc)

if this were a man asking and a woman was the business owner for SURE mn would be in favour of a pre-nup to protect the persons current assets. It would be batshit not to.

It could be said your reasons for wanting to marry are cynical and unromantic just as much as your partners request for a prenup is.

The fact that your response to a prenuptial agreement is not "sure, we're not going to need it anyway" is probably a trigger warning for him.

If you were a gold digger or a woman who wants to be single with a supported child then your actions would probably be:

1. Find man with some tangible assets
2. Get married
3. Have kids
4. Divorce and split marital assets.

It's indistinguishable from "i want to love you forever and have our kids together"

Scammers rely on emotional manipulation - its hard to distinguish from love.

Forget the lack of romance here. If you want to spend your life with him just sign it and move on. Assets from now on will be joint regardless of who works.

This. You also need to have taken your own legal advice. I'd say you're ok with the idea in theory but need to think about different scenarios (especially re a long marriage and/or children) and reflect that in the agreement. His solicitor will also be advising him that these things should be considered.

Agree this should be a huge trigger for him.

if the op responded with of course there should be a prenup. Your business should be protected, and I am marrying you for love and expect it to last a lifetime so is irrelevant, that would be a comfort.

but to say nah mate not sure I want to marry you if I have to sign that and can’t get my hands on your assets if we split, and starts spouting about how she has to be pregnant not him, should make this man really reconsider.

So just stay as you are.

Being with someone this short a time and planning a wedding, shouldn't make you feel sick to your stomach OP.

Just enjoy your relationship. Nobody needs to have kids and if kids are important to you, then end it and find another future.

It sounds like the issue is less the prenup itself and more the overriding sense you have that he doesn't really want to marry and isn't fully committed, and the prenup is just another sign. Had he proposed more freely and seemed keen in all other respects, and then said that he did want to protect this particular interest but would always provide properly for any children... you still might not like it but you'd probably find it more palatable.

He's being persuaded to bring his sperm to the marriage, when he probably doesn't actually want to be married. Her "willingness" to bear his children is dependant on him filling her demands for marriage. He should absolutely protect the existing value of his business. Any future increases would belong to both married partners, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that if OP already owned a property, she'd be advised to protect it from any bloke asking her to marry him so he could be "legally protected".

Yes, I think there is an element of this op.

You are pushing him into something he doesn't want - or at least he doesn't want it on the terms you want.

Yeah but sperm ain't worth shit!
The woman with the womb does all the work.

Well its hard to get a baby without sperm.

I actually think envisaging marriage as some kind of provision of sexual organ hire is a bit gross anyway, ("With my body I honour you, and with my womb I provide a service of value") no matter how hard the womb works. Shouldering a parental load I will allow plays a part.

Then OP should have no problem sourcing sperm from someone who gives their enthusiastic and informed consent. Instead of having to inveigle, cajole and bully her current guy down the aisle.

I think this is entirely reasonable.

Would you want your fiance to have a say over your career if you split? To make decisions that might mean you'd have to give up your job and start again?

The business is just that - business. In most marriages it doesn't feature as something on the table at all. You have your separate careers but marriage here complicates things and he has responsibility for 35 people's livelihoods.

As long as he's happy to split what you build together then I don't see an issue. Make sure things like your pension are covered if you should give up work to care for children etc.

It could be a very sensible way for you to add your own protections.

Yes it seems a bit cold and transactional but unfortunately that's just the nature of the thing and it's not a reflection on a state of a relationship.

You can still build a life together separately to the business as any other married couples would.

If he has more in the house but you are paying the mortgage then that should be ringfenced as it is for millions of people who put in unequal deposits. They are considered essential so not sure why this is different.

That's hilarious - poor little men

If you are a man reading this and wanting a relationship don't think like this!!

I don’t think those are exactly equal are they. He will also be a parent to those kids and have a financial obligation lasting until they are adults. He is bringing the business, OP is not bringing assets. He wants to protect the business.

Yes, because in the UK wealthy people protect their money differently — they don’t hold assets in their own name. I even have a friend whose money and house is under his mother’s name so the husband wouldn’t get anything after a divorce. They also use trusts so that the “individual” doesn’t technically own the assets. It doesn’t mean they don’t protect themselves — they just do it in another way.

Personally, I prefer a prenup rather than my husband transferring money to someone else or putting everything in a trust and not even knowing where it is or how much there is. A prenuptial agreement feels much more honest to me.

Being a parent and actually doing the parenting are not the same thing and we all know the lengths to which men will go to avoid doing any of the parenting, ditto avoiding financial obligation towards their children.
If he wants children then she is the asset.

Is the OP's fiance from that level of wealth do you think?

This problem would be sold by all those in favour of contractual relationships being together and those of us who are more free spirited being together. I'm surprised it wasn't apparent which camp the OP's boyfriend fell into from the off!

This is a REALLY bad deal for you OP. It’s really NOT the same as , say, him putting £100k into a deposit on your joint house and him seeking to protect this.

Remember that the assets YOU bring to the marriage - your domestic labour , carrying , giving birth to and raising the children will be joint assets, over which he will have a claim ( or he will have already benefitted from them during the marriage ). He will have a claim over YOUR pension, savings and assets but you will have no claim over his.

In addition, he will be able to avoid paying child and spousal maintenance,

Im not a lawyer but I know a lot about this from very bad personal experience. If you want to know in detail how this could work out for you,,please DM me.