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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Fiancé asking for a prenup

660 replies

Aquea · 19/11/2025 00:11

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.

OP posts:
DownThePubWithStevieNicks · 19/11/2025 18:40

You want him to see you as an amazing catch that he’s lucky to marry. Fair enough. So what are you bringing to the marriage table? Who owns the house now? Who paid the deposit? What assets do you have? How does your income compare to his?

nearlylovemyusername · 19/11/2025 18:57

bumptybum · 19/11/2025 17:17

The prenup can and should include provisions taking into account your ‘extraordinary contribution’of giving birth. It should also include provision taking into account any detrimental effect to your earnings/earning potential due to childbirth and time off for parenting.

extraordinary contribution...

those silly us giving birth to our kids for free...

DownThePubWithStevieNicks · 19/11/2025 19:06

It’s pretty disingenuous of OP and PPs to be suggesting that she is doing him the great favour and enormous sacrifice of bearing children. Yes, pregnancy, birth and motherhood can hold various risks for women.

But OP clearly wants children at least as much as her partner does. She is not offering to be his surrogate and wanting paid for that. They both bring their willingness to make the other a parent to the marriage.

Actually, it’s not just disingenuous it’s insulting. Women have more to offer a marriage than their wombs (given in sacrifice!), and lots of men are looking for more in a partner than her child bearing ability.

BeaRightThere · 19/11/2025 19:21

researchers3 · 19/11/2025 00:46

You've negotiated your terms, he's doing the same.

Much of marriage can be unromantic, divorce even less so!

Statistically your marriage has a roughly one in two success rate. I don't blame him. Are you happy with the deal?

I think you're actually wrong The divorce rate. Statistically it's around 42% with the divorce rate in the UK at its lowest since 1971.

N0Tfunny · 19/11/2025 19:25

Okay so we’ve had the example of the waitress and the millionaire. Let me talk you through this example, which is perhaps slightly more like the OP.

Let’s imagine that Aquea is a doctor and her fiancé Dave owns a small haulage company. The OP has already said that he employs 35 people, but he has large overheads and the margins are small.

Aquea and Dave agree a pre nup which excludes his business from the assets, then they marry.

For the first few years, his business doesn’t make very much profit at all. Yes, he has lots of money coming in, but he has even more going out to pay the wages of 35 staff, fuel, insurance , running the depot and servicing the huge bank loan he took out to buy the trucks.

So he says he can only take a wage of £20,000 / year . Every January and July there’s a cash flow crisis so he has no income at all . He even takes out a few personal credit cards, so he can use them to pay the staff wages if necessary. Of course these repayments ( as personal debt ) get added onto the family bills each month.

Aquea, however, is earning £40,000/ year as a trainee surgeon, so she pays 2/3 of all their bills , including the mortgage on their house , which they own 50:50.

Dave feels really bad that he can’t pay his share, but promises that it will all be different soon, when some of the bank loans are paid off and the company is profitable.

Then the first baby comes along and although Dave was very excited to be a dad, it turns out that his business is super busy and he can’t take any time off on paternity leave. As he frequently reminds her, he doesn’t get any paid leave like her so it makes more sense for her to take time off instead.

Fortunately Aquea had built up some savings, which of course they need to pay the bills for that year, as she earns 2/3 of their income and they can hardly survive on Dave’s wages of £20,000.

It’s a shame that Dave‘s company is still not making much of a profit, but then he’s ploughing every spare penny back into paying off the large company bank loans.

After maternity leave, Aquea goes back to work full time , as they need her wages and her savings are running out. Money is tight as they have a mortgage and FT nursery for a baby is expensive.

Very quickly, they discover that neither of their jobs fit around nursery hours so they have to hire a nanny. This becomes another source of stress as Dave hates having someone else around the house and it causes a lot of problems in their marriage. Eventually, Aquea decides to take a part time job in general practice for more regular hours, with no on call or weekend work.

She is bitterly disappointed to give up her post in surgery, but she tells herself she’s doing it for her marriage and her child.

Dave is still working lots of evenings and weekends at his haulage business, he’s hired more staff and making some profit. He brings his dad, his brother and his finance director Debbie into the business - they all invest capital in return for shares, which reduces the company debt. The share structure of the company is changed to reflect this, but of course Aquea doesn’t know as she has no involvement.

Another baby comes along and the last of Aquea’s savings are spent funding another maternity leave . She feels more and more resentful as she is paying 2/3 of the bills ( plus all the little extras for the kids that Dave would complain about) and doing all the childcare and 95% of the housework. She never sees. Dave as he’s always working or at the gym.

Everyone tells her she should expect to do everything as Dave works more than FT and she is only PT and besides, she is so lucky to be married to a rich business man who allows her to only work part time. Dave sometimes jokes about how he married a gold digger and everyone laughs.

When the children are both in school, sadly their marriage breaks up. It turns out that Dave is having an affair with Debbie, his finance director, who is pregnant with his baby . All these evenings and weekends he was “ working late“ was time he was with her. The money that he was borrowing on credit cards was probably going to Debbie - but Aquea can’t prove that .

It also turns out that the business makes a profit of £500,000 / year and has been doing so for years.

Aquea never thought to download the company acounts, as she was too busy working 4 days a week in a demanding job, running the house and brining up two small children single handedly. Besides, she trusted her husband .

Even if she had done so, Dave and his accountant has set up a complicated structure of several linked companies , with a HQ in the Isle of Man.

So in the divorce, the assets of the marriage are

⁃	their home , which Aqueq has paid 2/3 of, but she will get half
⁃	Her NHS persion which she has paid all of but she will get half 
⁃	Her car, which she paid all of but she will get half 
⁃	Her savings of £40,000  which all go on legal fees for the divorce. But she will still have to pay Dave half of them. 

She won’t get the business because of the pre nup. Her solicitor thought she might have a good case to fight this, as their circumstances are very different from when it was signed.

But when they investigate, they find out that since the share structure was changed, Dave’s shares now only have a right to income and not capital. All the capital belongs to the shares owned by Debbie and Dave’s parents , which means that he has no assets in his own name for Aquea to come after.

So even if Aquea fights and wins some of Dave’s shares, they will be worthless to her as they only have a right to income as decided by the Board ( which is Dave, Debbie and his parents ).

Dave claims to have no pension and he doesn’t even have any money in his bank acounts , as he uses the company credit card for everything . Turns out his car is also a company car.

Dave and Aquea have to sell the family home and after the mortgage is paid off, Dave will get most of it as he gets

50% of the house
50% of the CETV for his wife’s NHS pension accrued during the marriage 50% of her car
50% of her savings (which are already spent )

Dave even threatens to clain spousal maintenance from her , as she is now earning £60,000 as a PT GP and he is only taking a salary of £24,000 from his company.

As soon as Aqua moves out, she puts in a claim to the CMS for child support for their two children. Dave immediately drops his salary to £9,000 / year, so he only has to pay £7 week child support.

Debbie continues to take a salary and dividends of £ 250,000 / year from the company.

Dave tells all his family that Aquea took him to the cleaners in the divorce - they all feel sorry for him.

And that , dear readers, is how Dave walks away with a company worth million, an annual household income of quarter of a million and a huge pension and savings in an offshore account. He pays no child maintenance and never sees his kids ( well he and Debbie have a new baby to keep them busy ).

Aquea walks away with nothing except the kids, her car and her pension. She is now mid 40s and has to take out a big mortgage to buy a 3 bed flat , as she has only a small deposit.

PyongyangKipperbang · 19/11/2025 19:29

BeaRightThere · 19/11/2025 19:21

I think you're actually wrong The divorce rate. Statistically it's around 42% with the divorce rate in the UK at its lowest since 1971.

Well technically yes but the marriage rate is also at the lowest it has ever been, so that will naturally skew the statistics. Those who get married, knowing that in this day and age there is no societal expectation that they should do so, are more likely to be fully committed to making the marriage work.

It doesnt mean that fewer people are splitting up, just that only divorce statistics can be reliably sourced. A couple living together for 15 years, having kids and splitting up, will never be legally recorded in the way that a divorce would.

There are so many variables that make this an unreliable "fact" in terms of relationship success or otherwise.

CoffeeLipstickKeys · 19/11/2025 19:31

There is a lot of combative waffle on this thread about women sacrificing looks,beauty,youth body and women should be remunerated for arduous task of pregnancy. Prenup to include reward childbirth . It’s reductionist,alarmist and all a bit women are goddesses woohoo.

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:32

DownThePubWithStevieNicks · 19/11/2025 19:06

It’s pretty disingenuous of OP and PPs to be suggesting that she is doing him the great favour and enormous sacrifice of bearing children. Yes, pregnancy, birth and motherhood can hold various risks for women.

But OP clearly wants children at least as much as her partner does. She is not offering to be his surrogate and wanting paid for that. They both bring their willingness to make the other a parent to the marriage.

Actually, it’s not just disingenuous it’s insulting. Women have more to offer a marriage than their wombs (given in sacrifice!), and lots of men are looking for more in a partner than her child bearing ability.

What's this guy (the OP's partner) looking for, the size of her bank balance and his exit plan, not exactly expressing Byron's sentiments in, "She Walks in Beauty".

SoftBalletShoes · 19/11/2025 19:40

BeaRightThere · 19/11/2025 19:21

I think you're actually wrong The divorce rate. Statistically it's around 42% with the divorce rate in the UK at its lowest since 1971.

42% is still pretty crap though, isn't it. And then you have to consider that a tranche of the remaining 58% are probably unhappily married. Let's take a conservative estimate that 20% of that remainder are staying for family or financial reasons, or are too scared to split. So 53.6% of marriages end in divorce or are unhappy, possibly even more that are unhappy.

Marriage is therefore a technology that fails about half the time. I honestly don't see the point unless it's to have children.

Imagine if you were boarding a plane, and someone told you that there was a 42% chance it would crash. The terms are that you would escape with life and limb, but you'd have much less money, your earning capacity would be buggered while having far more expenses afterwards, and you'd never trust another plane again in your life. Would you still get on it?

And imagine you were told there was at least a further 11.6% chance that none of that would happen, but you were still in for the most unpleasant ride of your life.

No one in their RIGHT MINDS would get on that plane!

Marriage is not working in today's society. I'm beginning to think that the same protections of marriage should kick in when women have kids, and that couples can choose to make each other next of kin if they want. And then get rid of the entire institution of marriage. It's responsible for SO much heartbreak.

ETA: I know that marriage works out well for some, and I'm really happy for those people. It keeps some hope alive in me and cheers me up to hear of good marriages. But there's no doubt that it works for far too few people. Maybe human beings are innately too selfish for it, now that we don't have to rely on each other like we once did?

Blizzardofleaves · 19/11/2025 19:40

CoffeeLipstickKeys · 19/11/2025 19:31

There is a lot of combative waffle on this thread about women sacrificing looks,beauty,youth body and women should be remunerated for arduous task of pregnancy. Prenup to include reward childbirth . It’s reductionist,alarmist and all a bit women are goddesses woohoo.

Says a man - and if you are not a man. WTAF!! That’s even worse.

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:42

CoffeeLipstickKeys · 19/11/2025 19:31

There is a lot of combative waffle on this thread about women sacrificing looks,beauty,youth body and women should be remunerated for arduous task of pregnancy. Prenup to include reward childbirth . It’s reductionist,alarmist and all a bit women are goddesses woohoo.

Pregnancy 'is' hard, giving birth 'harder" still.

And some of us don't care how rich the man is, talk about tedious. If you (general you) think that wealth is a 'state of grace', then you probably do need the pre-nup as you will eventually realise there is nothing behind the shimmer!

Thebigonesgetaway · 19/11/2025 19:43

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:42

Pregnancy 'is' hard, giving birth 'harder" still.

And some of us don't care how rich the man is, talk about tedious. If you (general you) think that wealth is a 'state of grace', then you probably do need the pre-nup as you will eventually realise there is nothing behind the shimmer!

Well I don’t know about you but I had a child as I wanted one too, it wasn’t some act of service I did for my husband, I wasn’t a surrogate and I didn’t need paying.

Elektra1 · 19/11/2025 19:44

N0Tfunny · 19/11/2025 19:25

Okay so we’ve had the example of the waitress and the millionaire. Let me talk you through this example, which is perhaps slightly more like the OP.

Let’s imagine that Aquea is a doctor and her fiancé Dave owns a small haulage company. The OP has already said that he employs 35 people, but he has large overheads and the margins are small.

Aquea and Dave agree a pre nup which excludes his business from the assets, then they marry.

For the first few years, his business doesn’t make very much profit at all. Yes, he has lots of money coming in, but he has even more going out to pay the wages of 35 staff, fuel, insurance , running the depot and servicing the huge bank loan he took out to buy the trucks.

So he says he can only take a wage of £20,000 / year . Every January and July there’s a cash flow crisis so he has no income at all . He even takes out a few personal credit cards, so he can use them to pay the staff wages if necessary. Of course these repayments ( as personal debt ) get added onto the family bills each month.

Aquea, however, is earning £40,000/ year as a trainee surgeon, so she pays 2/3 of all their bills , including the mortgage on their house , which they own 50:50.

Dave feels really bad that he can’t pay his share, but promises that it will all be different soon, when some of the bank loans are paid off and the company is profitable.

Then the first baby comes along and although Dave was very excited to be a dad, it turns out that his business is super busy and he can’t take any time off on paternity leave. As he frequently reminds her, he doesn’t get any paid leave like her so it makes more sense for her to take time off instead.

Fortunately Aquea had built up some savings, which of course they need to pay the bills for that year, as she earns 2/3 of their income and they can hardly survive on Dave’s wages of £20,000.

It’s a shame that Dave‘s company is still not making much of a profit, but then he’s ploughing every spare penny back into paying off the large company bank loans.

After maternity leave, Aquea goes back to work full time , as they need her wages and her savings are running out. Money is tight as they have a mortgage and FT nursery for a baby is expensive.

Very quickly, they discover that neither of their jobs fit around nursery hours so they have to hire a nanny. This becomes another source of stress as Dave hates having someone else around the house and it causes a lot of problems in their marriage. Eventually, Aquea decides to take a part time job in general practice for more regular hours, with no on call or weekend work.

She is bitterly disappointed to give up her post in surgery, but she tells herself she’s doing it for her marriage and her child.

Dave is still working lots of evenings and weekends at his haulage business, he’s hired more staff and making some profit. He brings his dad, his brother and his finance director Debbie into the business - they all invest capital in return for shares, which reduces the company debt. The share structure of the company is changed to reflect this, but of course Aquea doesn’t know as she has no involvement.

Another baby comes along and the last of Aquea’s savings are spent funding another maternity leave . She feels more and more resentful as she is paying 2/3 of the bills ( plus all the little extras for the kids that Dave would complain about) and doing all the childcare and 95% of the housework. She never sees. Dave as he’s always working or at the gym.

Everyone tells her she should expect to do everything as Dave works more than FT and she is only PT and besides, she is so lucky to be married to a rich business man who allows her to only work part time. Dave sometimes jokes about how he married a gold digger and everyone laughs.

When the children are both in school, sadly their marriage breaks up. It turns out that Dave is having an affair with Debbie, his finance director, who is pregnant with his baby . All these evenings and weekends he was “ working late“ was time he was with her. The money that he was borrowing on credit cards was probably going to Debbie - but Aquea can’t prove that .

It also turns out that the business makes a profit of £500,000 / year and has been doing so for years.

Aquea never thought to download the company acounts, as she was too busy working 4 days a week in a demanding job, running the house and brining up two small children single handedly. Besides, she trusted her husband .

Even if she had done so, Dave and his accountant has set up a complicated structure of several linked companies , with a HQ in the Isle of Man.

So in the divorce, the assets of the marriage are

⁃	their home , which Aqueq has paid 2/3 of, but she will get half
⁃	Her NHS persion which she has paid all of but she will get half 
⁃	Her car, which she paid all of but she will get half 
⁃	Her savings of £40,000  which all go on legal fees for the divorce. But she will still have to pay Dave half of them. 

She won’t get the business because of the pre nup. Her solicitor thought she might have a good case to fight this, as their circumstances are very different from when it was signed.

But when they investigate, they find out that since the share structure was changed, Dave’s shares now only have a right to income and not capital. All the capital belongs to the shares owned by Debbie and Dave’s parents , which means that he has no assets in his own name for Aquea to come after.

So even if Aquea fights and wins some of Dave’s shares, they will be worthless to her as they only have a right to income as decided by the Board ( which is Dave, Debbie and his parents ).

Dave claims to have no pension and he doesn’t even have any money in his bank acounts , as he uses the company credit card for everything . Turns out his car is also a company car.

Dave and Aquea have to sell the family home and after the mortgage is paid off, Dave will get most of it as he gets

50% of the house
50% of the CETV for his wife’s NHS pension accrued during the marriage 50% of her car
50% of her savings (which are already spent )

Dave even threatens to clain spousal maintenance from her , as she is now earning £60,000 as a PT GP and he is only taking a salary of £24,000 from his company.

As soon as Aqua moves out, she puts in a claim to the CMS for child support for their two children. Dave immediately drops his salary to £9,000 / year, so he only has to pay £7 week child support.

Debbie continues to take a salary and dividends of £ 250,000 / year from the company.

Dave tells all his family that Aquea took him to the cleaners in the divorce - they all feel sorry for him.

And that , dear readers, is how Dave walks away with a company worth million, an annual household income of quarter of a million and a huge pension and savings in an offshore account. He pays no child maintenance and never sees his kids ( well he and Debbie have a new baby to keep them busy ).

Aquea walks away with nothing except the kids, her car and her pension. She is now mid 40s and has to take out a big mortgage to buy a 3 bed flat , as she has only a small deposit.

There is so much wrong with this work of fiction that it’s difficult to know where to start. First off, why would Dave, the founder and owner of the business, commit to an equity restructuring which gave him only income and no capital? He would not. Even a private equity deal would not involve that.

Secondly, Dave would not get 50/50 of Aqua’s assets because assets are divided according to need (in the absence of a pre-nup) and she would need to house herself in suitable housing for her and the 2 kids.

Thirdly, it’s unclear on what basis Debbie could receive £250k a year, unless that in fact reflected a combination of (a) her fair market salary and (b) the dividends payable pari passu to all other shareholders of her class of share. With profits of £500k a year, it is highly unlikely that a single shareholder could receive half of the company profits, especially given that in the fantasy scenario where Dave has chosen to receive only income and give up his capital in the company he founded, he would be unlikely to be a director any more and would therefore have no role to play in determining what proportion of profits were paid as dividends and what proportion invested back into the company. Even if he were still a director, there would be at least one other director who would be unlikely to vote on a resolution to pay Debbie half the annual profits, since doing so would be in dereliction of his or her fiduciary duties to the company. In addtion, it would be unfairly prejudicial to other shareholders and could found a derivative claim by another shareholder or shareholders on behalf of the company.

Lovely horror story, but something which would never come to pass.

OhDearMuriel · 19/11/2025 19:44

Yabvu

Why on earth do you think you should be entitled to 50% of his business in the event of divorce, that you had nothing to do with setting up and working hard for?

I’m a female and I would do exactly the same as your fiancée.

You sound entitled and possibly very naive.

PyongyangKipperbang · 19/11/2025 19:45

@N0Tfunny

Perfectly written.

For every man claiming they "got taken to the cleaners" simply for not being allowed to walk away with everything, there are one thousand women who really did. Who now carry the financial, practical and often emotion load of being a parent alone.

@Aquea do you really want this as your future? A man able to build up a successful business is not a stupid man, and there are many ways (as @N0Tfunny has shown) that he can lock down his business and squeeze every last cent out of you in the mean time.

Is that worth a ring on your finger?

ForNoisyCat · 19/11/2025 19:47

madrush · 19/11/2025 00:19

Why was getting married before having children so important to you? In your words “Just for legal protection.” For your future.

The prenup he’s suggesting is the same the other way, for what he has built in the past. Why is yours acceptable but his cynical and unromantic?

Hopefully you have a long and happy marriage and neither of the legal/financial protections ever need to come into play. But nobody can see the future and, at this stage, legal/financial protections for both of you are sensible in my opinion.

Fab answer, i B wanted to say something similar

SoftBalletShoes · 19/11/2025 19:49

Elektra1 · 19/11/2025 19:44

There is so much wrong with this work of fiction that it’s difficult to know where to start. First off, why would Dave, the founder and owner of the business, commit to an equity restructuring which gave him only income and no capital? He would not. Even a private equity deal would not involve that.

Secondly, Dave would not get 50/50 of Aqua’s assets because assets are divided according to need (in the absence of a pre-nup) and she would need to house herself in suitable housing for her and the 2 kids.

Thirdly, it’s unclear on what basis Debbie could receive £250k a year, unless that in fact reflected a combination of (a) her fair market salary and (b) the dividends payable pari passu to all other shareholders of her class of share. With profits of £500k a year, it is highly unlikely that a single shareholder could receive half of the company profits, especially given that in the fantasy scenario where Dave has chosen to receive only income and give up his capital in the company he founded, he would be unlikely to be a director any more and would therefore have no role to play in determining what proportion of profits were paid as dividends and what proportion invested back into the company. Even if he were still a director, there would be at least one other director who would be unlikely to vote on a resolution to pay Debbie half the annual profits, since doing so would be in dereliction of his or her fiduciary duties to the company. In addtion, it would be unfairly prejudicial to other shareholders and could found a derivative claim by another shareholder or shareholders on behalf of the company.

Lovely horror story, but something which would never come to pass.

Or, to put the so-called work of fiction into a much simpler format: When there is a family business, there are a multitude of ways to twist things/hide things/transfer things so that the business owner looks poor on paper. The salaried spouse with the separate career therefore gets hammered.

I can see that.

Elektra1 · 19/11/2025 19:51

How about instead of all the hand-wringing on this thread about how awful men are, the OP just keeps her job, builds her career, works on her marriage (which sounds pretty dire before it’s even started anyway), and agrees with the husband that in the event of divorce they each keep the value of what they entered the marriage with and divide everything else 50/50, subject to the needs of any children who may be born to them? If he turns out to be an unhelpful father (and there’s no information suggesting that he would), then during the marriage she can choose either to exit early (minimising the amount of any upside from her career advancement which could go to him), or get childcare, as most working parents have to. The end.

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:52

Thebigonesgetaway · 19/11/2025 19:43

Well I don’t know about you but I had a child as I wanted one too, it wasn’t some act of service I did for my husband, I wasn’t a surrogate and I didn’t need paying.

Yes, tbh we didn't really think about it, just did it, certainly didn't get our Abacus out prior to sex to work out who gets what in the eventuality of it all going to s..t!

IAmKerplunk · 19/11/2025 19:52

ThatCyanCat · 19/11/2025 13:39

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.

I think this is nearer the truth and why op feels sick at the thought, because she knows he will marry her under sufferance and she doesn’t trust that he will do right by her either during the marriage or any children.

ForNoisyCat · 19/11/2025 19:53

Aquea · 19/11/2025 00:37

Fiancé and I ended up discussing finding a solicitor for me over dinner today. And it just made me feel sick to my stomach.

O Op, I think this isn’t your love match. Perhaps walk away - don’t compromise on the potential
For real love. This does not sound like love from either of you.

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:54

IAmKerplunk · 19/11/2025 19:52

I think this is nearer the truth and why op feels sick at the thought, because she knows he will marry her under sufferance and she doesn’t trust that he will do right by her either during the marriage or any children.

Oh but, but, he is rich there will be so many women lining up to take her place if she doesn't accept the abandonment of her soul and sign the pre-nup.

SoftBalletShoes · 19/11/2025 19:56

Elektra1 · 19/11/2025 19:51

How about instead of all the hand-wringing on this thread about how awful men are, the OP just keeps her job, builds her career, works on her marriage (which sounds pretty dire before it’s even started anyway), and agrees with the husband that in the event of divorce they each keep the value of what they entered the marriage with and divide everything else 50/50, subject to the needs of any children who may be born to them? If he turns out to be an unhelpful father (and there’s no information suggesting that he would), then during the marriage she can choose either to exit early (minimising the amount of any upside from her career advancement which could go to him), or get childcare, as most working parents have to. The end.

It doesn't sound as if the husband would want to split the business's profits 50/50 with her. That is, the profits from the time they married. Also, there are so many things that can happen. I don't think a pre-nup can cover every eventuality. What if he gets a brain injury, like James Cracknell, and becomes a different person? What if she gets early-onset dementia and needs 20 years of care? (Happened to my BIL's wife.)

Anyway, if OP does agree to a pre-nup and marries him, I think it should be a condition of the prenup that she gets to see the company accounts, so she can see what profit it's making. That way, he can't claim to be drawing a small salary while it's actually making a lot. He doesn't trust her, hence the pre-nup, so the lack of trust should go both ways.

Blizzardofleaves · 19/11/2025 20:00

SoftBalletShoes · 19/11/2025 19:56

It doesn't sound as if the husband would want to split the business's profits 50/50 with her. That is, the profits from the time they married. Also, there are so many things that can happen. I don't think a pre-nup can cover every eventuality. What if he gets a brain injury, like James Cracknell, and becomes a different person? What if she gets early-onset dementia and needs 20 years of care? (Happened to my BIL's wife.)

Anyway, if OP does agree to a pre-nup and marries him, I think it should be a condition of the prenup that she gets to see the company accounts, so she can see what profit it's making. That way, he can't claim to be drawing a small salary while it's actually making a lot. He doesn't trust her, hence the pre-nup, so the lack of trust should go both ways.

What a depressing prospect. Who would want to be in a marriage like this - hellish with children, when he gets to pick and choose what he pays for and becomes financially abusive 🤷‍♀️ I would just end it and find a decent man.

ForNoisyCat · 19/11/2025 20:00

Goldenbear · 19/11/2025 19:52

Yes, tbh we didn't really think about it, just did it, certainly didn't get our Abacus out prior to sex to work out who gets what in the eventuality of it all going to s..t!

:)😂