Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

How can you get married if you are rich

109 replies

Randomer40 · 13/07/2023 19:09

I seriously dont understand how people do that in England.
Say you worked your ass off/got inheritance and you have 1.5M pounds and your spouse has no assets.

When you get married you essentially gift your spouse 750K (or more over time if they are low earner). You might love your spouse but you might still not want to gift them all those assets you worked hard for.

After 10 years of marriage you will have to split assets 50 50 or worse and a prenup is not much help.

How do people do it? How can anyone think that is fair to split assets that you earned while not even knowing your spouse.

OP posts:
cfmtb · 14/07/2023 11:33

I'm the wealthier woman in our scenario - and we had to get married for immigration reasons.
At the end of the day I trust my DH to not screw me over if we decided to divorce, and I have accepted he'll get some of my assets if we do, so when DC are with him their quality of life wouldn't suffer as I have no doubt he'd want 50/50 custody (I earn 4x and have assets, whereas he does not). We do have a prenup just to say that's what we would like at the time, understand they are not always considered.
At the end of the day, you can make money back and at least I have lived my life to the full and enjoyed every second with the love of my life and our children which I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise Grin

cptartapp · 14/07/2023 11:37

THisbackwithavengeance · 13/07/2023 19:20

I agree.

On MN, if a woman has assets/high income she's told not to get married and her DP has to accept getting nothing.

On the other hand, a woman with no assets/low income is advised to get married straight away to her high earning DP and to make sure she gets her half of all his assets, pension and income.

Confused

Because women are usually left with the DC.

LakeTiticaca · 14/07/2023 11:39

Why does it bother you so much OP?
Are you the rich half of the couple?

BranchGold · 14/07/2023 11:54

It’s interesting that you keep conflating ‘worked hard’ with ‘got a large inheritance.’

Original poster
Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 12:15

cfmtb · 14/07/2023 11:33

I'm the wealthier woman in our scenario - and we had to get married for immigration reasons.
At the end of the day I trust my DH to not screw me over if we decided to divorce, and I have accepted he'll get some of my assets if we do, so when DC are with him their quality of life wouldn't suffer as I have no doubt he'd want 50/50 custody (I earn 4x and have assets, whereas he does not). We do have a prenup just to say that's what we would like at the time, understand they are not always considered.
At the end of the day, you can make money back and at least I have lived my life to the full and enjoyed every second with the love of my life and our children which I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise Grin

He would probably get 60% of your assets.

OP posts:
Charlize43 · 14/07/2023 12:26

Rich men do this all the time. Didn't Warren Buffett marry a cocktail waitress? It's only money...

cfmtb · 14/07/2023 12:27

@Randomer40
Maybe, if we weren't amicable and we didn't make a settlement decision ourselves at that point. I would hope we'd come to some agreement ourselves (we've had this conversation).
But I've been incredibly happy for years, he's a wonderful husband and father so to me, it's worth the risk. I understand not for everyone!!

Alarae · 14/07/2023 12:37

Of my rich clients, some just begrudgingly pay off the divorce and scowl about it until the ends of time, some pay off the divorce and then get married again and not care as they have enough money anyway and the rest have most of their wealth tied up in trusts so it's not immediately accessible anyway.

Original poster
Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 12:50

BranchGold · 14/07/2023 11:54

It’s interesting that you keep conflating ‘worked hard’ with ‘got a large inheritance.’

In both cases someone worked hard for that money.

And it is insane that someone else would just get it "for free". When it's not what the people who worked for it wanted.

OP posts:
Original poster
Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 12:51

cfmtb · 14/07/2023 12:27

@Randomer40
Maybe, if we weren't amicable and we didn't make a settlement decision ourselves at that point. I would hope we'd come to some agreement ourselves (we've had this conversation).
But I've been incredibly happy for years, he's a wonderful husband and father so to me, it's worth the risk. I understand not for everyone!!

You seem nice and I understand your point of view.
I just feel like it is grossly unfair that you have to accept all that risk.

OP posts:
Spreadbed · 14/07/2023 13:15

Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 11:16

Seems not very smart

Show quote history

I don’t think it’s smart either, but I do think this is how the majority go into things, from what I’ve personally observed.

DrCoconut · 14/07/2023 13:17

@cptartapp I was left with the kids and had to pay my ex a lot of money. I get next to nothing from him now. Marriage did not protect me at all.

Marchmount · 14/07/2023 13:41

I agree with you. I managed to escape financially (not emotionally) unscathed from my divorce but that was because my ex felt guilty. I will not marry again as I am not prepared to risk the assets that I have spent 25 years building up. My partner seems ok with this even though he is more financially vulnerable.

I advise my kids 1. Never be financially reliant on their OH and 2. Marriage is high risk, low reward if you have any assets.

maryso · 14/07/2023 13:42

Marriage is an optional legal state. Better to ponder the pre-nuptial process early rather than late. If you're at the stage where you're contemplating pitching into a lifelong contract with someone, and you can't open up your life-books to each other, not just current but what to do if things change and how to protect any children or the innocent party or both parties if there's a mutual separation, then it's questionable that you're ready to enter into an optional legal contract.

The benefit of today's social mores means marriage contracts are incidental to good outcomes for the couple as individuals and any children involved. If your partner is not on the same page or not up to agreeing solutions to the various scenarios, it's not the right time and possibly not the right person. Pre-nups are crucially to protect (potential) children, the rest is literally just money which is replaceable. Those with child-bearing capability ie wombs who have children they support themselves arguably don't need a marriage contract unless the welfare of their children is protected. So entering into a optional legal contract must be done with due diligence. That way you protect the innocent against harm. Those without wombs also get to protect their children and access. Often long marriages between the very wealthy that have not been entirely happy are terminated as soon as the youngest reaches adulthood, that's how critical and central protecting the child is, even between warring couples who have more than they could ever need for many generations. The money is incidental, the children are central.

I've not seen any friends regret pre-nups that have been thoughtfully entered into with supportive legal steering. Yes, they have limited enforceability after a period, however if they've been comprehensively devised to acknowledge children and various circumstances, they will be difficult to set aside completely. The legal skill is similar to making a Will. A pre-nup records what you both intend, and if that changes, there's nothing stopping a new agreement. Some will opt to navigate uncertainty without something to record their intentions, however the pre-nup process has arguably more impact than a Will. Obviously, pre-nups and Wills are both optional yet extremely helpful when sadly called into play.

cloudsintheceiling · 14/07/2023 13:49

I don't really understand this mindset, it's going into marriage planning for it to end? In that case there's definitely no reason to do it. But if you are marrying to cement your lives together legally and you love each other, you'd want to share your assets, surely.
I
think if you are thinking this much about what will happen when you split up it's probably best not to marry at all. I understand things happen and people divorce when they never thought they would, but to not even feel optimistic at the start doesn't bode well.

vivainsomnia · 14/07/2023 14:02

Sure. But then again with prenuptials for example you can claim you "didn't understand it"
Once again, you are wrong about this.

FloydPepper · 14/07/2023 14:14

THisbackwithavengeance · 13/07/2023 19:20

I agree.

On MN, if a woman has assets/high income she's told not to get married and her DP has to accept getting nothing.

On the other hand, a woman with no assets/low income is advised to get married straight away to her high earning DP and to make sure she gets her half of all his assets, pension and income.

Confused

Don’t forget that the richer man is always tight, mean, probably abusive

and the poorer man is always a grabbing cocklodger

Newnamenewname109870 · 14/07/2023 14:15

You don’t go into a marriage expecting to break up. It helps you both be financially stable.

Ponderingwindow · 14/07/2023 14:37

Barbadossunset · 14/07/2023 08:52

How do you know this?

Show quote history

There are numerous studies that demonstrate this.

it is also frequently referenced as one of the reasons the economic upper middle class is further pulling away from the rest of society because they marry one another and combine their resources.

Original poster
Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 14:52

maryso · 14/07/2023 13:42

Marriage is an optional legal state. Better to ponder the pre-nuptial process early rather than late. If you're at the stage where you're contemplating pitching into a lifelong contract with someone, and you can't open up your life-books to each other, not just current but what to do if things change and how to protect any children or the innocent party or both parties if there's a mutual separation, then it's questionable that you're ready to enter into an optional legal contract.

The benefit of today's social mores means marriage contracts are incidental to good outcomes for the couple as individuals and any children involved. If your partner is not on the same page or not up to agreeing solutions to the various scenarios, it's not the right time and possibly not the right person. Pre-nups are crucially to protect (potential) children, the rest is literally just money which is replaceable. Those with child-bearing capability ie wombs who have children they support themselves arguably don't need a marriage contract unless the welfare of their children is protected. So entering into a optional legal contract must be done with due diligence. That way you protect the innocent against harm. Those without wombs also get to protect their children and access. Often long marriages between the very wealthy that have not been entirely happy are terminated as soon as the youngest reaches adulthood, that's how critical and central protecting the child is, even between warring couples who have more than they could ever need for many generations. The money is incidental, the children are central.

I've not seen any friends regret pre-nups that have been thoughtfully entered into with supportive legal steering. Yes, they have limited enforceability after a period, however if they've been comprehensively devised to acknowledge children and various circumstances, they will be difficult to set aside completely. The legal skill is similar to making a Will. A pre-nup records what you both intend, and if that changes, there's nothing stopping a new agreement. Some will opt to navigate uncertainty without something to record their intentions, however the pre-nup process has arguably more impact than a Will. Obviously, pre-nups and Wills are both optional yet extremely helpful when sadly called into play.

Since they are not legally binding they are not that helpful. As the poorer spouse can always challenge them and you can fully expect that they will. Also the prenup has to be "fair" i.e. give the poor spouse a lot of premarital assets. Which is not fair imho.

OP posts:
HelloFreshed · 14/07/2023 14:55

Easy, marry someone who is on the same level as you.

suburbophobe · 14/07/2023 14:59

Is it very different under other jurisdictions then?

Yes. In my country pre-nups are legally binding.

suburbophobe · 14/07/2023 15:00

Easy, marry someone who is on the same level as you.

Yes of course. So easy to find. I hear they're 10 a penny at the local supermarkt. LOL

Original poster
Randomer40 · 14/07/2023 15:02

HelloFreshed · 14/07/2023 14:55

Easy, marry someone who is on the same level as you.

Yes the law does incentivize me to become a golddigger or definitely not marry someone poorer. Isn't that strange.
It will be a little like that everywhere in the world but the extent in England is ridiculous.

OP posts:
cruisingabout · 14/07/2023 15:13

Barbadossunset · 14/07/2023 08:52

How do you know this?

Show quote history

they do. I know quite a few of them, then tend to marry each other. not all of them though, some married just for love, some married amazing earners from less wealthy backgrounds. I know someone who was recently dumped by her long term bf all of a sudden and was kicked out his parents' spare flat in central london, I suspect that he will marry a rich girl soon. very cold.