How can you get married if you are rich

[Randomer40]

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.

I guess it is mainly designed in such a way that the hard working rich one doesn't get to chuck the poorer party and kids into a bedsit

surely that is a good thing?

I am the one with the assetts in our family (I had a house coming in which is rented out, own with husband and he is a stay at home dad to our two kids while I work full time)

I would fully expect to give him a lot if we were to every divorce. I hope it won't happen (we have been married 12 years and together 15) but if it does then that is to be expected.

Children are a different story and I agree there must be compensation for the spouse who stays home with children.
However, taking children out of the equation. Someone can only afford a bedsit pre marriage and then they don't accrue much. The should then get 50% of marital assets and not more. If that means bedsit such is life. Plenty of people need to get by with very little.

Mmm it's why I won't marry

If you can't trust your spouse with your money, you shouldn't trust them with your heart.

According to the UN, the divorce rate in 2022 was 1.6% and has been dropping for quite some time.

There is a well known saying judges come up, 'Needs trump everything.' In other words you can come up with all the reasons for your ex not to have any of your assets but if they need a home, it has to be paid for out of your joint assets (ie the richer one) regardless of any prenup and especially if there are children.

Totally agree. If DH died I would never ever marry again

The law is not ‘so crazy’. That’s you, OP, getting married without commitment.

why the weird outrage? You knew marriage was a team game right?

That is the crazy thing. Plenty of people in London "need" or ("want") a nice home in a nice area. But it's not affordable for them. That is life.

Essentially the state steals assets from you in order not to pay benefits for the poor spouse. And also the "need" is interpreted ridiculously generous. There was a case where the wife could not move from Chelsea to batteesea.. too far from the area she is used to.
Insane.

If you want your OH to be a SAHP, then ethically, really you should marry to recognise their contribution by sharing assets. But you can still have a prenup or a family trust to protect inheritance.

If both partners have careers, then it's really a matter for them whether they marry or not, with no moral dimension to it.

It is a very one sided commitment.

The law stands out and is vastly different from the rest of the world. London is the divorce capital of the world.
So yes it is crazy

Yes. Where I live assets from before the marriage are your own. Inheritance is ring fenced in a divorce.

You are absolutely right. Looks like what happened to you is what often happens to men too.

The system basically rewards and incentivizes lazyness.

I am not saying all SAHP are lazy of course. But obviously the less you bring to the table financially the more you get in divorce.

I used to work with the very wealthy professionally - they all marry each other.

OP, what are you looking for from marriage? You dismiss having children as changing the situation, but without them what's the need to marry (legally)?

No need for me but some people have a need..

Inheritance isn’t fair. Life isn’t fair.

Have you heard about Kevin Costner & his ugly divorce?
They have a pre-nup.
She started charging exorbitant amounts on their credit cards well before she filled. Then, she paid her divorce lawyer $25,000 from Costner’s credit card. She also hired a criminal defense attorney - why? Why would she need a criminal defense attorney?
Although they usually lease cars, she purchased a car outright before she filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences.
She did a lot of planning up until she filed for divorce and then actually accused Costner of playing dirty.
She refused to move, even though it clearly states in the pre-nup that she she must move within 30 days. Now, the judge has ruled she must be out by 30 July and cannot remove any furniture or appliance or anything other than her own personal belongings.
Pre-nups should be enforced if you agree to them. Christine Baumgartner Costner agreed.
I remember the judge in my own divorce saying that there’s always one party who doesn’t play by the rules. My ex lied, cheated & stole after demanding a divorce and forced me into bankruptcy.
Takes all kinds.

Wow @Beacon2000 you sound quite bruised by the whole thing.

I wasn't a SAHP for very long but my experience of it was most SAHPs around me were hyper-efficient, cook-from-scratch women with highly scheduled offspring. I remember one of them commenting that I bought ready made (fresh) pasta. She made her own.

I had to get out. It was stepford land. I needed to get back to my job and dried pasta and pesto from jars.

I wonder if it varies by geography and demographics, or if you're still at the jaundiced stage. Or both?

You can have some assets held in a trust, it will be untouchable. You need to plan ahead and see an account and a solicitor before you get married.

A trust is the way forward. Legal advice would be needed as well as the careful picking of trustees. But there are ways to protect assets.

That's because the women will be an unpaid maid and often sahm for the man and their kids and not be able to pursue a career. They are usually the reason the man is able to get far in his as they manage everything at home
Men are usually encouraged to peruse careers

Yes, there is a reason women are advised differently.

But you don’t have to get married. It’s optional.

You do need to accept it if a partner chooses not to stay at in a relationship with you because of it.

Also people get married in Europe and move to London and then they lose all their assets. No one warns you when you enter this country that this implies a 50% chance of losing most of your assets. Disgusting.

Again, when someone moves countries I would expect them to fully research all aspects of that. When would you like this warning to be given? When they check your passports? A sign at Dover?

I think the the U.K. in general has an point of blindness over discussing marriage contracts. I got married in one European country and am getting divorced in another. In some countries there are options of which marriage contract to be married under - the couple choose. In France they have three basic ones:

1. English-style: what's yours is mine, what's mine is yours
2. Scottish style: everything accumulated from date of marriage is communal property, everything from before is personal property.
3. All assets from before and after marriage are the property of whoever earns/invests/buys them.

And then there are lots of clauses that can be added on.

It's standard and means a discussion needs to be had. In the U.K. that discussion is seen as almost disgusting - far more than merely distasteful - to have when you're engaged. So I don't think most married Brits could actually tell you how their assets would be divided in divorce, because they've made assumptions, not had discussions about the law! So perhaps signs up at Dover would be useful for Brits returning from holiday!

But OP the bottom line is that each country's marriage/divorce laws are based on "normal" people, which millionaires are not. They are also intricately tied up in the social and legal fabric of the state (including inheritance laws) and associated cultural norms. In France, for example, there's no division of pensions. Pensions aren't seen as assets, but managed by the state, so seen more like a state benefit. Everybody has one related to their job (and most women work) so they simply don't feature in divorce. Other EU countries and the U.K. regard them as an asset that can be divided.

So the law isn't set up for the some of the most privileged people on the planet and they have a disadvantage because of that privilege. Is it fair? Nope. But as the rest of us very hardworking (but normally remunerated) people can attest, life isn't.

Also the most wealthy have money prudently tied up in trusts and other ways making them less well off on paper. They're well-protected, unless they've not invested a fraction of their money in good legal and financial advice! I'm not sure we need to be overly concerned on this point.