Do I lose (or gain) any rights in marriage

[Sugarandshine]

Just that really, does anything change?

We earn roughly the same, I’ll probably earn more in the future. We’ll hopefully have kids.

There are things like miss/ms and people calling you Mrs, obviously the name change issue and any sexist traditions in the ceremony, but is there anything after that?

This conversation is interesting in a way realised when googled about financial settlement.

First Google attempt. Nearly all hits first page were men asking should I get married will I get screwed financially if split.

Can't remember what words searched but reminded me-

Divorce and how it's unfair on men financially.
Lots of men have ideas that ex wife automatically gets massive settlement (rather than start equal and then look at circs etc)
The phrase/ common idea is that it's common for men to 'get screwed' by ex wives.. took him to the cleaners... (So much implied in those phrases!).

I am fairly sure that some men have been talking about this for a fair old while.

Be careful getting married. If you split you can lose everything!

This conversation I think is more recent for women.

Around.
If not married and kids then way harder financially than if married.
If higher earner then think about not marrying.

It's kind of in response.. like the imo shitty attitude of some men for a fair old while has filtered over to women.

And now we're (some women) are taking the same toxic approach.

It basically boils down to if you are the weaker party financially - fewer assets, plan to be sahm etc, them marriage benefits you.

If you are the high earner, own house, savings, good pension etc, then you will lose out.

You’re putting everything into one pot. Both of you will take 50% out if you divorce. So if you put in more, you get back less, and vice versa.

Weaker party? Financially. Weaker is an interesting word choice!

In a situation where-

Not good at history but bits I know...

Men have set the rules. And the rules have coincidentally have been things like (last few hundred years)-

• political power men only
• on marriage husband owned all her financial assets
• women not allowed uni, not allowed join orgs about expertise eg Mary anning not allowed to join geological soc
• were expected in certain circs to stop work on marriage. Then children. (My great aunt had this. Not ancient history)
• legally paid less than men for same job
• etc etc.

And groups of women had to fight tooth and nail to remove each obstacle.

Tbc

We didn't get right to open a bank account in own name.

Until 70s (75?) women couldn't get personal credit, had to have dad DH sign.

So it's always been set up by men for men, women excluded banned etc even decade I was born. Things to do with money. Working earning banking etc.

And it was chipped away, each time hard won.

And this history, the structures, the way set up. Men are about work earning. Breadwinners, supporting dependents. Etc. It's still lurking.

Who has children? Men and women. Who wants children? Despite popular stereotypes. Men and women.

What is important? Valued? (History, structures created by men for men).

Paid work. Men need to earn. Be financially secure. Pensions. Because dependents.

What is inconsequential? Unimportant. Just a natural thing that gets done?

Home stuff. Men work hard earn. Women look after home. Home is his haven. Woman takes care of making it feel like haven.
(Victorian spheres, also see 50s USA ideals, ads common example of this ideal).

Children? Women. It's in their nature, they enjoy everything. So, enjoyable never hard. Not really work. For men to provide so women can be fulfilled is generous.

Any value? Is it work? No. It's a kindness for men to let them do their thing.

As men earn, have pensions etc. Women don't need to be involved in any of that stuff. Their husband looks after it all...

Fast forward to now.

Very very interesting.

Women have been for a little while in the scheme of things.
Working more after children (complex reasons, many factors).
Marriage rates been dropping for a fair while.
Divorce up.
Loads of single parents majority mums.
More women getting into jobs more well paid. Corporates. Getting to middle Mgmt etc. (Some. Most population men and women not well paid).

Of course men and women still want children. Only woman can have baby. Same as ever.

Tbc

Next of kin was a biggie for me. DH is older than me ,and he has three sons from a previous marriage. If he became sick or terminally ill, one of his sons would have been his legal next of kin for all health decisions. By marrying, all that was clarified instantly, we are each other's next of kin and can make decisions on each other's behalf.

Embedded structures and attitudes remain.
When it comes to what is valued, what is not.

What is not work at all really (spheres, provided for, enjoyable, rewarding). But is in fact a wonderful treat, a generosity by husband (as per previous post).

So the underpinning structures attitudes to value, work, etc remain. Deeply embedded, not even thought about generally. Invisible.

Pensions, paid work, value etc etc.

But the other attitudes have shifted massively.

Now generally-

• Women can and do work. Independent. Can look after themselves. Old fashioned and unfair on men including married to imagine partnership. He might not want to work? Lots of women don't work. Don't be weak. All women must pay their way irrespective (of children).

• Woman want children. Men don't. Children are women's desire, nothing to do with men. All women should consider all future scenarios and finances. Have saved good pension. earnings. As individual. Can't afford? Don't have kids. Wrong choice = your problem.

• Why should society support ignorant/ irresponsible women who decide to have baby and then for whatever reason struggle financially. Your kids your choice. Your problem. Selfish. Having children and expecting handouts.

• Children hungry? Can't afford enough food? Why expect help? No one made you have them. What value is looking after raising children to society? None. Never has been.

• Child benefit two kids only. Bloody women who breed like rabbits. Free cash? Get stuffed. Can't make ends meet if 3? Hardly enough if two? Get a job. Take responsibility. Your kids your problem.

Etc etc.

It's fascinating. The speed at which it's changed from men and women have children, man provides, she generously can stay at home be fulfilled.

To women have children. Women are responsible. Their choice. Children in society being fed warm etc nope. Individual women who make bad, reckless choices. And just have children because they want to. Those women need to handle it.

Etc etc.

Meanwhile.
Children. Childcare costs, local part time less well paid, work and do kids and do house. Pension women pot way less than men. Pay gap. Plenty of sexism etc in loads of workplaces. Women live longer, on much less money. Single parents (majority women) way more likely to be in poverty.
Last few years. Food banks all over the place. Free school meals arguments provision. Loads of stats reports etc women struggling way more.

Through all this. Men just work, earn, pension, want children,....

(Massive generalisations of course).

It’s financially insane for a wealthy older couple not to be married. Once they understand the inheritance tax consequences they always get married or enter civil partnerships

AARRFH

This next of kin myth drives me mad. It's not a thing in the UK when someone is sick,

My partner had a sudden diagnosis of cancer and was in ICU. Whilst he was in ICU we got married as I was pregnant and needed to be able to register him as father. NOTHING changed with regards to how the medical staff shared info or asked me about decisions once we were married.

Marriage isn't advisable if you're the higher earner. Don't go part time, don't compromise your career for a man,

@MsTSwift

It’s financially insane for a wealthy older couple not to be married. Once they understand the inheritance tax consequences they always get married or enter civil partnerships

Is this the case even if they don't intend the partner to Inherit

My aunt and her dp have been together 30 years and or married. My Aunts son and myself are the ones that will Inherit from her. Her partners adult children will inherit from him.

Both have always kept financially seperate and are Independently wealthy. They live together, but in her house. Her do doesn't want to live there after if my aunt passes first.

Their legal and financial advice was to not marry.

Interesting points!

So it looks like it’s primarily just a financial decision.

I had originally been thinking about other rights (like next of kin - but that sounds like it’s disputed) or that it’s only relatively recently that things like marital rape was outlawed and it blows my mind that women would get married when that was something that was allowed. - obviously I wouldn’t marry a man I believed would do that to me, but still, I can’t imagine giving him the legal right to!

Some pension schemes may not pay a survivor pension to an unmarried partner, only a spouse or civil partner. Worth checking the rules of your pension arrangements.

@Sugarandshine

Interesting points!

So it looks like it’s primarily just a financial decision.

I had originally been thinking about other rights (like next of kin - but that sounds like it’s disputed) or that it’s only relatively recently that things like marital rape was outlawed and it blows my mind that women would get married when that was something that was allowed. - obviously I wouldn’t marry a man I believed would do that to me, but still, I can’t imagine giving him the legal right to!

I think you are making that assumption that you wouldn't marry and man giving him the legal right to rape you, based on you living now in this era.

I know of a woman whose partner died intestate left with terribly complex legal issues regards property etc. In som3 cases it just simplifies legal matters

It’s financially insane for a wealthy older couple not to be married. Once they understand the inheritance tax consequences they always get married or enter civil partnerships

You’re making the huge assumption that everyone wants to leave everything to their partner. If that is the case then yes, marriage avoids IHT.

In my experience, it’s insane to get married because “wealthy older couples” tend to want to leave that wealth to others. If their partner is wealthy themselves they don’t need to inherit to survive, so they choose to leave their money to children or blood relatives.

I have left the bulk of my estate to my children. I did get married and it’s been a pita having to get wills etc drawn up to make sure everything goes where I want it to, and not automatically just to my husband.

If I’d known then what I know now, i’d have held out against marriage.

Why is it insane to get married in your situation Nomoreusernames1244? Surely you’d make a will anyway if you have extensive assets and clear intentions.

If you want to work abroad, marriage can make things easier for visas etc.

One of the main reasons we got married young (24&26) was DHs employer gave a lot more benefits to married couples than unmarried (housing, allowances, pensions etc) and critically it allowed me to travel with him. And then gave our DDs rights to travel with him and access schooling, healthcare etc.

Also with the travel... I didn't originally change my passport, so travelled for the first few years under my original name. The first time I was questioned about the children was after my name matched theres. They were being vigilant over blond hair girls of a certain age.

I’m just worried that something will happen and the will will be challenged, lost, or something?

If I wasn’t married even without a will the rules of intestacy means my children would get the bulk and I’d be more confident the money would go where I want it to.

It just seems pointless to get married and then have to draw up legal documents to put my affairs how they used to be before marriage, with actually less chance they’d be followed.

@MsGrumpytrousers

If you loathe the sexism of it all and the hideous history of marriage, don't forget that you can now get a civil partnership, which has all of the advantages and none of the crap.

CP has an unpleasant history of its own...

OP you haven't said where you live, I don't think? Have you ever taken legal advice on the issue?

It is completely dependent on where you live. Where I live, if you meet the requirements for a de facto relationship (usually live together for 2 years) you are in almost exactly the same position as a married couple. The main differences are having to wait for the 2 years; not needing a divorce (but may still need court orders for children and property); and overseas travel. Accordingly couples here mostly marry for personal rather than financial reasons.

@WaterBottle123

AARRFH

This next of kin myth drives me mad. It's not a thing in the UK when someone is sick,

My partner had a sudden diagnosis of cancer and was in ICU. Whilst he was in ICU we got married as I was pregnant and needed to be able to register him as father. NOTHING changed with regards to how the medical staff shared info or asked me about decisions once we were married.

Marriage isn't advisable if you're the higher earner. Don't go part time, don't compromise your career for a man,

If his parents had decided that they were next of kin and told the hospital that then things could have been very different should he have lost the capacity to make his own medical decisions. You could have been excluded from discussions about his care, and in an extreme case could have been denied the opportunity to make the funeral arrangements for him.

Hospitals have leeway, but legally they have to follow the law if the legal next of kin request it.

As far as I understand it, if a couple are married their other relatives would have no chance of butting in to make medical, end of life and funeral decisions and displacing the spouse. This does seem to be a problem sometimes when one partner dies and the couple weren't married or in a CP. There have been some very sad stories on MN over the years about the family throwing the surviving partner out of what had been her/his home because there was no will and everything was going to blood relatives.

It's very cold-blooded to say that a woman who earns more than her partner should refuse to get married. A man in that position refusing to marry would be taken apart on MN. It's sensible to think through what would happen to your finances if things go wrong (death/illness/disability/redundancy etc as well as relationship going wrong), but if you're not willing to see yourselves as a financial unit, pooling your resources, I'd say that's a red flag for the relationship not working as a marriage longer term.

It's all a lot more complicated if there are children from earlier relationships, of course.

In the UK, I think being married is sensible if you have children, and equal assets - simply because, no matter what the plan, no matter how equal and independent you think you are, my overwhelming experience is that women get screwed over when kids come along, and then again if the relationship ends.

I think relationship breakdown is defo a situation where we can get screwed over, but having kids goes both ways. IMO it's very unlikely that most men would agree to permanently take the financial burden if kids were not involved. I'm not talking about supporting their wife whilst she raises the children but more the situation whereby the man says he is happy for her to quit work forever and live off his salary.

Posts seem to suggest people have different experiences with the next of kin issue. My sisters boyfriend passed away, they weren’t married but together a long time and had a shared house and no one would talk to her or give her information in the hospital before he passed away. And this was an NHS hospital, they would only speak to family members. A spouse would never have that issue. It was a horrible time for her and also trying to sort out bank accounts and finances were an issue as they weren’t married. She had to call his sister several times to help out with things or to get some information. I remember reading the funeral announcement in the local paper and my sisters name was near the bottom after all the other family members. They’d been together 15 years, as good as wife and husband but his children took over all the funeral details and newspaper adverts etc. it was heartbreaking for her.

I married my dh as we both want the security and to be each other’s next of kin. He’s also older than me and similar to an earlier post he has some adult children from a previous marriage who would without a doubt try and take over if anything happened to him. We just want to be husband and wife and If anything happened we want each other to be making the decisions.