Is getting married ever a good idea?

[Maplelady]

I’m in a relationship with a man who has two university aged children who I really like but don’t really know that well. My DC are still in primary school and we have no children together, nor are we planning to. DP has recently discussed marriage but there’s no benefit to me whatsoever. I was engaged to the father of my DC but that was different because we were planning on having children and I went part time.

I know it’s very unromantic of me to say, but if I got divorced and had to divide my assets I would stand to lose well over 300k (if the house-which I bought-was divided 50:50). As things stand my will states that my estate should pass to my DC and I would like it to stay that way. I just don’t see the point in getting married as my DC and I stand to lose so much if things go wrong.

His mum and step-dad have made a few comments like ‘being in a relationship should mean you’re all in’ but I just don’t see it that way. I just try not to engage with it and come away feeling like they think I’m a money-grabbing cow with commitment issues.

I don’t know what I’m looking for really, I just worry that this will create a wedge in our relationship that won’t go away.

I see where you're coming from OP.

In my situation, I would only ever get married if I met a man who was bringing a similar level of assets as me, then if things went wrong, we'd more or less leave with what we came with.

I'm unlikely to given I'm early 40's and have paid into good pensions since I was 25. I also own my home (with a mortgage). All this needs to go to my DC.

Oh my goodness, I just read your other thread. Absolutely DO NOT get married to this man! He's got his eye on your money; you've done so well buying your own home and having significant savings, DO NOT put your DC inheritance at risk!!!

Didn’t realise you were that op.

Come on, why do you keep going round in circles with this man?

Getting married to this man has no benefit to you. Not sure why you are still entertaining even a thought about it

Ignore his parents comments. They're old school.

Never compromise you or your children's future finances. If you do, that way misery lies.

No dick is worth it, sorry to be crude.

No the naming ceremony is ok for what it is, a baptism has its own religious connotations and tbh is often done to get in to certain schools, but you do not get legal benefits from baptisms.

You proved the point, the ceremony needs backing up with the registry office addition, that is the part people with assets are wary of.

Legal marriage vs a non- marriage ceremony is not the same significance and is legally meaningless - just ask Jerry Hall…

That’s an interesting point that I didn’t really consider

Yes, their son benefits and possibly their gc.

if you are married and split he can benefit.

If anything happened to you and you are married, he could try to stay in the house and potentially leave some or all it to his own dc in his Will.

Don’t touch it with a barge pole.

In your position I wouldn’t get married. Marriage can often provide more security, but in your position it could prove very risky. I wouldn’t do it.

if you are having kids, then marrying their father it’s important. Preferably marry him before the kids! It gives you protection during child rearing years and the impact of the “parenteral pay gap” thst can impact mothers for years, which impacts their pension. The vast majority of pensioners on PC are women -the gender pension gap is massive
there is also legal necessities if you become incapacitated or he does, or one of you dies… any division settlement in the unfortunate event of marriage Breakdwon gives you “fair settlement “ on ALL assets. Living togther does not. And unmarried mums will always get major financial penalty of thst, if still in child rearing stage.

But, If you are with someone who is not parent to your kids or you don’t have kids, then no point while youngish . It gets hugely messy with step kids. It gets messy with child support

but, once you get past retirement and into older age, if you are likely to be liable for IHT , either of you, then probably get married, as long as your happy to pass on that wealth to spouse. If your not and want it to go to kids that aren’t his, then get legal advice, there are some ways to do it within marriage, but there’s the deprevation of asset milarky around care costs etc to be very mindful of. It’s also useful to marry as you’d then become “nearest relative” under mental haleth act, (in severe cognitive decline etc) . But whatever you still need to do LPOA , married or not.

ifvyour mum is older, retired, no dependents, then it may make sense for her to marry, but has she thought about inheritence herself? For her kids? Maybe not, can’t force her to even think, and it’s hypothetical as it may go into care costs- but hey, I’d be a tadge concerned if her, if she has any assets. If she doesn’t , well rock on for her.

im divorced btw. Kids left home. No way will I marry again. But do not regret marriage, especially when kids were young, dependant. I lost out on divorce as sole breadwinner and savings were mostly mine (long story), but the marriage at time was still the right thing and I don’t regret it. I just had to bite a very hard bullet to accept I would be much worse off after divorce. Money isn’t everything.

but now, there’s no point at all to marriage fo me . Way past age of child bearing 🤣. And absolutely no intention to give my life savings to a new spouse and not my kids. If they end up having to pay out IHT, then so what frankly - they’ll still inherent a lot of money at £500k and more (even with tax payable thy STILL get money on anything over that £500k 😳) and they’ll be bloody lucky it wasn’t frazzled on care home costs for me . But then I have no issue with paying taxes frankly.

at the end of the day , marriage is a legal and financial agreement. People like to wrap it in the finery of romance and happy ever after. But marriage started as a legal and financial contract. The wedding ceremony was the announcement to society that Contract was being made, and legitimised any children born out of it, and that the couple were accepted as in a sexual arrangement ( as opposed to being shunned or smite by god for having sex before marriage 🤣🤣🤣🤣). We’ve sort of lost that, with all focus on wedding, and forget the contract bit, or even the bit that a wedding is a public announcement as opposed to an instagram opportunity. Imho!

You could just have a nice exchange of vows, without the legal and financial contract bit of actual marriage registered. Or lie 😳say you eloped…🤣🤣🤣

I think it depends, if you absolutely trust him, the relationship is stable and he demonstrates he is committed then if it’s what you want get married.

If not then don’t.

Ive been burned a few times financially so would be hesitant although do believe in marriage for the right couples.

Ultimately your choice, no one else’s.

It's amazing how many asset poor men firmly believe in marriage to a woman who is finished having kids but owns their own home and is financially set up.

I wouldn't marry him OP.

If he loves you, he'd be okay with that.

There is no benefit to you marrying him but massive risk.
There is massive benefit to him if he marries you and low to no risk.

I a, not disagreeing IHT your marriage/no marriage debate- I’ve posted on that just above.

but, want to pick up on this…. Both these pieces of information in yours annd previous linked post are potentially untrue/ incomplete .

a marriage split does not start with 50:50- this gets spouted all the time on MN. It is not true.
Then No pre nup is legally binding in an English court in all cases. Maybe that’s what solicitor meant- but sure as heck not what you say he said here. Likely could ring fence if divorced soon after, but 10 years down line- only in some circumstances

the legal Marriage act on divorce is ALL about “fair settlement “. this gives a list of criteria (around 10) that court will NEED to ensure are met first. Some won’t apply to your individual sitstuons. Others may. It is always based on future “needs”. No financial settlement can be sealed by a court, even a consent order, unless it meets these criteria that are applicable. That’s the law. Written by governemnt to ensure one party doesn’t swan off with assets leaving the other party on state support, or at risk of state support in future. Simple really. Doesn’t matter a tuppance about past Events, agreements or even past behaviours - it’s all about future needs. Of course, courts like it if it is clean break, 50:50 etc. but that is often not possible as there’s just not enough money in the pot. A court will try to honour pre nup, but if it means one parties future needs aren’t met, the court may not seal the order until fair settlement is met by breaking into that pre nup.
you are BOTH legally obliged to fully disclose all assets: thst includes everything you own regardless of trusts, pre nups, land registry deeds etc. on forms that it is contempt of court to not fill in truthfully and fully.
EVEN if you both agreed to retain the ring fence it goes into pot of declaration, and court will check whether fair settlement can be reached with you retaining it. Look back into Divorce board and see countless examples of consent orders being refused by courts, or courts questioning consent orders before sealing, where the outcome is not deemed by courts to be “fair”.

Just saying…solicitor is right, don’t marry if you want to retain your assets fully.

Marriage is far more than a piece, of paper, with all the legal implications!

Don't do it.

It's good for women who are lower earners and likely always to earn less than their husbands.

but he’s just not keen on the idea of getting a mortgage

And yet it’s you that’s not “all in”? 😆
Ridiculous.

You’d be a fool to marry him.

I’m not impressed with the whining about finding an ex girlfriend’s lifestyle either. Bet the devil in that detail was that he was supporting his kids.

I'm in the same situation, we are engaged but won't get legally married for the same reason. I stand to lose a lot, him not so much.

@ObliviousCoalmine I'd be interested to know, do you just plan to stay engaged, and do you have a ring? And will you overtly tell people you're engaged. This could be an option for me, as I want some form of visual commitment (like rings) but also wary of a second marriage..

I categorically agree that you must not marry this man.

However the double standards on MN make me chuckle. If a woman wrote that her asset rich partner (with whom she had no children and who accumulated his wealth before meeting her) refused to marry her then many Mumsnetters would accuse him of being selfish, not committed, having an affair etc*

There are even comments on this thread from people saying “if it was the other way round then you should marry him”

Men must always share their wealth as it’s family money.

Women must always keep their money separate if they can and beware of cocklodgers who would seek to marry them for their wealth.

On MN, woman who earn less then their partners/husbands are generally perceived to be the victim of circumstances that have kept their earnings low (eg having kids). It’s never acknowledged that some women don’t earn a lot because they were just particularly motivated to and prefer to benefit from ‘family money’. It would seem there is no female version of a cocklodger.

*I am aware there is a wider story with the OP’s partner in another thread but my general point stands.

you are right @Eastie77Returns , it is a double standard which most of us were brought up with to a greater or lesser extent, along the lines of, well if this is the patriarchy than at least let women grab a couple of benefits from it. my Mum used to say that my Dad's money was their money but her money was just her money, and although they were divorced and she always worked full time, I always was given the impression that a proper husband provides for the wife and family, and deep down I do kind of believe it (even though I know it's wrong and old fashioned etc). The fact I now have a DP who has a lot less than me does weigh on me for that reason, not because he would sponge off me, but because it isn't a nice feeling for him not to be able to spend more on me, and I have a reactive princess thing going on where I like to be paid for. Again it's not reflected in how I act at all, I feel very guilty if he pays for me as I know it is a struggle, but it's a deep seated emotional belief..

If your wealth is gaining jointly then fine, but you have a lot to lose and financial issues that will be complicated further down the line, so for you marriage does not make sense. I have seen too many come badly unstuck, despite promises to the contrary, regarding assets brought to a marriage and nasty arguments and disputes as to who gets what and when!

You should never get married if you have dc not of that relationship

@lissom

Yes, he proposed, I wear a ring and so does he. As far as anyone else is concerned we're engaged and just haven't gotten around to planning a wedding (I'm divorced and we have children of our own but no joint children).

We have discussed maybe legally getting married later in life but a lot of the reasons why we would do that can be sorted with wills/POA paperwork etc.

You could have a humanist type ceremony, which is something we're debating. A wedding in all but the signing of a contract.

I don't need the legal 'protection' of marriage, but I do like the societal commitment aspect.

Don’t get engaged if you do not intend to marry, it brings up questions about when. What is the point? Own it and say why, and the reason is that you do not want to join finances. Humanist ceremony etc means diddley squat, it is the contract part that is the commitment part! You are signing on the dotted line.

Poor advice. Pre-nups aren't legally binding in the UK

After reading the updates OP and remembering your other thread - DO NOT MARRY HIM.

I would urge you to reconsider this relationship- for someone who has achieved so much, you seem too passive in this relationship, it’s all about what he wants.

The red flags are glaring and yet you continue to ignore posters and post variations on the problem every few weeks. Bite the bullet and end it.