Opinions wanted (prenuptial agreement)

[Yougotbale]

Hi, I'm a lurker but wanted to get some views and advise on my situation.
I am 34 and have been fortunate enough to have been financially successful. I am currently retired but may get involved in businesses in the future.
I have been in a relationship with my DP for 4 years. We have lived together for 3 years. She really values marriage and I would be happy to fulfill her dream by asking her to marry. However, I have mentioned that I would like a prenuptial agreement to safeguard my previous earnings and assets. (I've not turned to legal advise so might be overreacting about what is at risk, any info would be good).
At the moment my DP lives in my house. I pay all bills including car, mobile, food and holidays. She still works full time and spends her money on herself (which I like). with little expenditure, she approx saves £15-20k per year. (This is put in cold terms. I see the house as our home. Her car. We are a team).
We don't have children, and both don't want children. I got a vasectomy to take control of contraception. With this in mind, she will save a small fortune of her own.

Anyway, when I mentioned the 'prenuptial' she was very upset and offended. I can see this but think I'm not being unreasonable.
I guess, I wanted see what other people thought of prenups and of my situation?

oh why am i even bothering to reply to this...

i wish your partner good luck op
i think shes gonna need it

Talkative
I get what you are saying but this is after the fact. It would be more of a gesture of commitment to do it when we got married. To make it 'officially' our home from day one.

This marriage, is like a business transaction is being negotiated.

Where is love? What price is put on Love?

horry I see. Sorry I didn't make that connection. I suppose it does kind of. It doesn't talk about what happens if both are still alive. Many people say this vow but don't keep it. They either believe it at the time or lie. It just shows that break ups are more circumstantial. Not the goal when saying your vows. I know people that have not had a prenup and still split up. I don't see not having one as 'more of a commitment' as stated by others.

Maybe be the vow till death portrayed a time when Society put more pressure on marriage and life expectancy was far less.

quint it does sound like a transaction. Only because of the topic area. I realise people find it difficult to seperate love/commitment/assets. We are very much in love. We are very much committed

There is a lot of emphasis on this thread about feelings around communicating on this matter. eg

"if she can misunderstand how you feel - thinking you DO think she's a gold digger - you're not ready to marry each other."

But that is a meta-issue. I think a lot of posters here are too quick to jump to the meta-issue assuming that the basic issue can easily be sorted.

But maybe the key issue is the basic (not meta-) issue, ie, that the OP wants to protect his assets and the OP's DP doesn't want him to.

Offred said something like "but joining your assets is what marriage is, not some great romance". Right. Marriage is a way of materially joining individuals into one material establishment. It is the traditional way of remunerating women for women's work. If you take a traditional view of marriage, then to be offered marriage without full pay is like being offered what should be a full time job as an internship. "We like having around and we do benefit from your work, but we have decided only to offer you travel expenses." A person who turned that offer down - and was pretty miffed about it - wouldn't be unreasonable at all. It's a professional insult, aside from the actual material lack of earnings - but goddamn losing the earnings would hurt most.

you could start questioning what exactly this work is; why it is fair that a woman's reward for it is indexed to her husband's wealth, rather than some more objective valuation of her labour; then you get into what is objective? footballers? nurses? is the market objective? You could ramble down discussion alleys like this for ever.

Still - I think the OP needs to face up to the fact that his offer is not substantively up to scratch, as much as the issues around communicating it. I think they are not ready to marry each other because she wants the real deal and he is only up to marriage-lite. not about communication

Well, it is from when you had to be hugely rich, if not actually royal, to be able to get a divorce. Even separation was largely unheard of, and those getting divorced often wouldn't have remarried anyway.

I would hope everyone means their vows when they say them. But you don't get held to every single one of them in divorce proceedings.

I think the vows are a red herring. It's like discussing what colour table centres to have in the context of a pre-nup.

zut that's interesting. Don't agree with the payment thing though. If it was a job (as you describe) it would be fully paid. It just wouldn't be a job where you get, on your first day, the same pension as someone that has been working for the company for 30years (if you like).

You talk about 'traditional' marriages and I understand protection for the woman. However, house hold dynamics have changed. Particularly in our case. I'm not asking for any access to the houses she is intending to buy (despite them being purchased whilst we are together). They are her assets

horry I only brought up vows in response to someone that posted. Also they linked it to commitment, it's nonsense.

ok yougotbale but there is no point in arguing with me because I am not the one you are trying to marry with a prenup!

Frankly I can't see why you would bother. You have plenty of money and no children to protect. If your marriage breaks up - and surely you see that as an outside chance if you are considering marriage at all - if she gets half your collective assets (and it seems this isn't the default anyway) you are hardly going to be on your arse. I would understand if you were worried about a roof over your head or your children's futures, but as you are not, I can see why she wonders why you would bother, and why you are so keen to limit the material inconvenience this relationship may cause you (and that's all it is - inconvenience - no hardship, no poverty or insecurity)

But then the difference between me and you is probably why you are rich and I am not, so don't ask me.

I'd be pissed off if I were her because you are suggesting that she is a gold digger. Just don't get married if that's the way it is.

zut I didn't mean to argue. More of a comment. It was interesting though. A new angle.
This thread is definitely making me think about marriage as a concept.

Msrissotto
I think that maybe partly it. It's more to with the default financial position of marriage, rather than her.

have you got any legal advice yet?

tbh we could all argue various dimensions about this till the cows come home, as zut implies, but it is a proper waste of time given you can't even be sure what kind of proposal you want to make to your dp about the shared future you are planning!

You've decided what is important to you.

Now you need to get legal advice.

Then you can talk to your dp about what you propose and why.

and come and update us about her response

Off course the OP doesn't sound confident about marriage bacause there is a 50:50 chance he will lose a considerable chunk of his assets.

It's a red flag for me that she's 'offended' by you asking for a prenup.
If she loved you she'd be more understanding of your situation.

Offred
Scheduled for Monday. I'll let you know

grand

nosy

But surely the whole situation is pointless as a pre nup is not enforceable in uk law. You are causing upset to make a point in principle when the document itself is worthless. What do you hope to achieve with this?

The vows you talk about, 'for richer for poorer', refer to whilst being together. There are no vows describing what should happen if the marriage breaks down.

If that's your understanding of marriage vows then you haven't understood them.

If you think - as many do - that you can welsh on your vows at any time, then those are not vows, they are a rolling contract. The tragedy arises when one partner thinks they're vows and the other doesn't, eg wants to fuck around outside the marriage but thinks s/he can still stay married.

The problem when it goes tits up is that the bad stuff such as the lifelong financial commitments persist, whereas the good stuff such as sex and free childcare, do not. Ask yourself why you want to be in a contract with someone who may understand it differently to you but who gets the good stuff indefinitely.

I think there's a power disparity going on here, and that that's what's upsetting your partner. I'd be upset by a request for a prenup if my partner were significantly wealthier than me, because it would feel as if he were using his greater financial power to dictate the terms of my marriage to me - ie I'll keep you in style and give you access to my money as long you are compliant. I'd find it impossible to feel an equal in a marriage where my home and the assets of our shared life were clearly only 'on loan' to me. You do also seem to be keeping score of how much she owes you already - that would be enough in itself to make me concerned about your approach to finances.

Have you run through all the scenarios? What if she became seriously ill/disabled during the marriage and you then divorced. Would there be provision for her long term care, or would it be tough shit for her? What if you ran up huge debt during the marriage? Why should your assets be protected from this? - she would be equally responsible for your debts. And you are helping her to buy a house. In the event of divorce, would you ask for the share you put in back?

I think that perhaps you should seriously consider that you might not actually be on the same page about what you think marriage is. You seem to see it as a nice gesture you can do for her (and that perhaps she should be grateful for?). She may see it as significantly more than that and may see your attitudes to money as a flag of something that is potentially relationship breaking.

Marrige is a religous covenant. Presuming to change the covenant to suit one's self (trying to avoid saying "you", just generally speaking) is putting yourself on an equal level with the higher authority that sponsored the original covenant. That is a point about pre-nups that I, imho, find offensive. However, society seems to easily accept the omission dynamic of striking "obey"...which the church seems ok with (just based on my experience). But that is comparing apples and oranges, perhaps.

Perhaps a civil union may answer the point where contracts are signed (I'm guessing you would not be comfortable giving her your Power of Attorney/Medical Directive?), or a commitment ceremony (a la SugarBear and June on HoneyBooBoo?)

Also, there may be a presumption that a pre-nup means the other party will get zilch, or be hard done by. Perhaps spelling out a very generous flatrate payment would set your balance sheet at ease, instead of operating in the realm of percentages.

At the end of the day though, imho, I agree with the other posters who feel it may be best to not get married. You seem to have great apprehension on this subject. That is your gut feeling talking, so listen to it. I do not respect the idea of trying to get around this gut feeling by legislating laws of your particular marriage. But as others have said, it is your girlfriend's opinion that matters, and she might decide to settle for what you will condescend to allow.

andtheband I here you but which religion should I choose then. They can't all have it right? I don't which god I should let govern my life and therefore my potential marriage

*Don't no