Pregnancy, hormones and marriage - wwyd?

[BuntyCollox]

I have been with my partner for 10 years, we are in a committed long term relationship, both work full time and rent a house which we have lived in for 8 years.

We have spoken in the past, usually after a bottle or two of vino, about marriage and kids. I have always said that ideally I would like to be married before having children and he said he felt the same but I suspect he doesn't feel this quite as strongly as I do.

I am currently 20 weeks pregnant, it wasn't exactly planned but was a nice surprise and we are both delighted even though it wasn't part of our life plan quite yet. I had flippantly dismissed the importance of marriage before but now that I am pregnant I can't think of anything more important (other than the baby)

The main reasons are -
My partner to have full parental responsibility should anything go wrong before registering the birth
Emotional security
Financial security as I will most likely be giving up work
His financial security as the savings account is in my name
For us all to have the same surname
To call him my Husband

I have tried to broach the subject about parental responsibility and need for a will / solicitor advice before the baby is here as we are not married. I half jokingly (tongue in cheek hinty hinty don't try to sound too desperate Bunty) said it would be easier and cheaper to get married, and how we would only need both parents there as witnesses and how neither of us are interested in the big white church do. He kind of mumbled agreement then changed the subject. We had both decided that the baby would take his surname but after reading some advice on the net, I'm now not sure.

I know I should just have this convo with him but I don't want him to marry me just because I want him to, does that make sense? It would feel reluctant and like I am dragging him along for the ride. I can make hints but he isn't the most observant and I would still feel like I was pressurising him, I'm not normally one for playing games either. WWYD?

I can't believe I am sounding so crazy, I always felt like I would keep my surname when married keep my independence etc etc. Now this squiggly thing in my tummy has changed all of that.
Can I blame the hormones?

Thanks if anyone got to the end of that!

[mameulah]

Your surname unless you a married. Definitely.

I read a book about why some men marry some women and not others. Basically the whole book said that some women insist upon it and some do not. Quite an insight.

[olathelawyer05]

Some women insisting on marriage?.... I thought marriage was designed to trap women? Which of course confuses me because all I typically hear in RL is women wanting to get married, and complaining that their men won't 'man up' .

Stop taking to him about marriage - he clearly doesn't want to do it and who can blame him. No man really wants to get married - we're conditioned into it, or do it because we want to please.

The other options such as wills are ok, but wills alone can be changed up until you die. You might want to think more about settling trusts for the baby with you as joint trustees, depending on what assets are actually available.

The surname thing is really a red-herring either way.

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

it makes more sense for me to provide full time care to DC than him

It makes no sense for either of you to provide full time care if you remain unmarried.

It will make the person who makes themselves voluntarily unemployed, with no legal protection, extremely vulnerable.

Almost the same goes for working part time.

If you are having a child as a single person, then recognise that that is the case and make your plans accordingly.

Don't make the mistake as acting AS THOUGH you are married when you are not only NOT MARRIED but you are with a man who is unwilling to marry you.

[Contrarian78]

If it's important to you, ask him. I know it might not be the romantic gesture you were hoping for, but if you'd both previously decided that it wasn't that important to you, he might be forgiven for dragging his feet.

I personally don't see what's wrong with giving your child your partner's name. I think that if you're finding yourself bowing more to tradition that you have previously (parenthood seems to have that effect) then it's not an unreasonable thing to do - especially if you're going to eventually marry anyway. It's not really a huge deal though.

Marriage has benefits for you both/all. Many on here would have had very unhappy marriages it's by no means perfect all the time so listen to what they have to say, but know that for many of us, although it's not perfect, it does work most of the time

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

If you're feeling "traditional", remember that it is NOT at all traditional for the child of an unmarried mother to be given its father's name.

The idea that all children should have their father's names is a very recent one. It came in around the same time as the idea that women should work full time and still do all the housework.

Traditionally the child took the same name as its mother (which was usually the father's name too).

[Jess03]

Good luck op. Sounds like you're settling for having your feelings dismissed. Actually it's reminded me about teaching my dd about trying to avoid letting things get to this point, I'm glad dh never messed me around like this. It'll be ok as long as you keep working so you're effectively acting as if single.

[Contrarian78]

Furry muff. Like a child wearing orthopaedic boots............I stand corrected.

I don't think it's a bad idea though, to have the father's surname.

op One of my biggest regrets is that I didn't propose properly to my wife. She decided she'd like a family and we'd previously agreed that we'd get married before having kids, so we sort of "fell into it" All that said, we're not any less married for it, the kids all have my/our surname, and we share marital assets.

[BuntyCollox]

It makes no sense for either of you to provide full time care if you remain unmarried.
Financially and for the benefit of the baby it would make sense, if I returned to work FT and paid childcare we would be approx 300pm better off than if I was a SAHM, out of that 300 I would need to pay for petrol, commuting and additional clothes and would be working 40+ hours a week. I'm not trying to have an argument about it only coming from my wage, our finances are shared as be would the cost of childcare. However, this thread has made me realise there is more to giving up my job than just my current salary. I am still undecided at this point and need to give it some serious consideration, I need to look at working tax credits too but my current understanding is we wouldn't be offered much if anything.

Contrarian I hope you are right. I suppose I have given him a lot of mixed messages in the time we have been together, most of them being my negative view of marriage and not seeing a need for a piece of paper. We have been paying off debts for years and are finally in a much better position to do the things we have been planning, but now this little surprise has happened.
It's sad to read you regret not proposing to your wife properly (but nice to counteract the popular view here that no man ever wants to get married)

I have only actually spoke about marriage twice in the last four months, before being pg it was just one of those things that would be nice but not something that I spent much time considering. Just wanted to make that clear as a few people have said to stop bringing the subject up.

Joinyour I'm aware that the taking of the father's name / husband's name is quite recent in many ways, and in some cultures it is the norm for the child to take the mothers name / the wife to keep her maiden name. If I wanted to have a discussion about the history of this and why we consider it to be 'traditional' I would have posted this on the feminism boards. The fact is my parents were married from a young age, every child born to someone in my friendship group / family has been given the father's surname - perhaps this is unusual to some but I see this as the norm and IMO traditional

[BuntyCollox]

Jess03
Sounds like you're settling for having your feelings dismissed
Oh I don't know to be honest, I think I'm more confused than when I first posted. I just see some of the awful stories on here and horrible situations people are in and wonder if I should just be glad that I have a happy relationship with a person who I love and respect and who feels the same about me. Nothing is ever perfect but it could be a hell of a lot worse

[sugarandspite]

You know what OP, I think if I was in your position I would just propose to him.

Get it out there and then he makes a decision and either accepts (in which case you agree to a marriage - poss just low key registry office do - before the baby is born and maybe a blessing / party later on).

Or he says no. In which case you know where you are and can make decisions based on that.

Honestly, you're not going to get a big romantic proposal. You've been together 10 years and pregnant for 5 months. If he was going to propose he would have done it by now.

So you do it.

Ignore the bollocks you're fretting about about a 'pity marriage'. That is meaningless. Your relationship is likely to follow the path that it's on and will do so whether it not you have legal protections in place for your security. But personally my preference would be to carry on as we are with the benefits (to me) of marriage.

[Jess03]

You may feel less confused after you've ruminated on it for a few more days, that usually helps me. Good luck with the baby! I do admit to finding it odd that people will have dc together but marriage is too much of a commitment. Once you have dc with someone, that person has to be in your life forever, not so with a divorce with no kids involved.

[MandatoryMongoose]

I totally understand that feeling Bunty. Dh and I had been engaged for a while before I got pregnant but suddenly I got much more bothered about actually being married before Ds showed up. Before I was pregnant I wanted to get married but was in no real rush. Fortunately Dh was more than happy to marry me at the first available opportunity so it didn't cause us any issue.

With regards to names, my Dd has her fathers surname and I hate it. He doesn't even have parental responsibility for her and yet I had to get him to write me a letter allowing me to take her out of the country to avoid issues at customs. I get called Mrs X'sname by school a lot and it annoys me! I guess if we were still together then I'd be less bothered but really the last person in the world I'd want to be is Mrs X'sname. If I could go back I'd have given Dd my maiden name (Dd likes her name and doesn't want to change it despite the confusion it sometimes causes, she thinks it goes better with her first name than my maiden or married names).

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

£300 per calendar month is a LOT of money when you have children and are paying for childcare.

I presumed you were talking more like £100 pcm.

To give up £300 net per month (which is £3600 per year) as well as all the financial advantages of keeping your job and ability to earn you own money would be a lot, even if you were married and not just making yourself voluntarily unemployed (and eventually unemployable) with no protection and nobody to look after you.

I just see some of the awful stories on here and horrible situations people are in and wonder if I should just be glad that I have a happy relationship with a person who I love and respect and who feels the same about me.

Most of the people in those awful stories once felt they should grateful to be with a person they loved and respected and who felt the same about them.

You can't surely imagine that lots of women who end up getting shafted when relationships break down always knew that the person they were with would leave them/would become abusive/would treat them badly?

[Contrarian78]

Whether it's alot or not is relative. It actually works out at 12 per day. THe op said that the figure was not net (certainly not net of expenses - even if it were net of tax/NI).

I'm not sayiing that she should stay at home (and childcare should be a shared expense) but personally, I'd not have my wife go out to work if the next contribution to household finances was that low. T oeach their own though.

With regards to your last point join I actually beleive that many of them would have known - or might have been able to reasonably foresee that they were making a mistake. Not all of them by any means.

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

No, £300 is not a relative amount.

It's just an amount.

An amount that buys quite a lot of things that families, including babies, can benefit from.

It might not seem like a lot if they were married and their combined family income dwarfed it.

But right now, the situation is that that £300 (plus all the advantages of having a job and being employable) is A LOT to the woman who is considering dropping out of the job market because she has a boyfriend at the moment.

[Contrarian78]

Their being married doesn't make a huge difference in that scenario.

I sort of agree with your last statment, but you ignore the upside of staying home with the baby. Married or not, the partner would have an ongoing responsibility to the child.

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

Married or not, the partner would have an ongoing responsibility to the child.

Exactly, and if married he would have an ongoing responsibility to his wife.

Her sacrifice in terms of earning potential and career would be recognised in a divorce settlement.

Whereas without a marriage he can walk away from her without a backwards glance and all he would have to legally provide for the child is far less than it takes to raise a child.

So she'd have less ability to earn money and he'd have fewer obligations to look after the family he left behind.

You can share finances as much as you want, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "family money" unless you legally formalise your partnership through getting married.

His money right now, is legally HIS money. He is under no obligation to give a penny of it to the mother of his child.

Whereas he would have a legal obligation to financially support his wife.

[Apocalypto]

without a marriage he can walk away from her without a backwards glance

So this is clearly the superior option from his POV, especially since all he's hearing about from the OP is what's best for her.

[Contrarian78]

It is and it isn't. He'll get certain rights as a result of being married (rights that he could have without) but, more than that, assuming he isn't a total w@nker (and I'm sure he isn't) the fact that the mother of his child will legally be afforded some security will be a bonus for him.

If the op is going to have many more children and be a SAHM and a primary carer in any subsequent divorce they're not even married yet!!! then she might be awarded a more generous settlement. Spousal maintenance though (thankfully) is becoming increasingly rare.

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

So this is clearly the superior option from his POV

Only if he's a twat.

And that's a useful thing to know now.

If someone wouldn't even want to look after you properly even while you are happily together and in love, you can be sure they'll totally fuck you over if their feelings ever diminish.

[BuntyCollox]

Wow, just reading back through the posts there is a lot of negativity on here. While I appreciate that people have taken the time to respond some have made a hell of a lot of assumptions about my relationship with DP after only reading less than 10 posts of mine on the subject. There is no need to project your expectations of relationships (I can only assume from previous experience) onto everyone else. You seem convinced, even wishful at times, that he will leave me with the baby unless we get married.
I asked for advice and it's great to hear opinions I hadn't considered. I know that I need to protect myself and the baby, I'm trying to be realistic by considering that the relationship may not work out. Unfortunately some relationships don't go the distance for many different reasons, however some here can't even entertain the idea that some partnerships do work and maybe, just maybe, ours will too. Whether we are married or not.

[BuntyCollox]

Anyway, after some consideration I brought up the subject properly last night. Tongue firmly taken out of cheek. He was a little affronted at first. Turns out he was planning on proposing in the next couple of weeks and has supposedly already bought a ring and has plans in place. That was a shock. He had initially planned to propose later this year on a holiday we had planned but have now cancelled as I will be hopefully pushing a baby out at that time so not a great idea to be on a plane
He explained the earlier brush offs were to try and put me off the scent, that's why he didn't want to discuss it. I did feel bad I that I have ruined the surprise but he understands why, I did say "10 fucking years!!!" quite a few times.

Again, thanks for all the replies and advice everyone has given.

[Jess03]

Congratulations! Brilliant news. I don't see the harm because at least you have been able to discuss something properly with him and now know what to expect and can focus on the baby without worry. Apologies for the negativity, we don't expect it to end it's probably just a lot of us have friends who've ended up in dreary hard situations.

[JoinYourPlayfellows]

You seem convinced, even wishful at times, that he will leave me with the baby unless we get married.

Nobody thinks that and nobody said that.

The point was that he MIGHT leave you and marriage will provide some protection from that leaving you completely fucked IF YOU GIVE UP WORKING.

If you weren't planning to make yourself financially dependent on him then it would have mattered so much.

[Granville72]

Congratulations Bunty. Hope it all works out well and you enjoy being a mummy.

Are you going to find out the sex as you are at that point of pregnancy where a scan will tell you