Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

Would it bother you never getting married?

279 replies

Wineandmorewine · 28/08/2014 12:07

Hi all,

DP and I have been together for 6 years, we have a DD2 and I am currently 5 months pregnant with our second, have also just bought our own house and due to move into that in November.

Last night we were discussing the upcoming wedding of our best and DP stated that he has decided he never wants to get married and is totally against it! This has come as a bolt out of the blue as it is something which we had always planned to do (have had many conversations about what type of wedding we would like etc) and also something that is very important to me. When I asked why the change of heart he said that he has seen so many go wrong eg. His parents and grandparents and he wouldn't want to put out DC through that.

Whilst I understand his point, I also said that regardless of whether or not we are married, a break up would effect our children either way and that if we are married we will be in a better place legally.
So I'm asking, what would you do? Do I give up on ever getting married and keep things as they are? Do I leave him in pursuit of marriage?? Which seems silly as it's him I want to marry! Do I try and convince him or is it best I leave it and hope he changes his mind?
Has anyone ever been in this situation?
Thanks for any advice Smile

OP posts:
NYCHIC · 28/08/2014 15:57

No I do not plan to get married. It's not something important to me.

I'm a bit surprised that you would consider leaving your partner just so you can be married esp when you have children already

As others said you can protect yourself legally but I sense from your posts that isn't your only motivation

If your DP wanted to be married I guess he would have done it by now. I agree with the others leave it for now and raise again. Be prepared for the answer to be the same.

Thumbwitch · 28/08/2014 15:58

I mean, you only actually need to pay the costs of the wedding ceremony - which is around £130 at a registry office, iirc - you don't need to spend £1000s on a wedding!

JackieBrambles · 28/08/2014 16:00

Also, I hope the kids have your surname if he won't marry you!! The ruddy cheek!

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 16:02

"Also, I hope the kids have your surname if he won't marry you!! The ruddy cheek!"

Oops, I appear to have stumbled into the 1950s- I do hope I can get home again........

CogitoErgoSometimes · 28/08/2014 16:02

Is he thinking with his wallet? Is he possessive or secretive about money? Does he see himself as the Paul McCartney to your Heather Mills and think that marriage = divorce = being taken to the cleaners financially? I've heard that argument quite a few times recently as a good reason not to get hitched... Hmm

JackieBrambles · 28/08/2014 16:04
Grin Fair point Hakluyt. And a different debate I know!
Jackie0 · 28/08/2014 16:05

I would be massively bothered. It is something that is very important to me.
If it's important to you and it was discussed that it would happen then I think he's being unreasonable and cruel.
You are living with him, one child and another on the way.......and he pulls a stunt like this?
I understand you might not want to rock the boat at 5 months pregnant but this is a big deal. It's like a broken engagement in a way.
I know it's unhelpful but I'm sorry to say you should have "got a ring on it" before shared mortgage and babies.
Hitting post before I chicken out....

Viviennemary · 28/08/2014 16:11

Not getting married can be a minefield and I wish people were more aware of the consequences. But not sure if you are going through a really stressful time at the moment it's the right time to insist after all this time. But make sure it's something you do eventually. I'm not a legal expert but I don't think it's that easy putting all these legal things in place when you're not married.

MarthasVineyard · 28/08/2014 16:13

marriage = divorce = being taken to the cleaners financially

My cousin is currently fleecing her STBXH. If I had a son I'd be advising him not to marry. Cousin's DH has supported her whilst she sat on her backside long after their kids went to secondary school; now she's going for the lion's share of the equity in their house and half his pension. God forbid she should get a full-time job Angry

NYCHIC · 28/08/2014 16:13

Why is getting married something she has to do eventually Vivienne?

PenelopeGarciasCrazyHair · 28/08/2014 16:14

Your point "if we are married we will be in a better place legally" is actually that the lower earner who gives up or postpones their career to take care of children (I'm assuming you) would be in a better place legally. This would be ringing alarm bells for me.

After 13 years of marriage my ex pays maintenance for the DCs, as he is legally obliged to do, but we have also had to come to an agreement about some financial recompense for the years I have supported his career and therefore his higher earning capacity. I don't know how this would work legally, if we hadn't married, but I assume we could both just walk away with nothing but the child maintenance to consider, which would leave me at a significant disadvantage.

As Twinklestein said:

I would never, ever have children with a man who wouldn't marry me. I would not risk my life to bear someone's children, and take the pay hit that comes with raising children, without the legal and financial protection of marriage.

I couldn't give a stuff about marriage itself, if I didn't have kids I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Holdthepage · 28/08/2014 16:17

It is very hurtful of him to say this now that you are 5 months pregnant but I would be tempted to play him at his own game. Agree with him, you don't want to get married either, if friends bring the subject up laugh & tell them that you won't be tied down by any man, ever.

But, you must protect yourself legally. You have DCs together & their future needs must take priority.

PenelopeGarciasCrazyHair · 28/08/2014 16:17

On the other hand, I have no plans to have more DCs with my current DP, he is a much higher earner than me but I'm happy ticking along with separate incomes and would love to marry him one day, but more for the romantic life-long partnership aspects than financial and legal protection (I imagine that all becomes a bit complicated with blended families). I would be happy to have a ceremony without all the legalities with DP, whereas in your situation, with young DCs and a house to consider, the legalities seem the priority.

Viviennemary · 28/08/2014 16:18

Because she will be better protected in the law if things go haywire. I don't know enough but pensions, splitting of assets, wills and so on are all things to be considered. And what about inheritance tax. Not that I'm saying it would affect a lot of people but it is something to be taken into consideration.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:18

Hakluyt don't see what's so 1950s about advising her to give her baby her own sur name.

i wished i had given my dc my sur name. I know it's the norm to give the baby the father's sur name and the rights and wrongs of that are a whole other thread which I could contribute to for sure, but having one's children take one's sur name is a privilege, and it's not one I'd handover lightly to a man who had duped me and left me at his financial mercy.

NO! hang on! I was pressured in to doing just that! and then I regretted it.

So again, repeating myself here but OP, the baby should take your sur name.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:20

Also, what hakluyt and motherinferior don't understand perhaps is that these are difficult subjects to raise with a man taht doesn't want to 'give' any thing.

It's missing the point to keep repeating that marriage is not the only way to be protected legally because whether you call it marriage or whether you call it legal protection I suspect it's that he doesn't want to risk dividing what he sees as 'his'.

Iwasinamandbunit · 28/08/2014 16:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:22

Martha's vineyard, maybe you should advise your son to marry a woman who earns as much as he does??? does he earn anything at all btw?

men do still earn more than women which is not fair. Women start from a few metres behind the block.

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 16:26

"Also, what hakluyt and motherinferior don't understand perhaps is that these are difficult subjects to raise with a man taht doesn't want to 'give' any thing"

Why would you want to marry or form any sort of relationship with such a man?

motherinferior · 28/08/2014 16:31

I've been perfectly happy to discuss legal responsibilities with my partner, even though I have declined his frequent offers of marriage.

Incidentally, my children have my surname. They have his surname too, but no way would I have given them just his surname not because we're not married but because I felt rather strongly about my daughters having their mothers' surname.

(I am a woman, by the way. Have boobs and everything.)

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:32

Well I agree with that now, but like teh OP, I found myself in the situation where I had had a child with a man who wasn't prepared to get married.

As it happens now I'm relieved I never married his as partly thanks to mumsnet I fully understand the level of selfishness, but that lesson in hindsight is no good to the OP.

For the OP though, she might want to marry this guy despite his selfishness. In her shoes I think she should hold on tight to her right to give her baby her sur name. IF the OP's husband wants to get married then she can easily add his sur name. You may disagree with this but it does hand back some power to the OP.

Otherwise, I guess the advice would be leave him, or, somehow convince him to arrange legal protection even though he isn't prepared to get married which would seem unlikely as his objection to marriage is very likely wrapped up in the fact that he would be relinquishing some rights over 'his' assets in teh event of a split.

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:34

MotherInferior, that's ideal of course, but the problem is that many women can't raise the subject easily with their partners. If they could talk about it reasonably with reasonable men then there'd be no need for the thread I guess.

NYCHIC · 28/08/2014 16:34

Her DP is as entitled NOT to want to get married as OP is to want to get married

If the OP makes a choice to rely upon DP financially then it is important for her to make provision to protect herself and more importantly their children. It's not that difficult to do and any competent solicitor should be able to help

The surname stuff is just bonkers IMHO. The child does not belong to the mother as a bargaining tool. You decide this together. It should not be dependent upon whether he agrees to marry you

Yes marriage does give protection in law but they can only divide assets they can find - as a friend who divorced her husband recently has found to her great cost.

Hakluyt · 28/08/2014 16:36

As I said F0ssil- why would you want to marry anyone you couldn't discuss wills with?

F0ssil · 28/08/2014 16:37

Yes of course. But she has choices too.

She can choose not to give her child his sur name. That is her legal right.

She could choose to no longer prioritise the relationship.

What he wants is for everything to tick along as before.