Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Polonium · 28/08/2014 22:59

Because couples never resind on a promise. Grin

HallowedVera · 28/08/2014 23:04

I think the key thing is: at the moment you become financially dependent on your DP, you're on seriously dodgy ground if you aren't married.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 23:10

But to answer your question, if I'm the life tenant of a property held in trust for my children, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that.

In that case the trusts would have to be set up with that specific scenario in mind (ie your life interest in the property), what would happen if you wanted to move I don't know.

If you don't mind that, that's fine, but can you see how disadvantaged you are compared to a married woman who simply inherits her husband's estate no problem?

MrsSchadenfreude · 28/08/2014 23:12

Rupert is a bastard and Susan is a fool. Grin

When you said "terrace" I was imagining a two up, two down, not some double fronted six bedroom job! Mea culpa.

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 23:20

He's a management consultant, he's not going to live in a two up two down. I doubt he even lives in Streatham...

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 23:23

*One of the reasons my DP cites against marriage is that his mum sunk all of her life savings into helping him and his ex buy his house (the ex never put any capital into the house or paid the mortgage, but she was on the deeds).

The only thing that stopped his ex walking off with half his mum's life savings when she left him was the fact that they weren't married. That really scared him.*

So your ex is against marriage because he was dumb enough to put his ex on the deeds without her investing in the house at all? Very odd logic...

I suppose by inference, if he's not married to you, you can't walk off with half his mum's life savings..

Polonium · 28/08/2014 23:28

MrsSchadenfreude
Yes, Rupert is a bastard but Susan should probably marry him. And then think of divorcing him. She would then likely get half of everything he's amassed including a pension sharing order.

Susan is a fool. Grin

HallowedVera · 28/08/2014 23:34

If you don't mind that, that's fine, but can you see how disadvantaged you are compared to a married woman who simply inherits her husband's estate no problem?

Of course I can see it puts me at a disadvantage compared to being married. All your arguments are ones I've already put to DP!

I suppose by inference, if he's not married to you, you can't walk off with half his mum's life savings

This is true.

He had to put his ex on the deeds because they were doing a shared ownership thing and she'd lived in the area all her life whereas he hadn't. (You have to prove you're from the area you're buying in.)

wendle70 · 28/08/2014 23:47

Not in totally dissimilar position myself OP though my OH has always been clear about his disdain of marriage in the short term (had terrible divorce he got fleeced). I harrangue him about it about once a quarter. It is pointless! You can't force a man to marry you by arm wrestling him down the aisle. He either wants to or not. Gentle pressure occasionally ok but prob doesnt help your case! In my situation he is a v high earner and i was a reasonably high earner. I went part time before i had kids but still earn enough to support DS and myself. I have made it clear i wont be a SAHM without marriage. I prob want to work anyway. It's made more complicated by the fact OH wants to move to a place where commuting to my job will be difficult. Anyway I digress. Being unmarried with kids is not ideal. But it's not the worst! I try to remind myself that if it wasnt for my wonderful OH my DS wouldnt be here. He has given me a MUCH greater gift than marriage. I'd say it makes sense to get your wills done. You should prob look at a co habitation agreement too though i know my oh would balk at such an unromantic idea. (His solution to my concerns was to offer to guarantee my mortgage btw). But...count yourself lucky. All those ladies who are happily married with fertility struggles would no doubt change places with you in a heartbeat. Marriage is nice. It is a lot better for the wife than the husband (who really can get fleeced). But it's not the be all and end all. Oh and under the law without any agreement you still get 15 pc or 20 pc of their income under child support laws capped at a certain level. I guess the thing is to make sure you don't become so out of touch with your career that you would be screwed if he shacked up with his work colleague, however unlikely!

MrsSchadenfreude · 28/08/2014 23:47

What I want to know is whether Rupert has always been the one who didn't want to get married, or whether it was Susan.

wendle70 · 28/08/2014 23:48

Not in totally dissimilar position myself OP though my OH has always been clear about his disdain of marriage in the short term (had terrible divorce he got fleeced). I harrangue him about it about once a quarter. It is pointless! You can't force a man to marry you by arm wrestling him down the aisle. He either wants to or not. Gentle pressure occasionally ok but prob doesnt help your case! In my situation he is a v high earner and i was a reasonably high earner. I went part time before i had kids but still earn enough to support DS and myself. I have made it clear i wont be a SAHM without marriage. I prob want to work anyway. It's made more complicated by the fact OH wants to move to a place where commuting to my job will be difficult. Anyway I digress. Being unmarried with kids is not ideal. But it's not the worst! I try to remind myself that if it wasnt for my wonderful OH my DS wouldnt be here. He has given me a MUCH greater gift than marriage. I'd say it makes sense to get your wills done. You should prob look at a co habitation agreement too though i know my oh would balk at such an unromantic idea. (His solution to my concerns was to offer to guarantee my mortgage btw). But...count yourself lucky. All those ladies who are happily married with fertility struggles would no doubt change places with you in a heartbeat. Marriage is nice. It is a lot better for the wife than the husband (who really can get fleeced). But it's not the be all and end all. Oh and under the law without any agreement you still get 15 pc or 20 pc of their income under child support laws capped at a certain level. I guess the thing is to make sure you don't become so out of touch with your career that you would be screwed if he shacked up with his work colleague, however unlikely!

Twinklestein · 28/08/2014 23:55

Wendle there are certain types of guys who say they got 'fleeced' by ex-wives... they're generally tight and bitter.

I know a couple of guys who had genuinely disadvantageous divorces but they don't say that and it hasn't put them off remarrying, indeed they're both re-married.

Castlemilk · 29/08/2014 00:17

Give this baby your surname.

Tell him it can get changed to his along with yours if you ever marry, but you're damned if you're going to compromise any more than that.

Seems he's strung you along.

Opinionated7 · 29/08/2014 02:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

overslept · 29/08/2014 02:26

I think refusing to let your new baby take his last name is cruel for the child, they are going to wonder why they are different. It isn't fair to use a child this way, they are not pawns for parents to play games with and to do so would show that you have no respect at all for the baby.

I also would not want to marry anybody who started to play games like this or use blackmail. In fact I'd run a mile at somebody trying to force me into a marriage using under hand tactics, it would prove to me that I was unable to trust them and that they were petty. Everybody suggesting OP does this needs to get some self respect.

I was in a long term relationship, he didn't want to get married, I did... I'm really glad we didn't now. I'd still like to be married one day but my current DP doesn't really agree with marriage, I'm not about to leave him because of it. I love him and I can't imagine myself wanting to marry anybody else and he is worth me to me than that. I also have no intention of screwing him for what I can get out of him... I was still of the thinking that people got married because of love until I read this depressing thread.

Thumbwitch · 29/08/2014 07:17

"When it comes to giving your newborn your second name it causes more grief for the child, wondering why they don't have the same surname as their sibling. Also, every kid in school will ask them the same question."

I don't believe this can still be the case - there are so many blended families these days that it must be the norm rather than an oddity to have different surnames within a family, surely?

My brother's children both have his surname - but they have a half sibling who has their mother's surname. My brother shares 50:50 care with his ex; I think she has majority care of the half sibling (younger). So when they all go to school together, which they will when the half sib is old enough, they will have different surnames.

Joysmum · 29/08/2014 07:52

I've never understood the idea that marriage splits people up, people split people up!

Marriage can be thought of as simply a legal entity, just as businesses are sole traders, partnerships or ltd. it's about the best way in law to protect the needs of the relationship as well as the simplest way to operate.

Yes if course there are ways to ensure those who don't want to get married are legally protected but it's complicated, likely to miss out on a few things, needs regularly updating as your circumstances continually change so you are always having to play catch up if you remember to! Therefore trying to gain the same rights legally is more expensive and unreliable than marriage itself.

Also, you can't tie everything up to get exactly the same rights as marriage.

500smiles · 29/08/2014 09:45

There is no way to give an unmarried couple the same legal rights as a married couple. You can get close but not fully and it would cost more in Solicitors fees than a marriage licence.

Original poster
Wineandmorewine · 29/08/2014 10:24

There's has been some great advice here, so thank you everybody. A lot of the points I hadn't even considered so it's really given me some food for thought.
Coincidently, there is a debate on 'this morning' today about whether marriage really matters, so hoping my LO will give me 5 minutes peace to watch it!! Grin

OP posts:
motherinferior · 29/08/2014 10:29

The really simple way to level the playing-field would be to make everyone pay inheritance tax, of course, but Cameron and the Marriage Is Special brigade would never hold with that; so an increasing number of us feel pushed into a contract that is, in reality, far more than just a legal agreement.

Thurlow · 29/08/2014 10:52

If you are not over the inheritance tax threshold, and if neither partner is financially reliant on the other, then there isn't a huge amount legally that marriage will provide as protection.

However, if either of those things apply then marriage is currently the far safer course.

It fascinates me how debates about marriage on MN highlight how many people seem to naturally assume that the woman is earning less money and/or staying at home...

Viviennemary · 29/08/2014 10:52

But if they changed the rules about inheritance tax and made everyone pay it that would mean a married person living in a house would have to sell to pay her husband's or wife's inheritance tax. If his estate was worth over a certain amount. So they won't go down that route. Thanks for telling us about the debate on this morning. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Polonium · 29/08/2014 10:54

Motherinferior -eh? Everyone is subject to inheritance tax if their estate is valued over £325,000. The spousal transfer merely defers the IHT charge until the second death. You want children not to be able to continue to reside in their family home when their mum has just died of breast cancer just because your partner or you don't want to marry. Classy.

Viviennemary · 29/08/2014 10:57

That's right Polonium. The inheritance tax would then be paid for by the family. If the spouse hadn't spent the lot meanwhile!

motherinferior · 29/08/2014 11:18

It's a very convenient form of government blackmail, inheritance tax, I'll give you that.