Is marriage becoming the preserve of the affluent?

[ChocolateWombat]

Having been a parent at a state school in a socially mixed area, and also a parent at an affluent independent school, I have noticed a real difference in whether parents are married or not.

In the independent school of almost 600 pupils, almost all of the parents are or seem to be/have been married - on the parents list, almost every mother is Mrs...
However, at the socially mixed school, probably 2/3 of the parents were unmarried. Those who were seemed to be the more middle class ones. It just got me thinking.

Now before this turns into a state school/independent school issue, I really don't want it to. My interest is in the role affluence plays in whether people marry or not - I can totally see that in state schools in affluent areas, similar numbers of parents are likely to be married.

Is marriage becoming the preserve of the affluent and something out of the ordinary for the less affluent? Is this the case and if so, why?

[Gilrack]

In a discussion about this with my affluent friends, it was pointed out that rich husbands have a lot to lose in a divorce and their wives have to fight like dogs for their settlement. I don't know how much of a factor this is - and it presupposes main-earning husbands - but there was much vigorous nodding!

A woman's name prefix is a poor guide to her marital status, though. I've used Ms and Mrs throughout adult life, both married and single. Every woman I know does.

[StrumpersPlunkett]

I think a poster further up the thread hit the nail on the head.
Generally the more you earn the more conservative values you develop, (can't remember where I read it but was in a broadsheet so it must be true )
it would therefore make sense then that if you have your life in place financially that when children come along you would be married.

[Postchildrenpregranny]

I have noticed a trend amongst DCs of friends and friends of my DCs(largely reasonably affluent mc, though many of us would say we were originally wc). They meet in early to mid twenties, move in together after 2/3 years and usually buy a property . They then marry (usually by the time they are early / mid thirties) and within a year announce a pregnancy.
I think it's in many cases because they feel it's simpler/more secure to be legally married before you have DCs, particularly if one of you intends to work p/t or be a SAHP.
Having said that, DD2, who wants 4 children, says she isn't going to get married because weddings have become so competitive and she couldnt bear the fuss.( I have pointed out to her it doesn't have to be that way)

[Postchildrenpregranny]

In my wide social circle ( friends from school, university, various workplaces and through motherhood, social activity)and having attended numerous weddings over the years I know (well) only one couple who have divorced(very amicably). I do have two friends whose DH had an affair-at least 25 years ago- but they have stayed together. And only one umarried couple(together 30 years, she is 7 years older than he and the three DCs are hers ) . I'm beginning to wonder if this is really unusual ?

[JasperDamerel]

I am 40. In my friendship circle there have been 7 divorces so far. Most of them have been religious couples who got married shortly after university.

[GiddyOnZackHunt]

Gilrack, again we agree. I haven't been a Miss since I went to uni. I have been Ms the whole way through.
When we married I earned more than DH, we lived in my house and got married because we wanted to. The DC that came along later go to state school. They go by DH's surname not mine. We live in a big house in a nice area. We could do private school but it isn't our way. So I don't agree with the OP's theory.

[SomethingOnce]

It is quite a deep-rooted thing tbh, I'm heavily pg and feel really self conscious if I go out having forgotten to put my wedding ring on.

What, in case people look for the ring on your finger and conclude you got knocked up out of wedlock?

Blimey.

[AndNowItsSeven]

Very few people can't afford to get married. It costs approx £104 for a basic register office wedding.
What people mean is I can't afford the dress, the rings, the party, the food , the honeymoon etc. So they choose not to.

[BatteryPoweredHen]

What, in case people look for the ring on your finger and conclude you got knocked up out of wedlock?

Well, if I'm being completely honest, yes (and people do look on my finger for a ring, I see them doing it)

It's not so much a religious/moral 'out of wedlock' thing either, its more that I look at unmarried mothers and part of me thinks them foolish and ignorant for believing the spiel about marriage being 'just a bit of paper' when actually, for the most part they have put themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position, they just don't realise it yet.

I pity them, and sincerely hope the day never comes when they learn the error of their ways the hard way. I'd hate for people to think of me that way, hence I hate not having my wedding ring on.

I do understand that in MN land, I am in a minority to feel this way, but IRL, I believe many people with any experience of life agree with me.

[namelessposter]

My 8yr old DS asked me what 'divorce' meant, after hearing the word in a film recently. I hadn't really noticed what an sheltered middle class world he was growing up in til then.

[MaMaof04]

I never wore or wear rings- wedding or not wedding. In fact I hate the wedding rings- because of heir positional value and because for me it says I belong to someone but I belong to none but to myself and to my kids and to people I love.
Now about marriage and monies: true. I noticed the same. I also noticed that people with a good or high income are more likely to understand the financial and emotional implications of divorces on kids and to work hard to rebuild their relationships after any crisis that life (or a stupid behavior of a partner) might throw at them.

[shovetheholly]

I wonder how much of this is about underlying values, and how much of it results from something very practical, namely the cost of a wedding these days?

I do know several couples who haven't married because of the financial and emotional pricetag attached to the ceremony itself. There is a feeling almost of fear, obligation and guilt around it - if they don't spend quite a lot of money on the day, then they are somehow not socially reciprocating with other couples who have married, and may offend friends or relatives. I had a very modest and small wedding, and many couples have said to me that they would love just to do it like that, but they don't feel that they are able to do so, because of the emotional fallout. Yet they can't afford the cost of the big day either, because they (quite sensibly) have other priorities, particularly housing.

So I wonder if there is something about a surplus amount of cash (or a more cavalier attitude to debt) that is at play around weddings, as well as a deprioritization of marriage in an era of high housing costs.

Just a theory!!

[AliceAnneB]

I too felt self-conscious if I forgot to wear my ring while pregnant, until of course my hands swelled so badly I couldn't get it on!

It is true that you are far more vulnerable legally/financially as a woman if you have children and remain unmarried especially if you stay home with your children and give up your career. I never really thought about why it mattered to me that I wear my ring while pregnant but I suppose it had to do with feeling like my baby and I were as secure as possible. I felt quite vulnerable when pregnant so I'm sure that played a part too. I went from being sporty and having an intense but successful career to gaining 50% of my body weight on bed rest. I couldn't even get my own shoes on in the end. It was all quite a shock.

[Athenaviolet]

It's not so much a religious/moral 'out of wedlock' thing either, its more that I look at unmarried mothers and part of me thinks them foolish and ignorant for believing the spiel about marriage being 'just a bit of paper' when actually, for the most part they have put themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position, they just don't realise it yet.

I pity them, and sincerely hope the day never comes when they learn the error of their ways the hard way. I'd hate for people to think of me that way, hence I hate not having my wedding ring on.

What a horrible ignorant post!

Marriage does not make women less vulnerable. Women are vulnerable when they are financially dependent on a man. It has nothing to do with marriage.

I pity ignorant women who don't realise this.

[usualsuspect333]

No need to pity me. I'm quite happy being an unmarried mother.

[RaspberryBeret34]

I agree with the theory that more affluent people would tend to be more conservative and feel marriage is more important. Plus affording even a small wedding (aside from a basic registery office do) is tough for people. I think more middle class affluent people have more of a set view of how things should be done - uni, travel, good job, meet, have fun, move in, get married, have 2 kids...etc.

Battery - I have no ring on my finger and have a 3 yo - we split when he was a baby. I wish I had never got married! It hasn't given me any protection as ex didn't have any assets and I've worked throughout (apart from maternity leave) - all marriage has done for me is left a huge financial mess to be sorted plus a big divorce bill and hassle whereas if we weren't married it would be so much easier. So, thank you but if you're going to pity me for anything, it'd make more sense for it to be because I got married in the first place . Having gone through what I have (married at 31, baby arrives at 32, then trainwreck due to ex's long affair which I found out about when baby was a few months old), I tend not to judge anything based on outside appearances. Yes, marriage can offer protection but it isn't the best option for all people in all circumstances.

[MaMaof04]

Marriage is certainly not the best option for everybody.
In fact I believe that the best for boys and girls is to have a good qualification (vocational or academic) or to develop good 'entreupeur' skills and more importantly great work ethics. I want my girls and my boys to be able to provide for themselves financially. I am not against women/men who choose to help their partner achieve the best they can instead of securing a job for themselves. I just wish they are clever enough to have some kind of contracts that will protect them in case their monies provider does behave in an intolerable way (everybody defines for himself what is and what is not tolerable) and refuses to mend his/her ways. After all we have some working agreement for redundancy/ unfair dismissal/pension provision/ golden handshake in good Co- so why not in good relationships? This does not have to be limited to marriage in the form of prenuptial agreement.

[ExConstance]

I'm a married "Miss" 30 years ago "Ms" was a bit difficult to pronounce, and it always seems to carry an agenda....by which I mean if you use it there is a bit of a harrumph in response.

[JasperDamerel]

My main reason for not getting married is that everyone in my (well educated, middle class) family who got married before having children ended up going through horrific and acrimonious divorces, of the sort that make family gatherings a minefield of complex diplomacy. The happy and lasting relationships went to the people who who were in stable unmarried relationships, had children together and then married (if they did get married) in their forties or older after a decade or so of parenting.

I'm finally reasonably happy to get married, but I would hate a big wedding and my family wouldn't be keen, but DPs family would be very hurt if we got married without them, so it's easier not to get married.

And if I were consider spending a couple of thousand pounds on my future financial stability, I'd rather put it into a professional qualification than a wedding.

[SomethingOnce]

So let's just get this straight. I'm foolish and ignorant, yes?

(I feel like I'm actually having some sort of weird dream reading that post.)

[MaMaof04]

Jas I had no wedding reception nothing just the register and minister. no one from any side was invited- no one was hurt. Even our witnesses were vague acquaintances. It was my decision not his. His family wanted to finance it all etc I said No. Because I would not feel OK parading and playing somebody else in white or whatever color and smiling to all people- the ones I know the ones I do not - the ones I like and the ones I do not like. And because we did not have much monies at that time and what we had -thanks to our own work- I preferred to invest it in a house.

[JasperDamerel]

I'd be quite happy to have 2 witnesses in an office, but DP is fairly sure his parents would be deeply hurt if we got married without them, and there was a thread on here a while ago in which several posters talked about the years of upset which followed elopement type weddings. My family would be fine with it. But the potential for all round misery is pretty off-putting, and I'm quite happy with things as they are.

[BatteryPoweredHen]

Marriage does not make women less vulnerable

Yes, it does, and the extent of the protection tends to increase the more dependent financially the woman is on the man. This also broadly correlates with where the woman sits on the socio-economic spectrum.

If a woman is married, a court is able to use the very wide discretion afforded to it under the Matrimonial Causes Act to divide up assets, ensure a fair settlement etc. Obviously, if she is unmarried, this act cannot be applied and various bits of the LPA have to be applied instead which are a lot less favourable.

Parliament revisited this 'unfairness' when it drafted the Equality Act 2010, and specifically decided not to make being unmarried a protected characteristic. As the law stands at the moment, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis that they are unmarried, it is, however, illegal to discriminate against a married person on the grounds of their marital status.

Your statement above is demonstrably untrue.

[BatteryPoweredHen]

So let's just get this straight. I'm foolish and ignorant, yes?

If you have deliberately chosen to have a child whilst unmarried you are effectively 'opting out' of a whole raft of legislation that has been specifically drafted to protect you and your DC, so yes, IMO your choices are.

You might not need it, but what if you do? Do you not think it better to have it there, protecting you in the background? Just in case?

[museumum]

We live in a very middle class but also very liberal and bohemian area. We are married but none of our friends are.
The reasons are around feminism, rejection of religion and rejection of conservative ideals.
And I have to say most have also shared childcare quite equally so don't have the dynamic of the female dialling her career back or the male spending less time with the children. I can't imagine any of them not having a 50/50 arrangement of childcare if they ever split.