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

Been together 12yrs,2 children why wont he marry me !!!

52 replies

majic30 · 14/08/2004 22:42

Been with mr unromantic 4 12yrs, finally hes made a will after constant nagging,mainly for the children sake, Nothing has my name on it and he wants it left that way. i know he thinks i,l take him for every penny but im not like that.
He had a ONS 3yrs ago which really hurt me, as i was harrased by the person and eventually retaliated which was totally out of character.
I sometimes feel like packing my bags as he seems to live in his own little world building his little empire,all i want is a bit of commitement with someone who feels the same way, hes only ever told my he loved me when he got found out. Please can some one open my eyes!!!!!!

OP posts:
sobernow · 22/08/2004 07:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StuartC · 22/08/2004 08:14

I've been divorced twice. The first time the assets were voluntarily split approximately 90:10 in my ex's favour as I had a big guilt complex, also I had a more secure financial future than she had. The second time it was a 50:50 split. No kids involved either time. In both those marriages the assets (house, etc) had been bought as a result of joint financial input.
When I met my DP I already had a house, largely paid for. If I marry DP I agree that I "endow her with all my worldly goods". I can't predict the future but I know that I'm too old to start again if I give away half of my house as a result of another marriage failure. I made this very clear to DP early in the relationship so that there would be no false expectations. It was her decision to stay with me.
I love my DP, I hope it is a lifetime relationship, and I would like to marry her but the penalties in the event of divorce are too severe. It's getting worse - last month the ex of a footballer got a court to order him to give her one-third of his future earnings (she'd assisted his career by nagging him every time he went to the pub). Who'd get married now? The "contract" keeps changing.

sobernow · 22/08/2004 08:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

wild · 23/08/2004 12:27

What about trust? surely if you love and care for another person enough to have children and want to spend your future with them you are going to have to believe that they are not out to dispossess you of what's 'yours'. If you are so worried about having them make off with 'your' money you shouldn't be with them in the first place imho.

MeanBean · 23/08/2004 12:47

I also think that the lack of trust thing can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because you don't trust each other enough, your relationship cannot sustain real challenge, and when something awful happens, it's not strong enough to get you over a bad patch. Also, you don't have enough invested to make you fight for it, meaning you're more likely to lose it. But I can sympathise with why you don't want to marry again, Stuart C.

jasper · 23/08/2004 14:48

StuartC you expressed my viewpoint very well.

Wild, it has nothing to do with trust. Stuart and I have been married and divorced (not from each other,at least I don't think so )so we know all about trust, and what happens when things go wrong. I never ever expected to get divorced. I thought I had the best marriage around and was often told so by others . It can happen to ANYONE.

wild · 24/08/2004 08:22

I strongly disagree. I am divorced too, I am not naive. I know things go wrong but I think that operating on the basis that they will go wrong and you will be let down is a very sad way to life live.

sobernow · 24/08/2004 09:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stripymouse · 24/08/2004 09:11

majic30 - why marry someone if they don?t really want to marry you? How will it really make you feel once the fuss and drama of the day is over. It certainly won?t change the people you are or how much you love each other. Sure, it will make you feel financially more stable but a half hour with a solicitor could do this too.
If someone is not offering stabilty and commitment to a relationship where children are involved it is really understandable to see how it could make the other partner feel insecure and crave that commitment and stabilty. However, surely we all know, deep down, that going on and on and on about it, pestering, cajoling, bullying, persuading, using emotional blackmail or threats of leaving with the kids - what does it achieve? You finally have your man agree to a wedding - brilliant. Or is it really? how would it really make you feel? You might feel relieved and excited but I think you could also be left with that long term nagging doubt still about commitment and balance in the relationship because you know that the reasons they have finally agreed to marry you are probably less than perfect, less to do with love and a desire to make a public statement about your partnership and more to do with keeping status quo whilst aknowledging that your partner probably should have some financial rights and you should have a better legal standing over your rights as a parent in event of a split.
I just dont believe you should get married because you feel insecure in your relationship and want more status and legal back up in case it goes wrong.
Sorry - I am just being honest here, I am not trying to upset anyone who has had a hard time persuading their partner to commit as I am sure that plenty of people just take some coming round to the idea of marriage and once convinced are fully behind it with all the right sentiments. (it took me a long time to wait for DH to marry me and was fortunate no kids involved - young enough not to have that problem. I had the luxury of time to wait for him to really want it for himself but realise not all are in tht position).

sobernow · 24/08/2004 09:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Stripymouse · 24/08/2004 09:22

Hope you have a wonderful wedding. You seem to be very emotionally sorted and very clear in your mind about your reasons for getting married so I am sure that it wll be a very happyl occasion.

aloha · 24/08/2004 09:42

I agree with Sobernow. Marriage wasn't invented as a vehicle for romance and it is still, at heart, a legal contract that is designed to impose responsibilities and confer rights on both partners. Nowadays of course, you can work round marriage by putting your house/pensions/savings in joint names, drawing up parental responsibility agreement etc, but if your partner won't do either, then, yes, I do think that they are treating you as a 'disposable possession'. Putting your partner and children (as in this case) entirely at the mercy of your mood and whims for their future security is not the way any decent relationship works. The 'it's my house and my money' argument is absolutely fine IMO before children come along and before one partner gives up paid work to look after them as part of your partnership. After that it is, IMO, exploitative. In the vast majority of cases women carry on with the responsibility of caring for the children on a day to day basis. I think to say, in effect, "If I get fed up with you or meet someone else, you and the kids are out', is simply not acceptable. And personally, I think if you have a family with someone then you don't have the right to 'own' all your money in perpetuity. I do think you forfeit your future earnings to them. After all, why should a man's kids suffer just because he tires of their mother and wants to get his end away elsewhere - a la Ray Parlour?

jasper · 24/08/2004 20:16

aloha how did you make the leap from "he doesn't want to marry me" to "If I get fed up with you or meet someone else you and the kids are out" ?

Sobernow you were probably not talking about me but as I seem to be the spokesperson for those not wanting to marry, you said "why should someone spend their life with you if you refuse to share everything with them?" I DO share everything with DP but only so long as we are together.
Wild I envy you that you have not been as devestated by divorce as I have . However I don't live my life EXPECTING things to go wrong, I just have in the back of my mind that they might !

aloha · 24/08/2004 20:57

Jasper, because majic's partner, despite having children with her, has refused, even though she has said how unhappy she is, to put their home or anything else in joint names. It's not just that he won't marry her, but he is deliberately making sure that if they do split, she will get nothing - zilch. No share in her own home, despite the fact that she is, and will continue to be, the main carer of their children. This does mean, in effect, that if he chooses to leave or meets someone else, he will make sure she is stuffed. I'm sorry, but I think that's just plain wrong in every possible way. She is vulnerable because since they got together 12 years ago house prices have gone up unbelievably, he has been able to work despite having children because Majic has made that possible, yet he is deliberately trying to ensure that she cannot benefit in any way from the success that she has made possible.
I presume in your case your dp works and you would continue to have the children if you split, thus making the inequality much less. I personally wouldn't have children with someone unless we were sharing things financially because I think it is far too much of a risk.

MeanBean · 24/08/2004 21:13

I think it's just obvious that if one party in the relationship gives up status and financial security for the sake of the family as a whole, that party should be protected in the event of a break-up. It's just common justice.

jasper · 24/08/2004 21:42

Aloha when you say "he is making sure if they split she will get nothing" that is where you are assuming things. Just because he won't marry/ put the house in joint names does not mean he will make sure she gets nothing.

I won't marry, and I bought the house before dp came on the scene.Now we have three kids. We both work part time and both look after the kids equally . Do you think I should put the house in joint names to make him feel more secure?

If we split up ( God forbid)we would most likely share care of the children and there would be some kind of division of our "stuff". Yes, I would keep the house. I bloody well paid for it myself before I ever met him. If I were to marry him he might have more rights over the house. What the heck is wrong with me wanting to protect myself in the event of a split?

Why are you assuming majic's dp "will make sure she is stuffed"? You have absolutely no evidence for this, any more than you could infer from my situation that I would make sure my dp was stuffed in the event of a split.

Majic has not said too much here. For all we know there could be 101 other reasons why her dp does not want to marry her.

jasper · 24/08/2004 21:45

let's not forget that the lack of a marriage contract is STRONGLY in majic's favour if they split up and her dp sought residence of the kids.

A friend of mine, separated from her husband is going through hell right now in a legal battle over their daughter. She curses the day she ever married him.

MeanBean · 24/08/2004 21:51

I think the difference is, Jasper, is that he may well see Majic right if they split, but it will be in his gift, whereas if they are married, she has legal rights to the property; she's an equal partner, not a supplicant.

It's different to your case, because Majic is working part time while her dp works full time. And she pays for all her children's stuff. That in itself rings a very loud warning bell about his attitude to his financial responsibilty to his family in the event of a split.

MeanBean · 24/08/2004 21:53

Sorry posts crossed. Agree with you about the residence issue, but as he is working ft and she is working pt, she would still have an advantage if she were married in the event of a split.

jasper · 24/08/2004 22:08

But you still keep talking about in the event of a split! How on earth is he likely to want to marry her when it is all in terms of what might happen if they split?

What would you advise me to do if my dp said to me "Let's get married so that if we split up I will have a legal entitlement to your earnings, pension , and property. After all I do the lion's share of looking afer our children and have put my career on hold to do so.".

You would tell me to run a mile!( I know we have strayed off Majic's original post a bit here !)

Why is it different for men?

And I still don't see how it is so different from my situation. I would be delighted to not work AT ALL with dp working full time. And he would be delighted with the reverse!

sobernow · 24/08/2004 23:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MeanBean · 24/08/2004 23:26

And also, another reason we're all talking about it in terms of the event of a split, is because that is what is stopping Majic's DP from marrying her - he's the one who has this obsession about not putting her name on the mortgage, building up his empire, as she put it, and making sure she doesn't run off with it in the event of a split. I'm sure she hasn't discussed marriage with him in the way you're proposing (), but her DP has responded in that way.

And does only one party in your relationship pay for everything for your children? Because in Majic's, she does. Which indicates a level of commitment to her and his children, which I personally would find unacceptable from a partner, with or without marriage.

jasper · 25/08/2004 08:42

meanbean I too would find the separate finances unacceptable and all our finances are joint. I know loads of married couples who have separate finances but in some cases it is due to one or other partner being a reckless spender and the other being more financialy responsible.
Sobernow you will have to explain to a thicky what you mean by doublethink!

Fio2 · 25/08/2004 09:03

I can see you point jasper about the financial situation you have. My Mother bought her own house (with cash from her divorce settlement) and has worked to pay all the bills on it. Her botfriend moved in with her 7 years ago but she wont marry him because he will have a claim on her estate. He may already have, i am unsure. But the financial situation you have before you meet your partner does matter, I think. Me and my husband were young so we started off putting all our wordly good in together, which is fair.

I cant comment on majic's situation as we dont know whether it was her partrners house before she met him. It does seem though majic, from your posts, that he is a very selfish man

MeanBean · 25/08/2004 09:52

Yes, I think that there's a difference between whether you've built up all your wealth yourself, or whether you've done it as a couple. And too often in the past, women's contribution to building up the family's wealth was overlooked, because it wasn't done in the cash economy, it was done in the home. Which sounds like what has at least partly happened in Majic's case. Twelve years and 2 children isn't a casual relationship, but her DP is almost trying to treat it as if it is, when it comes to the financial affairs of the household. There comes a stage in a relationship where you have to accept that finances should be joint and equal, and it sounds like Majic and her DP should have reached that point quite some time ago.

One other thing - what someone thinks should happen to you if you split up with them, is a good indication of how much love and respect they have for you now, while you are together.