Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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

Getting married to get legal and financial protection.

110 replies

PerspicaciaTick · 18/03/2019 02:20

If you are not married to your partner and feel you may be financially or legally vulnerable in the event of the relationship ending or your partner dying, please don't be put off getting married just because of the cost.
A statutory ceremony in England costs £46, plus £11 for a marriage certificate and £70 (£35 each) to give notice. £127 in total. Every registration district in England has to offer a ceremony at this cost by law.
It may not be in a great location, or on a weekend, but it is designed to ensure that marriage is accessible to everyone.

OP posts:
Monty27 · 18/03/2019 02:22

Erm, your point is? Confused

sobeyondthehills · 18/03/2019 02:28

I don't have a spare £127 to have that amount of money to me would be amazing. I live on a week to week basis, so being able to save anything let alone £127.

I think people need to question why marriage is suddenly out of people's reach, we seem to accept some people are never going to own their own homes, the amount of children they want, but now it is unaffordable to get the most basic of marriages.

Lets face it, when I have a choice of saving that five pounds or feeding my child guess which one I am going to choose?

BasiliskStare · 18/03/2019 02:34

I think @PerspicaciaTick does have a point here @Monty27. Not everyone wants to get married. Sometimes that will be for very deep seated reasons. And I would not advocate getting married to someone you don't want a longstanding relationship with , but if the point is that some legal and financial rights are automatically guaranteed by marriage, then yes I think it is a sensible thing to do & I took the point as , it doesn't need to be an expensive big dress / party kind of thing - it is just a contract to say we two are joined together for legal and financial purposes, Which is sensible I think - & I know most things can be replicated with e.g. wills etc but can all of what marriage ( or civil partnership ) gives you be replicated with other contracts ? - I don't know the answer to that - someone will & I would love to know.

happymummy12345 · 18/03/2019 03:05

I don't think marriage should be about security and money. What happened to marrying for love?

IM0GEN · 18/03/2019 03:30

Of course marriage is a legal contact .

And of course If you love someone you will want to share your life ( including your money ) with them and for them and your children to be secure.

It’s not either / or, it’s both.

Birdie6 · 18/03/2019 03:39

I wish I'd never heard of the phrase " it's just a piece of paper " referring to marriage.

It's a lot more than a piece of paper. As you say, it's cheap and easy to get married and you get a world of security from that one commitment. Of course it's about love too - but from reading many MN posts, a lot of women just drift along , living with and having babies with men and getting absolutely no protection for themselves and their children. Then they break up and - whoops - she ends up with nothing. I can't imagine what reasons anyone would have, for rejecting marriage and all the protection it offers .

BitOfFun · 18/03/2019 04:05

I've just got married, and it cost a fair bit more than that for a civil ceremony.

Getting married to get legal and financial protection.
BasiliskStare · 18/03/2019 04:06

@happymummy12345 - I think when I mentioned a longstanding relationship - I thought I was including love in that. People can love each other without getting married - of course they can - many do - goes without saying. & getting married can be romantic, as can much else , my point was that if you love someone and want to live a life with them then marriage is a way in which you can bind yourself to one another in legal and financial ways, in one easy swoop. And it's an easy thing to do as @PerspicaciaTick says , and if both are committed then it gets a whole lot of things done in one go which otherwise would have to be done via separate contracts & no need at all to have a frilly frock. ( and indeed I am going to have to google because I still don't really understand what you can't replicate with other contracts other than marriage / civil contract but would not be surprised if they cost around about the same )

That said - & I understand some people have a problem with this - I am not one who believes a wife becomes a "chattel" - I think it is an equal union between two people and just is a very pragmatic and sensible thing to do. I actually think there ought to be an option for civil partnership between men and women and not just for same sex couples if that would take some of the "baggage" , for want of a better word , out of it.

BitOfFun · 18/03/2019 04:07

That option is available now, I believe.

BasiliskStare · 18/03/2019 04:09

Thank you @BitOFun - I am clearly behind the times Blush - apologies

Scott72 · 18/03/2019 04:13

But "love" and "its the right thing to do" probably aren't going to convince the men in these circumstances who have resisted marrying for so long. As I've suggested before, it might be good to thoroughly research some sort of other more tangible benefits of marriage that would convince these men to take on the legal responsibilities of marriage.

BitOfFun · 18/03/2019 04:13

I just remember hearing it in the news a few months ago- somebody brought a legal challenge.

BasiliskStare · 18/03/2019 04:28

@BitOfFun - yes I just looked at it - so sounds like April Thanks for that @BitofFun I have long thought this should be available and if only I had listened to the news / read stuff as well as you I would have known it
Smile www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45714032

Foxmuffin · 18/03/2019 04:55

This reply has been deleted

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

BitOfFun · 18/03/2019 05:20

Ummm, I don't think that it's particularly helpful to frame this in terms of women somehow ripping off men. It's perfectly reasonable for women to protect themselves and their children in the event of separation or death.

Scott72 · 18/03/2019 05:33

These protections in the event of divorce will come from the court taking money and other assets which have been largely earnt by the husband, assuming he's been the main earner. Perhaps he's read horror stories about husbands being left impoverished. Therefore perhaps she should seek to allay his fears and give him some good reasons to get married.

Frenchmontana · 18/03/2019 05:34

I don't think marriage should be about security and money. What happened to marrying for love?

Marriage is a legal contract. It's not about love. You may choose to enter because you love someone. But it shouldn't ever be forgotten that it's a legal piece if paperwork.

When deciding whether to do it or not, love isnt the main thing to consider. You can love someone and share you life with them and not marry them.

If a person wants to share your life and they have assets, this legal binding contract should be discussed. If you have assets and want your partner to reduce their earning power, then you should be giving them security. If you want to reduce your earning power to raise kids, that's entirely your choice. But doing it without the protection of marriage, is very risky. If your partner has assets but wont protect you but wants you to raise the children and damage your career, then surely they dont love you.

Scott72 · 18/03/2019 05:37

Yes, making marriage a precondition before you will have his children sounds the way to go, if you have the luxury of that choice.

Frenchmontana · 18/03/2019 05:46

Why wouldn't you have that luxury?

MarinaMarinara · 18/03/2019 06:03

@BitOfFun - the basic ceremony at £57 (ie £46 plus £11 for a certificate) is there in the page you linked. Only during the week at 9.30am but it can be done for the price op suggested.

Getting married to get legal and financial protection.
Scott72 · 18/03/2019 06:17

Why wouldn't you have that luxury?

I meant if you already had had children with him without marrying him first.

kbPOW · 18/03/2019 06:23

Please remember that all posters do not live with partners who earn more than them, have more assets or a bigger pension pot.

SleepDeprivedCabbageBrain · 18/03/2019 06:25

Gosh you only have to spend a few hours on here to see it's so important to be married or civilly partnered if you give up your job to raise kids.

Frenchmontana · 18/03/2019 06:51

Exactly. In that case you did have that luxury. That person chose something different.

There really needs to be an education piece about explaining to children and teens that a relationship has a legal aspect. That in choosing to live with someone, you should be thinking about the future. About what happens if you split.

People are to caught up in 'but I love him/her' .

NameChangeNugget · 18/03/2019 07:01

Please remember that all posters do not live with partners who earn more than them, have more assets or a bigger pension pot

This is very true. You read some distressing stories on here about working married Mum’s propping up workshy men.

Marriage is a huge gamble for the party with the most to lose. And it seems that’s becoming more female that are the ones getting screwed over my divorce