Getting married to get legal and financial protection.

[PerspicaciaTick]

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.

Depends on your priorities really roxy. There is death as well as divorce to consider, and statistically a married couple's relationship is more likely to end in the former. Divorce rates are about 42% in England and Wales. Being married is much more advantageous for inheritance tax purposes, but you may not have sufficient assets.

Then there's other more niche things like visas, whether you want to be able to have more than one residence for CGT purposes, stuff that only applies to a minority of people. It sounds like you've had your kids already so the question of whether you want your partner to have PR as soon as the baby is born won't apply.

You are right. But too many of these women, find out too late that their decision fucked them over and want the law changed so that it wont be your decision at all

Do you mean people who want common law spouses to be a legal entity?

People really do have to take responsibility for their own financial position and decisions, I’m choosing to TTC and buy property unmarried having explored all of the consequences I can think of. If I end up screwing myself over because I didn’t get married before those things then it’s not really anyone’s fault but mine.

I am damn glad that common law isn’t a thing in the U.K. I don’t want a boyfriend I’ve been living with for a year to then automatically have the same legal ties to me as a husband I’ve proactively chosen to marry. Marriage is available for those who want it and I strongly believe that such a huge commitment should be actively chosen by both parties, not something that you cannot avoid sleepwalking into because you want to live with your partner.

If someone wants those rights and responsibilities and protection they should marry before having children or living together. If they choose not to then that’s fine. But you can’t choose not to marry and then expect everyone to have the same legal ties as a married couple by default.

If you weren’t talking about common law issues then I do apologise :P

Do you mean people who want common law spouses to be a legal entity?

Yes I am. I entirely agree with you. What you do is your choice. Marry now, marry later, don't marry at all etc. But understabd that you have done what you chose and take what comes from that.

What I was saying too many women make these choices then complain when their choice ends badly for them.

I believe the answer is to educate people so they look at all their rights and risks, just like you did and make an informed decision. I dont believe the answer is to change the law so that a different group of people are harmed instead.

This thread has been really interesting, I still am happy to TTC and buy property unmarried but it’s made me think about the future, if we haven’t gotten married by the time we have children I think once maternity leave is over I would be unwilling to drop my hours to part time unless we were married. My career isn’t really the kind where I’ll be disadvantaged going part time, but I think I’d be unwilling to decease my income as an unmarried partner while my OH continued to earn a full time salary. I’m not particularly fussed about marriage either way romantically but practically and legally I think it makes sense to continue to make life choices to protect yourself as a single person until/unless you are in a legal partnership.

Btw, bit of a tangent, but does anyone else think that the rise in the use of the word ‘partner’ has contributed in a small way to the decline in people marrying before having a family? Before partner was so ubiquitous you called someone your boyfriend or girlfriend, and they were very clearly terms for less serious relationships. Now I’ve noticed people often call their OH of a few months their ‘partner’, I’ve heard seventeen year olds refer to their boyfriend of six months as their partner, partner has taken on the same connotations as husband and wife in most cases. It kinda makes a relationship sound very serious and established when in fact it might not be.

I think in years gone by I might have felt a bit silly in my thirties referring to OH as my boyfriend, and maybe that would have kickstarted me a bit into wanting to get married and be husband and wife. But being able to use the term partner kinda makes it seem like it’s a more serious relationship than bf/gf when in reality legally and practically it’s exactly the same. That probably doesn’t make any sense sorry, just thinking out loud.

The persistent myth of the common law spouse certainly has a lot to answer for.

What I was saying too many women make these choices then complain when their choice ends badly for them.

Agreed 100%.

I tend to think that most people who are campaigning for common law rights fall into one of two camps:

Those who haven’t fully understood the issue and who haven’t really thought through the ramifications but get swept up in the idea because they hear stories of people being left in tricky situations due to not marrying and mistakenly ascribe the issue to being a lack of common law status rather than the individual choosing not to marry,

And people who didn’t marry, can’t get their boyfriends to agree to marry them, made the choice not to marry before kids and property and now regret it, who want the same rights and status as married couples without any of the work that went into those married couples’ efforts to attain that legal status (planning ahead, refraining from getting pregnant until married, being willing to walk away from a boyfriend or girlfriend who doesn’t want marriage, arranging a wedding ceremony and so forth).

Maybe I’m being a bit judgmental but when I hear of people saying it’s terrible we don’t have common law status here in the UK that’s what springs to mind. We live in an age where all of the info we could need is at our finger tips. Googling ‘common law spouse U.K’ brings up plenty of straight forward easy to understand websites explaining there is no such thing. If you decide to undergo massive life events such as move in with someone or buy a house or get pregnant or continue an unplanned pregnancy without doing even a cursory bit of research to understand your position then I’m not sure there’s much anyone can really do to help you.

The problem, I suppose, is that people dont Google things they think they already know. If you're sure you're a common law spouse and you've got rights because you've lived together for a certain period, you're unlikely to research it.

Not sure I would agree about the 2 camps.

But do agree that we live in an age where anyone could find the info if they wanted.

I actually think the concept of marry for love and everything will be ok, to blame. Its filtered in relationships in general. Live is important. But people seem to think it's a reason to forget their sense.

I do feel for people in this situation. But the answer isnt to put other people in a such a bad situation.

And, as I have said, I dont think it will help these women. As the man just wont let them move in.

Sitdownstandup that's very true.

They dont confirm their facts before making life changing decisions.

There was a thread here, a good few years ago. A woman in her 50s wrote questioning the legal advice she got. Because her friends kept insisting common law was a fact. She had been with her partner for 10 years, given up work, and he asked her to leave. She saw a solicitor who advise she had no rights. She qs convinced her friends were right and the solicitor was wrong.

Luckily for her she had contributed anything financially so still had some savings.

Wow. But people do believe and accept what they hear around them. That's how misconceptions become embedded.