Fiancé just said he's only marrying me because I want it and he wants a prenuptial agreement

[Willowcat77]

Disclosure: I have ASD but very high functioning.

DP and I have been together for nearly 3 years and living together since last September. We both have grown up children. I live in his house. We got engaged earlier this year but it has been very low key - no ring, he's not told many people and he never seems interested in discussing dates or plans etc.

I love him intensely and I was the first to propose. He initially reacted with silence and it felt very awkward and I was more hurt than I'd ever been in my life . Then a week later he asked me. I said yes but only if you really mean it! I don't want to be married out of pity, but he reassured me he meant it.

This was months ago, but still no discussion or anything about the wedding. This morning I said we need to talk about the wedding and I asked him whether his heart was really in it. He said he did want to marry me, but only to make me happy, because he loves me, but he isn't really interested in marriage and never has been.

But this isn't strictly true because he did propose to his ex years ago but she refused. When I pointed out this contradiction he said he only asked her because they had children.

He then unexpectedly said he would need me to sign a prenuptial agreement as he is much better off then me and marriage is a risk if you split up. He said he has lots to lose, unlike me. (I want to point out that despite being on a much lower wage than him I do contribute at least £200 per month and also buy lots of things to make his house and garden nicer. Also, I do have my own house to sell, once I have sorted out some legal issues with my ex, and then we will buy our own house together, so am not actually a pauper!)

I'm now very confused and don't know what to do. Marriage is important to me but it feels horrible to think he is only getting married to please me. Him saying this has taken the joy out of it. How can I plan a wedding knowing his heart isn't in it and he's not really interested?

Maybe I should leave him, but the thought of living without him breaks my heart, I love him so much. Maybe I should get married and sign his weird prenuptial agreement, but always know I have dragged him into it or unwittingly emotionally blackmailed him into doing it? This makes me feel terrible.

Or maybe I should say let's not get married then and just carry on living together? I could do this, but the knowledge he didn't want to marry me would always be there.

I have exasperated him for being emotional about this. We're going to talk about it again after work. Please can you give me some feedback based on what I've said? Thank you x

I would want a pre-nup too, in fact I probably would get married if I had a lot to lose. Nothing worse than working your arse of and then half of that 'work' becoming a martial assert.

He's going to want to ensure his children's future too, marrying you without a pre-nup risks their inheritance.

OP, when people say they don’t want to get married it is often interpreted as an objection to getting married. But it is not that direct and that is the wrong assumption.

I don’t want to get married. That means for me that I have an absence of “a want” to get married. I don’t have an objection to marriage.

Therefore asking me why I don’t want to get married is pointless, there is no reason. It has no meaning or draw for me nor any repulsion. It is one of those things I don’t get so I wouldn’t honestly get excited about it.

@Starjumpsandahalf
She has her own property So did I. That’s my point. I sold up, took the capital, invested some in the new house (which my ex asked for), I was made redundant and because of my health I cannot get another full time job. The capital I had left was not enough to buy anywhere outright and I can’t get a mortgage because I don’t have a full time job. Hence I lost everything.
Meanwhile my ex is sitting in a house that he owns outright with a very well salaried profession.
Nothing in writing (he was smart!) and I don’t have the money for legal fees or the energy or stomach for a fight.

That's a great point IrisAtwood. One advantage of marriage is it would protect her when she sells up and buys a house with her partner. Or would it? Were you married to your ex? In any case, does she absolutely need to sell her house?

She has her own property So did I. That’s my point. I sold up, took the capital, invested some in the new house (which my ex asked for)

@IrisAtwood sorry I don't know your back story from other threads and your post didn't say you had your own property, so in this thread, your point didn't come across. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but you said that you plural bought a house, but that he had a much larger amount of capital to put in and wanted the new house to be in his name alone - so you did. Effectively he bought a house, not you plural and your contribution wasn't legally recognized, nor your provision of furniture. Without legal advice because of love and (misplaced) trust you left yourself shockingly exposed, as you obviously found out to your cost.

Anyhow all of that is moot as the advice to the OP is don't do what you did, get qualified legal advice and protect yourself as well as partner protecting his personal assets. The real point is to help @Willowcat77 work out her feelings towards his partner's attitude and how to progress from here regarding marriage.

I can understand your DP’s reluctance to take a chance on losing his half his assets by marrying you. I live in a country where if you live with someone for two years they can claim part of your house and money if you separate. After five years they get half of everything you have, including pensions and inheritance. Everything you both brought to the relationship goes in the pot to be divided. It’s a stupid law and doesn’t protect older couples who want to live together but don’t want to give away half their assets if they split up. It’s a different situation for younger couples starting out in life and having children

Be sensible, keep your house and rent it out, don’t tie your finances on the whim of marriage. I have seen so many people including myself lose out financially just because they have lived with someone, including paying solicitors, it’s just the same as a divorce, it’s a nightmare. You have a choice, you can live with the person you love and leave your assets in your will to your DC.

Not sure if you have said this already but you absolutely should take independent legal advice to make sure any agreement protects your financial interests as well as his.

That does not answer the question about getting married though, although this is a separate issue. I think you probably have to let it sit and see what happens. He needs to want to get married through his actions as well as his words, I think.

Were you married to your ex?

No, I wasn’t. I genuinely think that marriage is major contributor to financial security - it affects pensions, inheritance, everything.

One of the worst things is that he told me that he had planned it so that he could ‘throw me out.’ Once I had done all of the work buying it (admin/organisation/furnishing) I was surplus to his requirements. He had always wanted a house in that location but was too lazy and disorganised to do anything. He now lives in squalor in a beautiful house. H

Its because marriage in the UK affects everything that it may not always be appropriate. You can see how OPs partner would be concerned about the financial security of himself and his children in the event of divorce. Not saying OP is a golddigger of course. But on the other hand OP herself needs to worry about her security should she buy a house with him outside of marriage. But as KTara said, perhaps a financial planner could help arrange ways of securing her investment without the necessity for marriage. And perhaps it might not be necessary for her to sell her house at all.

Scott this is why I think that changing the laws around cohabitation would be sensible. Here in Australia (I'm a Brit and moved here) People really think hard before moving in together because due to the Defacto laws, it affects them legally in terms of property and income including pensions.

My friend split up with her husband and he immediately moved in with his new partner. My friend was very concerned because she knew that after, I think 6 months, the new partner could have a claim on the guy's income, property and pensions.

It's RIGHT though that this law exists. So many people move in together and when a woman has babies in that relationship, she may not work due to the cost of childcare...then her potential career suffers.

In the OP's case I don't think her partner is doing anything wrong at all in asking for a prenup. It's very sensible.

Iris there you go...proves my point even more. The laws in the UK around cohabitation need to change.

Too much power in the hands of men thanks to outdated traditions and women being taught they can't ask a man to marry them.

But again I don't think OP's partner is wrong to want a prenup at all.

They're sensible when one or both partners has assets.

There is a similar law in most countries, were a partner acquires a spousal status after living together for x number of YEARS.

I was almost pushed in the same direction as Iris, sell the house to buy a house together but no marriage in offer. I just thought that if he wanted me to use all my assets to pay for 50% of a house he wanted, when his 50% of the house was only a small percentage of his assets, he was taking advantage of me even if he was quite rich.

So he asked for all my assets to go into a house I didn’t want, so I asked him to put everything on the table as well by getting married. He said no as “I would be taking advantage of him”, we broke up a few weeks later because I couldn’t trust someone who wouldn’t trust me, especially after so many years together.

Obviously, at that time it became clear he thought I was a gold digger even if we had always go 50/50 with every expense despite a huge difference in income.

Some people do not realise that taking financial advantage of a partner often comes from the partner with more money not the one who is less well off.

You are excited about a wedding. It just isn't important to him but he wants you to be happy and wants the wedding because you do and he wants to make you happy. That sounds like a lovely man to me.

So do you want him to fake excitement? Because that is what he would have to do. Yabu to expect him to feel as excited as you if he isn't. Not everyone feels like you do about weddings and there is nothing wrong with that. ASD might be the reason you are struggling to understand and appreciate that he's doing something special for you because he loves you, not because he's interested in it for his own sake.

And I'd also protect my assets for my children in his circumstances, but you've already acknowledged that this is ok and not a reflection on you personally.

'Common law's laws wont change anything.

Especially around women who have kids and give up work without being married.

The men in these situations, just wont move the women in with them. They women will still have kids. Where lots if them currently have kids and give up work on the promise of marriage, eventually. They will do the same with the promise of living in, eventually.

But what will happen is that couples who want to live together but not join finances, wont be able to.

Having a lodger or house sharing will become a nightmare.

It's not that difficult. If you want the protection of marriage, get married before having kids and giving up work.

To be fair non if this is relevant to OP since they wont be having kids. I see no reason why, she should have the automatic right to have is assets for living in house on the cheap

Protein I think youi're wrong. I think there are many women living with men in the hope the men will agree to marry...some have kids hoping that will push them in the direction of marriage.

If men really don't want to be with a woman then they would have to be more transparent about it wouldn;t they.

AND couples who want to live together but have separate finances could just have a version of a prenup. Easily done.

I think youi're wrong. I think there are many women living with men in the hope the men will agree to marry...some have kids hoping that will push them in the direction of marriage

Well you are entitled to your opinion. In your opinion I am wrong. In my opinion you are wrong.

Women who give up jobs and have kids with men on a promise of eventual marriage, will do the same with a promise of eventual co-habitting.

What should happen is that they dont have kids and give up financial independence before marriage and/or really thinking out the consquences and what it means.

We dont need a change in the law. You can get married and protect yourself. Or get legal papers drawn up to join assets.

Why change the law? When people can already protect themseleves. You are simply changing which group of people need to have legal papers drawn up.

What should happen is that they dont have kids and give up financial independence before marriage and/or really thinking out the consquences and what it means

Well that SHOULD happen but it's not happening now is it?

So the current way of doing things isn't working. Oh..no...hang on. It IS working for men of a certain type.

You ask "why change the law?" I'll tell you why...because until men get prosecuted for Fathering children they don't pay for, then women need protection.

How did it go?

Well that SHOULD happen but it's not happening now is it?

And it will be exactly the same if the law is changed. It still wont happen.

So the current way of doing things isn't working. Oh..no...hang on. It IS working for men of a certain type

It also works well for a whole lot of women that have assets too. More and more women have a good amount of assets now.

Women are an active participant in these situations. Since when do we change laws because adults, who are capable of making their own decisions, make a poor one?

Women are not victims. They are willing participants. And they still will be of the law is changed.

If a man doesnt pay for a child. How will a woman getting half his assets help?

It's rare there is enough to go around the woman will be ok, with CMS payments.

More should be done to make fathers pay for the kids they father.

That's an entirely seperate issue.

If women need the law changing to protect them. What about women who have assets and end up with cocklodger? They leave a shit marriage, have kids, meet someone who seems amazing, let him move in and he fucks off 10 months later. Dont these women deserve protecting? Again active participants in their own lives. What about their kids who may lose their home?

Either way, a group will lose.

And again, this discussion isnt really relevant. As op wont be having kids with him.

Women are not victims. They are willing participants

Apart from when they're with a man who says he'll marry them and then puts it off and puts it off.

Then boots them out with nothing after years of childcare and housekeeping.

To reiterate.....I agree with those who say OPs partner is within his rights to ask for a prenup. There's nothing wrong with them.

Apart from when they're with a man who says he'll marry them and then puts it off and puts it off.

They actively choose to move in with a man into his house, actively choose to have kids and then actively choose to give up work. Before marriage.

It's not that hard. Dont move in with a man into his place, if you do and find yourself pregnant, dont give up work. Do not be a sahm when unmarried and not living in a property with your name on.

It's a long oine of active choices people make. Dont believe 'yeah we will get married evnetually'. Get engaged and set a date.

If you chose to live in a house you have no rights over, are not married and dont work. It's a big risk you are taking. That you are actively choosing to take. Those risks dont always pay off

@Proteinshakesandtears
What active choice do the children have? The lack of security of a home and the greater likelihood that the relationship will end impacts on their wellbeing and causes disadvantage to them. Surely a law change is in their interests and is only being proposed as being in the children’s interest by reformers.