Why would you not get married?

[HiMyNamesLee]

when couples have been together for years on end and have children, have a house together etc. just wondering why they don’t want to get married when for all intents and purposes they basically are? Are there benefits to not being married in this scenario? And please don’t say expense because you can have a registry wedding for very cheap

Because I came into our relationship with assets that I worked really hard for prior to meeting DP. We now have children together but he also has children from a previous relationship. I love them and we have a great relationship but if anything ever happened to me then they would still have a mum but my own children wouldnt. My loyalty is first and foremost to my own children so I want to make sure that everything I have goes to them should anything happen to me. I don't want to risk it ending up going to someone DP meets after my death or his ex (if it went to him then he died so then to stepchildren then something, god forbid, happened to them and so their mum ended up with it over my own children).

@Refbuckethat in this case there is no "anything" for the wife to get, and tbh if that was the most messed up thing about the whole situation I'd be a happy woman! In general though you are of course right, which in many ways is the point I'm making. The romantic commitment side of marriage is just a social overlay that the people involved add or remove according to their changing feelings and circumstances, but the legal obligations are very real and binding. Being out of love and living apart is not "basically divorced" any more than being in love and living together makes you "basically married". Their feelings towards each other are irrelevant, the contract they signed is just as enforceable as it was when they were a couple.

Because it makes splitting up so much easier.

Unless you are a much lower earner, with fewer assets, I wouldn't recommend it.

Friends of mine, late 50s, been together 30+ years, no children, equal careers & pensions.
They entered a civil partnership recently. Both had been dealing with parents' estates & saw how a civil partnership would be beneficial post-death for the remaining partner.

100%

I love my partner and share property and children with him. However I don't want to legally financially merge with him via a marriage contract.

He has slightly complicated family finances that he arranged with his mum when he was single and would now be difficult to unpick if we were to get married.

Also I stand to inherit quite a lot from my side of the family and I only want it to go to our children.

It may be sad. But when you look at the divorce rate these days, it's also rational.

Same as previous poster - I have DC and would rather their inheritance stayed intact.

I didn't marry before I had them for the same reason. A lot of men aren't more financially savvy than their partners.

I never dreamed of getting married or having children. They both kind of just happened while I was busy with my career. As things have turned out I think it was the right thing to do as, at the time neither of us, had any assets whatsoever. We split amicably after 25 years and 3 grown-up DC, and divided net assets equally, also the right thing to do. Now I have a DP who is absolutely lovely but there is no way on earth I will ever marry him. What's mine is hard won and I see no reason to give anyone else a legal title to it. When I die it will go to my DC. XH seems to have reached the same decision re his DP.

So in my experience, why someone would not get married depends on age and finances.

But for many they are just biding their time while they wait for a better offer, which is why young people just starting out protect themselves and their future DC much better if they marry before having children. People change.

Fella and have no assets or children either jointly or seperately, no plans to have children and our finances are separate, so there is nothing to protect or negotiate if we were to split up.

We've made vows to each other and wear rings. We have navigated some tough times together and consider ourselves committed for life.

And even the cheapest way of marrying is out of our budget right now.

So there is no reason for us to get married but we do want to because we want the official ceremony where we make our commitment out loud surrounded by our loved ones. We both want to change our names to Mr & Mrs Hisname Myname after we marry, to symbolise us truly joining together for life. And the legal status of marriage means the relationship is more serious, even though we are already as committed as can be. Circumstances can change and that just a piece of paper is a powerful legal contract when needs arise.

And on an even more silly note, everyone loves a wedding and we both come from small families where weddings are once-a-decade events.

What are the benefits of me getting married? We have our own, pretty equal assets. Equally committed but these days of that changed then a marriage certificate isn’t going to save the relationship? Can’t see the point.

It's much cheaper to separate if you aren't married. Definitely for the man. Religions aren't all evil. There are certain protections for women in marriage.

@Goodornot why do you assume her partner owns their home? Or that her partner is male come to that? 😏

She could find herself a single mother, true, but marriage doesn't change that. Given their flat was owned by her female partner before they even met I can't imagine she'd have any claim to it now, even if they were married. She obviously trusts her partner and whilst some may call that naive, her partner has trusted her with other aspects of their relationship, so they both have a vested interest in remaining amicable. Besides, she has me and I'd move her in with me should the worst happen 😁

There is if you’re a SAHM. We were protecting All of us by getting married.

If you are a SAHM who has no savings of their own and no way to work if it all went badly...a slim minority. Marriage isn't about protection in the sense that "you marry a man and are magically free from worry" it can mean huge legal fees to disentangle yourself even if you are being emotionally or physically abused. People stay in loveless miserable marriages for the fact they can't afford a divorce.

Even though I am happily married if anything happened and I was no longer married I would never marry again to protect my DD’s inheritance. Seen some utter horror stories on mumsnet.

This deserves a post on its own

Because I was 35 when I met my OH and 39 when we had our first child so already financially stable/independent. I remain so. Not really interested in weddings or changing my name or engagement rings so the question is why would I? I really do see it as a patriarchal institution. We may have to consider it for tax purposes at some point in the future at which point I think I’d go down the route of a civil partnership rather than marriage. I don’t know. Haven’t really given it a great deal of thought as it’s just not relevant to me.

People are saying that in the event of a breakup they're fine because the house is shared or saying that in the event that their partner dies it's fine because they've got a will. Is there something that you have in place or that can be put in place so that if your partner dies you have a saying everything that happens and you can plan their funeral and you can get their ashes and you can get their death certificate and you can sort out all of their affairs and you can keep day-to-day belongings that may not be detailed in a will and everything like that is there some kind of contract that a lawyer can draw up for that?

You can add a letter of wishes detailing things to be read alongside the Will. It's not formal but it would be unlikely whoever is left the bulk wouldn't at least try to honour any wishes.

This. I was with my ex for 25 years and the vast majority of that time happily unmarried. One DS now grown.

I was never one of those girls who dreamed of a wedding. I can’t think of anything worse than dressing up being centre of attention. And repeating generic words in the council offices never appealed either.

It just wasn’t a big deal to us. And thankfully we split amicably and there’s been no financial fall out.

Reading some of the threads on this board (Relationships) detailing the way women are treated by their husbands. FML.

And this so called protection marriage brings…why are there countless posts by women left financially high and dry by ex husbands who’ve hidden assets, refuse to pay maintenance etc. It’s shocking.

OP if you think marriage is important then that is fine, you do you. But please don’t judge women who do not choose that path.

And this so called protection marriage brings…why are there countless posts by women left financially high and dry by ex husbands who’ve hidden assets

At least they have a claim. Without marriage, the partner with assets does not even need to go through the trouble of hiding them.

Executor of the will has final say on funeral planning etc legally. That isn’t always the spouse. As I’ve said before, next of kin isn’t automatically the spouse. People are conflating a lot of things on this thread that are different.

Next of kin can be nominated. I have nominated my partner who I am not married to. He is executor of my will. My parents, who are my nearest blood relatives, will have no say over my funeral or how the will is handled. He has LPA over my finances and medical care. None of these things would come automatically with being married. He would need LPA to make financial and medical decisions for me even if we were married.

Ooh @Fleur405 you could practically be me even down to the ages etc, I agree with everything you said