Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

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

Fiancé just told me he no longer wants to get married?

464 replies

LittleCactus · 01/01/2024 21:40

I'm so confused. Been engaged 4 years (to the day, in fact) and he. Just told me he doesn't want to get married a anymore. Doesn't see the point and thinks it's too much faff/expense if it all goes to pot. He still wants to be with me, apparently, but not as a married couple. I love the idea of marriage and have always envisioned myself being someone's wife.
What would you do?

OP posts:
CrabbiesGingerBeer · 02/01/2024 09:57

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

You’ve got it the wrong way around.

Marriage has always been a legal financial contract. It’s only in the last hundred years or so that the idea that you have to be in love with your spouse has become a thing.

LogicVoid · 02/01/2024 09:57

Get smart. Secure your financial input so far by getting married asap. Consider your own career trajectory a priority. Put your partner on 'probation' - see how he shapes up in reality over the next year. Do not get pregnant again for the foreseeable.

Cel119 · 02/01/2024 09:59

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Whiskerson · 02/01/2024 09:59

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

It's not what marriage "has been made into", it's literally the entire point. It's a contract. Do you think our ancestors just came up with it as a nice idea to celebrate love? Think about what life was like back then, and tell me it was designed as a romantic gesture! Our ancestors were a damn sight more hard-headed than we are - they had to be.

Cel119 · 02/01/2024 10:00

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SecondUsername4me · 02/01/2024 10:01

Cheesestring67 · 02/01/2024 09:40

All these people saying 4 years is a long engagement are baffling me ! Ive been with my DH 21 years, married 5. Engaged majority of that. There are no set rules

Doesn't mean it's not a long time, though. Engagement means "we will marry" and it doesn't take 4 years to plan a wedding. So getting to 4 years in without even planning or booking anything is long engagement. It's almost a non engagement really.

CrabbiesGingerBeer · 02/01/2024 10:01

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Well you are the one who is completely wrong about the ‘original meaning of marriage’ and you are the one calling people dim for trying to point that out to you.

There’s only one dim person here and it’s not the multiple people trying to explain your error while you resort to personal insults.

2024BigWhoop · 02/01/2024 10:02

Absolutely marry him even if it’s just for your financial protection.

You are in such a vulnerable position and you need to address that ASAP!

He gave you the green light last night so book a registry office wedding this morning.

My sister was in a similar situation once…. Long term relationship, the promise of marriage, living in his house and paying 50/50 and having two children with him. Then one day she learnt he was having an affair and he told her it was over. She was evicted from the home with absolutely nothing. She had no rights to anything. They’d been together for 11 years, the children were 7 and 5 and she got nothing!
She was on a part-time wage and homeless.

DO NOT let this happen to you.

Cel119 · 02/01/2024 10:02

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SecondUsername4me · 02/01/2024 10:02

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

He cannot be forced to marry, and he cannot be forced to add her to the deeds. She really needs one of these things to happen. Either is fine. But it's not just as simple as "get added to the deeds" because he is in control of that.

SecondUsername4me · 02/01/2024 10:05

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

It's not "all" marriage is about at all - not everything is binary here. There are many reasons someone wants to marry. The legal rights it gives are a major factor, and given its usually the woman who sacrifices her earning potential/pension/career when kids come along, then it's more important once they have a family.

There being multiple reasons for something doesn't make one of those reasons the only reason.

stealthninjamum · 02/01/2024 10:07

Op I would get married. And then very slowly decide if this is the relationship for you. Is it that he was afraid of the big wedding? I was very nervous about having a big wedding - and put it off for years - but did it because we wanted children. I hated the first dance which I felt coerced into by the small number of friends and family that were there. If I were ever to get married again I’d elope.

i also think you should then think about making yourself less vulnerable in case the relationship ends - although being married would offer some protection. Think about getting a full time job and as a priority add to your pension to make up for when you were on maternity leave.

herewegoroundthebastardbush · 02/01/2024 10:07

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

It's got nothing to do with being sure of that person (I am also unmarried and cohabiting, with two kids). It's about protecting yourself. Marriage provides a safety net financially if things go wrong. It allows a woman to safely(ish) give up or cut back work to look after kids, because in the event of a split that unpaid contribution will be accounted for in a split of the assets.

I have achieved the same security by maintaining my earning power, contributing jointly to the mortgage, and individually to my own pension and our savings. My partner does an equal share of childrearing and household tasks (probably skews slightly more towards me doing the rearing and him doing the housework but that suits us both).

When I had our kids, I would never have been willing to sacrifice that security because I was 'sure of that person'. Because once you have kids it's not about your security any more, it's about theirs. I am sure every woman whose partner turned out to be a shit was very 'sure' beforehand. And I owe it to my children to plan well for the contingency that I have got my assessment of their father's character very, very wrong. As I assume he also has about me. Because that's our job as parents. To protect them. Even from each other. Even from ourselves.

MargotBamborough · 02/01/2024 10:07

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

The reason women are made vulnerable is because we are the childbearing sex, which means we are the ones who take maternity leave, we are the ones who take the risk to our health in order to bear children, we are the ones whose careers and pensions suffer as a result, and we are the ones left literally holding the baby if the man decides he wants out.

When you've come up with a solution to that problem, let us know. Until then, marriage is the best protection most women have.

PaintedEgg · 02/01/2024 10:09

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

marriage being for love is a very modern idea - it was not created for that purpose, ot was always so the financial agreements were on clearly agreed upon

for example, if you die your spouse automatically inherits pretty much everything...if you're not married then even if the other person is the second owner of the house, the share of the deceased person can be inherited by the living blood relatives.

gannett · 02/01/2024 10:10

LittleCactus · 02/01/2024 00:12

He's just come to bed and told me that he was being an idiot and actually does want to get married now and thinks we should do it just the two of us asap. But he's put so many doubts in my mind now that I'm just so confused and don't know what to think. Surely you can't just change your mind like that for such a big thing!
Have also told him name needs to go on the deeds and I'm not sending any more money until he organises it

Aside from everything else, you need to really work on speaking up. First your fiance said he didn't want to get married, then he flip-flopped back - in these situations my immediate response would be to ask him why and then to have an actual conversation about it. Whereas he's presented those things to you as statements, you haven't questioned them and you've come on here to ask us what he thinks, as opposed to asking him.

herewegoroundthebastardbush · 02/01/2024 10:18

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Oh boy, you are coming across a bit.... silly with this one.

Marriage is irrelevant to love. Love exists marriage or no. You can sing it from the rooftops, you can tell all your friends, you can have PDAs on the public busses. Love is it's own business.

Marriage is about COMMITMENT. You commit to being sexually faithful and you commit to holding your property in common. It is not The reason you MAKE that commitment may be love, but those are the things you promise - not to love someone forever, which you can't be held to by anyone, not even yourself - but to BEHAVE as though you do, feelings notwithstanding, by being sexually exclusive and sharing your property. Love is a feeling, marriage is an action.

"The government" did not make this the case. Tribal people with nothing you would recognise as 'government' also had marriage covenants, and the commitments involved the whole families of the couple getting married. Marriage was designed to be about ensuring whose babies were whose and that those babies were provided for, and for the management of property. Read a book.

AuContraire · 02/01/2024 10:20

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

They've had a child together. The financial risks and consequences of their shared child have fallen squarely on the woman. Women should only take that risk exposure of there is a legal agreement that those consequences will be shared fairly. That's what marriage gives.

No man who loved his partner and child would want them to be left financially vulnerable.

nameXname · 02/01/2024 10:24

@Cel119
I do wish people would not make up history and use their fantasies about the past to try to criticise the present. Married women have almost always made independent decisions and been managers and worked in various ways to help provide for their families. As other posters have just said, for thousands of years, marriage has been a practical arrangement, not driven by 'lurve'. Mutual respect was the ideal, not romance.

I refer you to this very informative post, from another thread, just a couple of days ago:

" @Cottagecheeseisnotcheese · 30/12/2023 17:39

this is the Bible passage most trad wives base things on from proverbs 31 NIV USA version ... they haven't read it very carefully!!

[a]A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13
She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15
She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16
She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17
She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18
She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19
In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20
She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21
When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22
She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23
Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24
She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25
She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26
She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27
She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28
Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29
“Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31
Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

the interesting thing is she seems to run her own business and has employees and when she buys land with her profits it doesn't appear she consults her husband, in fact he values her judgment and leaves the financial management to her while he does politics which is what this verse means (Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.) So even in 800 BC it was not seen as outrageous for a woman to own property or have her own business "

herewegoroundthebastardbush · 02/01/2024 10:26

DeeLusional · 02/01/2024 09:07

Or maybe, like many men and women from time immemorial, he just got cold feet and having got it out of his system, realises he was being an arse?

Cold feet that lasted 4 years???

Whiskerson · 02/01/2024 10:27

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Why shame on the government? Isn't it shame on the men who desert or disrespect the mothers of their children? Is it OK, generally speaking, for a man to be willing to get a woman pregnant but be unwilling to marry her? It's true that there have always been men like this, and there's never been a single perfect solution to help women after the fact. But at least marriage offers a purpose-built package for those who are planning a family life and intend to work as a team, for better for worse and all that - not always counting "mine" and "yours".

MargotBamborough · 02/01/2024 10:28

The word "entitled" is so telling.

@Cel119 Can you explain what is so "entitled" about a woman wanting to have some financial protection in exchange for undertaking the huge physical and financial cost of bearing a man's children?

Why isn't it "entitled" of a man to want to get his female partner pregnant, doubtless give the baby his surname, and retain the legal freedom to walk away from that relationship without so much as a backwards glance, keeping all his property for himself, potentially leaving his ex partner in penury and without much prospect of securing her own financial future because she is the primary caregiver for his child, and being liable for absolutely nothing barring the paltry amount of child maintenance calculated by the CMS which he can probably avoid paying anyway?

Cel119 · 02/01/2024 10:32

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

SecondUsername4me · 02/01/2024 10:32

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

We are all usually very secure in our relationships, certain that we will stay together.

Then sometimes men die, or they cheat, or they have a mid life crisis and more to Peru
Literally those things happen in even the happiest and most secure relationships.

At which point the part time worker/child rearer/ no pension / no claim over the house partner gers royally funked over.

Can I ask, are you male? There's a real sense that you are, which obvs is fine, but maybe your comments come from a sense of privelidge that you simply would never actually be in this situation.

Whiskerson · 02/01/2024 10:32

@nameXname thanks for sharing that, I've always thought the same about the Proverbs wife! "She considers a field and taketh it" - love that!