Pre-nups..... good or bad?

[MrBen]

True - much sadness in the world is attributed to money and an unhealthy love of the dollar. But to be fair, I do think that's an easier position to to take if, like me, you don't actually have much.

I think, on reflection, it's impossible to intellectualise marriage as a concept because it's a largely emotional decision which, on paper, doesn't look entirely rational, i.e this idea that you meet in your 20's or 30's and maintain the same shared interests, goals, personalities, on parallel lines for the next 50 or 60 years. Nice idea to strive for, and I respectfully tip my hat to all those on that journey, but as society changes I can't help thinking there are more realistic, practical ways to commit to each other which might help stop one partner losing their shirt if it doesn't work out.

[Brendan]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> True - much sadness in the world is attributed to

> money and an unhealthy love of the dollar.

I agree. We would be much better off with the Euro.

[SimonM]

Although ante-nuptial settlements (as they have always been termed in this country) have never been legally enforceable they have nonetheless been a standard feature with toffs/the landed gentry of this great land of ours since time immemorial. I know this as back in the last millennium when I was nobbutalad I worked for a very grand firm of solicitors indeed. Although my position was a lowly one it did involve sometimes assisting with the drafting or administration of such trusts. But this was a rarified class of people for whom land meant all, and a "good" marriage was nothing to do with being romantic. This did not mean the union in question was not a romantic one - just that the ANS was regarded in much the same way as taking out the marriage licence or booking the church.

[Cassius]

No-one goes into marriage thinking it will end (or very few do) but many marriages do indeed end in divorce, however determined the parties might have been that it would last for ever. In second or further marriages where (a) there may be considerable assets which might have accrued to one partner before the marriage and (b) having already been divorced the parties are more aware that shit happens, they just seem to be common sense.

[SteveT]

Did you know that if you invite your lover to live in your home, within only 6 months, they have rights to your property.

[Cassius]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did you know that if you invite your lover to live

> in your home, within only 6 months, they have

> rights to your property.

Where does this information come from, and are there ways around it such as paying rent so that there is an economic agreement rather than a purely romantic one?

[jollybaby]

Mr JB and I got engaged a couple of weeks ago and I wouldn't consider having a prenup. I can't think of anything more negative and contradictory to the idea of marriage. This is despite the fact that both our parents are divorced.

[Ladymuck]

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mr JB and I got engaged a couple of weeks ago and

> I wouldn't consider having a prenup. I can't

> think of anything more negative and contradictory

> to the idea of marriage. This is despite the fact

> that both our parents are divorced.

I'm with you there.

[Siduhe]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did you know that if you invite your lover to live

> in your home, within only 6 months, they have

> rights to your property.

People don't get property rights just by moving in with someone. However there are circumstances where a cohabiting couple can be ordered by the Court to share in a property in various proportions, depending on how long they have been together and what each have contributed to the home and the relationship. If an unmarried couple buy their home in joint names, there is a case that says the presumption is that they own it in equal shares - but that presumption can also be overruled by the Court.

[giggirl]

Call me a romantic (or call me stupid) but I don't think I could marry someone who wanted a pre-nup.

[Ladymuck]

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Call me a romantic (or call me stupid) but I don't

> think I could marry someone who wanted a pre-nup.

Definitely a romantic;-)

[SteveT]

There is almost a sixty percent failure rate in marriages to date, and the experts do not expect that figure to improve in the coming years, especially with the present economic outlook.

[CT Wac]

Once you have kids pre nups should end. Even in this day and age a women can have to give up everything career wise once she becomes pregnant and a partnership should be a partnership. Do we really want to encourage the increasingly individualistic nature of society? (Although i still want a Bentley).

Also isn't marriage a commitment? A pre nup is the opposite of commitment, why bother getting married?

[Huguenot]

What is a 'failure' rate?

Are all terminated marriages 'failed', are marriges without kids 'failed'?

I'm thinking some marriages reach a natural conclusion, seems a bit unfair and judgmental to call hem 'failed'.

[SteveT]

60% are terminated (just for you Huguenot) which means there is a share out of resources, bringing us back to the

original posters concern of the value and viability of pre-nups.

[ClareC]

I agree that if you feel you need a prenup you shouldnt be getting married in the first place! The two are poles apart.

I also have been at the receiving end of losing 50% of everything through no "fault" of my own having shared everything and earned significantly more than my ex during the marriage.

[katie1997]

Prenups are definitely bad - I cannot seee how the 'marriage' would last if the couple feel the need to agree these in advance. But each to their own I guess.....maybe it works for some.