Pre-Nuptial agreements !!!...Why get married then ?????

If you have enough money to need a pre-nuptual agreement then why get married anyway ??? It's a joke..........

"Honey you're the stars in the sky.........You're the flowers on a rose.........You're the fuel that keeps my engine running........Will you marry me!!!"

"But on the off chance you're a Cow sign this!!!".........

Marriage is a joke these days .....I don't see the point.......Live together and be happy.....It's only a piece of paper.....Doesn't make you feel any different.........

If you have to sign pre-nuptuals then he/she is obviously a money-grabbing swine and has doubts about you anyway.........

Throw caution to the wind and go with the flow...............Or just stay single and happy............

All or nothing..........

Marriage is about love and trust and if you need a pre-nup then you certainly don't have the latter and the former is probably in pretty short supply also.

It's a sad indictment of the cynicism that's grown to purvey society. Too many women have got rich off the back of divorcing men. If the courts showed less favour to women and took a fairer approach then men wouldn't feel that pre-nups were the only way to protect their assets. At the end of the day, these guys didn't get rich by being stupid.

The problem with saying 'just live together' is that can't you eventually create a form of commonlaw marriage? Which has similar legal rights to formal civil partnerships/marriages.

On a similar note, this story made me laugh earlier:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507049/Woman-turned-older-mans-offer-marriage-stunned-115-000-hes-spent-her.html

Depends on the circumstances though. I am worth a fair chunk of money to my wife if I die, through life assurance policies and primarily through work who would pay her 4 x my annual salary in a lump-sum if I die whilst in their employment.....only if we are married. Probably not fair, but that's the way it is. If we were unmarried, even though we have children, she wouldn't get a penny from them.

Not sure of the number, but don't something like 40% of marriages end in divorce? If you're a celebrity, why not add in the pre-nup to make sure of things. Don't ignore the statistics. Hedge your bets and have a pre-nup. Its common sense, it doesn't mean you love each other less.

But then you've cheated on your wife so perhaps your marriage isn't as rock solid as some.

Never trust a woman!

I'm on the other end of the stick. Once unwittingly signed a mortgage form that basically gave me no right to stay in the house or have a claim on anything in it. I do contribute but then again if I split up with her I wouldn't want to be hanging around.

I entered with a couple of black sacks with my belongings and that's the way I'd leave. Perhaps take the cats as well.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Depends on the circumstances though.  I am worth a fair chunk of money to my wife if I die, through life assurance policies and primarily through work who would pay her 4 x my annual salary in a lump-sum if I die whilst in their employment.....only if we are married.  Probably not fair, but that's the way it is.  If we were unmarried, even though we have children, she wouldn't get a penny from them.

Not sure of the number, but don't something like 40% of marriages end in divorce?  If you're a celebrity, why not add in the pre-nup to make sure of things.  Don't ignore the statistics.  Hedge your bets and have a pre-nup.  Its common sense, it doesn't mean you love each other less.

But then you've cheated on your wife so perhaps your marriage isn't as rock solid as some.

Though the last point is true......and probably meant as a low shot...

Being together since 1987.........Probably means I've been with her a lot longer than anybody else on here has with their partner...

None of us are perfect Tino........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Depends on the circumstances though.  I am worth a fair chunk of money to my wife if I die, through life assurance policies and primarily through work who would pay her 4 x my annual salary in a lump-sum if I die whilst in their employment.....only if we are married.  Probably not fair, but that's the way it is.  If we were unmarried, even though we have children, she wouldn't get a penny from them.

Not sure of the number, but don't something like 40% of marriages end in divorce?  If you're a celebrity, why not add in the pre-nup to make sure of things.  Don't ignore the statistics.  Hedge your bets and have a pre-nup.  Its common sense, it doesn't mean you love each other less.

But then you've cheated on your wife so perhaps your marriage isn't as rock solid as some.

Though the last point is true......and probably meant as a low shot...

Being together since 1987.........Probably means I've been with her a lot longer than anybody else on here has with their partner...

None of us are perfect Tino........

I know big guy. It was just a bit of gentle ribbing.

By the way, have you ever seen Sleeping with the Enemy? I know you like your 80's and 90's films. I think you'd enjoy that one.

Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

Tina is 606's resident stalker. Perhaps that was the relevance?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

Battered wife and her attempts to leave her controlling husband.

seanmichaels wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

Tina is 606's resident stalker. Perhaps that was the relevance?

Will you leave it out with the stalker business please.

I like your shoes by the way.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

Tina is 606's resident stalker. Perhaps that was the relevance?

Will you leave it out with the stalker business please.

I like your shoes by the way.

which one has the hole?

seanmichaels wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Julia Roberts ???.........Not sure of the significance..........About an ex stalking someone isn't it ??

Tina is 606's resident stalker. Perhaps that was the relevance?

Will you leave it out with the stalker business please.

I like your shoes by the way.

which one has the hole?

Both of them. How would you wear them without?

That is the correct answer but not in the way you meant.

A bit irritable today. Forced to the dentist by the missus to have 3 fillings done. I've had no pain for years and get a bit of work done and they hurt. I'm gonna have to pick up a bottle of rum on the way home.

You don't need to tell me about mouth pain. Lip is still killing me.

seanmichaels wrote:That is the correct answer but not in the way you meant.

A bit irritable today. Forced to the dentist by the missus to have 3 fillings done. I've had no pain for years and get a bit of work done and they hurt. I'm gonna have to pick up a bottle of rum on the way home.

Should of told me.....I'd haven taken them out for free..........

Prenuptial

I briefly read up on prenups a few years ago but I am pretty sure they don't mean much under UK law. Basically it is the courts discretion whether to apply the prenup or whether to ignore it based on the circumstances of the relationship and the divorce.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Prenuptial

Cheers.....  ..

There are a few mistakes on other sections........so your good work isn't done.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:I briefly read up on prenups a few years ago but I am pretty sure they don't mean much under UK law. Basically it is the courts discretion whether to apply the prenup or whether to ignore it based on the circumstances of the relationship and the divorce.

Are you married CS ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:That is the correct answer but not in the way you meant.

A bit irritable today. Forced to the dentist by the missus to have 3 fillings done. I've had no pain for years and get a bit of work done and they hurt. I'm gonna have to pick up a bottle of rum on the way home.

Should of told me.....I'd haven taken them out for free..........

I didn't have them out petal.

Never said you did, Flower........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Prenuptial

Cheers.....  ..

There are a few mistakes on other sections........so your good work isn't done.

True - spelling these days is atrosios atroshush rubbish.

Julius........

Good gosh you are right old bean.........

Still however slight your contribution to the thread.......At least it's an effort of some kind.  

If only I'd had some fillings done recently, I could have contributed more.

Good heavens what a thought.....

Good luck with the moderating though......If you see anybody trying to derail the thread you'll eject them won't you !!   

Champagne_Socialist wrote:I briefly read up on prenups a few years ago but I am pretty sure they don't mean much under UK law. Basically it is the courts discretion whether to apply the prenup or whether to ignore it based on the circumstances of the relationship and the divorce.

Ironically the first time they were tested and upheld by a UK court was when a woman used one against a man rather than their typical use the other way round. Think the woman was a German heir to something and ex-hubby to be was pretty well off himself but not to the same scale.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Good heavens what a thought.....

Good luck with the moderating though......If you see anybody trying to derail the thread you'll eject them won't you !!    

I would, but I don't have mod powers on this thread. However, if I spot anyone trying to tidy up the terrible spelling of the key word in the topic title, for the benefit of all, I'll PM then and give them a piece of your mind.

Maybe they are more interested in the topic... than being pedantic.........

and some of the replies have been frighttttfully interesting..

All about the breeding you know old boy...........

Absolutely. When someone points out that it's 'nuptial' and not 'nuptual' it's invariably a sign of them being born with a silver spoon in their mouth and having a superiority complex as a result. There's no other possible explanation.

It's ironic, this is exactly the sort of argument I can imagine a married couple having.

Even though I find this exchange very interesting and appreciate your contribution.......

The title has been changed........So everything is cool....... 

sodhat wrote:It's ironic, this is exactly the sort of argument I can imagine a married couple having.

I'll never moan about my Wife again !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

sodhat wrote:It's ironic, this is exactly the sort of argument I can imagine a married couple having.

I'll never moan about my Wife again !!

I'll never moan about your wife again either!

Very good........ 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Depends on the circumstances though.  I am worth a fair chunk of money to my wife if I die, through life assurance policies and primarily through work who would pay her 4 x my annual salary in a lump-sum if I die whilst in their employment.....only if we are married.  Probably not fair, but that's the way it is.  If we were unmarried, even though we have children, she wouldn't get a penny from them.

Not sure of the number, but don't something like 40% of marriages end in divorce?  If you're a celebrity, why not add in the pre-nup to make sure of things.  Don't ignore the statistics.  Hedge your bets and have a pre-nup.  Its common sense, it doesn't mean you love each other less.

But then you've cheated on your wife so perhaps your marriage isn't as rock solid as some.

Though the last point is true......and probably meant as a low shot...

Being together since 1987.........Probably means I've been with her a lot longer than anybody else on here has with their partner...

None of us are perfect Tino........

The Me'm Sahib and I were married in 1978, and had a three year engagement before that.  Not intending to trump you or anything like that, Trussman, but it's relevant to what I'm going to say on the topic.

I can understand why pre-nuptial arrangements make sense.  An individual has assets he wants to protect and is considering embarking on a relationship which he is not entirely sure about.  That's understandable.... there are a lot of gold diggers out there who are highly plausible.  She may be very accomplishing at duping men into thinking she loves them.  It's not that difficult.  We are so vain, aren't we, us chaps.

It's as much a sign of modern times as much as anything else.  People don't wait to find out about each other anymore.  We had an engagement because that was the 'done thing' at the time.  Besides that, I was a young serviceman who was away at sea most of the year anyway, but even if I had not been, we would have had an engagement anyway.

The reason for long engagements (apart from being a period of intense saving to set yourselves up financially) was to get to know each other... to develop more mature feelings than those from below waist level.  Trust being the most important.  By the time we got married, we knew each other as well as made no difference.

But in this modern day of instant gratification and live-in-the-moment, many couples are not prepared to wait.  They don't seem to want to build any sort of foundation.  Too many rush into marriage and expect it to be a bed of roses.  Sadly, this category seems to largely include those who would do well to wait.  Those who have something to lose.  

For my part, I've been extremely lucky in life.  Yes, the Me'm Sahib can be awkward, bloody minded, unpredictable and she changes her mind at the drop of a hat.  She even once threw away my favourite cardigan just because it had a hole in it.  I've never gotten over that.  On the other hand, my faults are many and varied.  But she puts up with them.  Would I change a thing about what we have or how our life together has turned out..?  Would I hell.

In a marriage, financial stability is important.  Building a home... doing the best you can for your kids.... putting a few bob away for a rainy day.  That's what makes men get out of bed every morning for fifty years and go out into the cold and rain, to do a lousy job that they hate, for a pittance.   They do it to provide for their wife and family.

Earning a living, as important as it is, though, is not the only thing.  For our part, my wife is the mother of our children, she knows me inside out, she tolerates my little faults and is always there for me.   I can talk to her, share good times and bad with her and we treat those two things just the same.  We've come through a lot down the years and now we're fulfilling the inevitable function of marriage.  We're getting old together.  We've got a good few years left in us yet and with our family all grown up and making their own lives, we can now enjoy our grandchildren, who I must confess, I adore and spoil unashamedly.  I wish we'd had them first..!!

Do those who make pre-nuptial agreements think along those lines when they embark on a marriage..?  They should.  Because if they don't, then their marriage will get off to the worst possible start and is more likely to break down than not.  If any relationship is built only as a financial arrangement, then they miss out on the real joys of life.  Perhaps, given time and hard work, they find that actually, they really do love each other and things turn out well.  That would be the best case scenario.  But sadly, all too often, they don't.  Perhaps the pre-nup hangs over their heads.  Perhaps it provides the get out clause that makes it easy to walk away when times get difficult, instead of toughing it out.  Perhaps they just didn't really love each other after all and in the final analysis, having the pre-nup really was a sensible thing to do. Deep down inside though, they must have regrets.  Surely.  They will have missed out on so much and one day, that realisation must dawn on them.

I don't criticise those who have pre-nuptial agreements.  I feel sorry for them.

I have no plans to ever get married so pre-nuptial agreements are something which are never likely to be an issue for me. However, I don't see how they can be viewed as anything other than common sense.

If you have millions of pounds you've rightfully earned before a relationship then your other half is not entitled to that money. The signing of a prenup really shouldn't be an issue, because if the marriage is genuine it will have no reason to be used. If you do split for whatever reason then you leave with what you came with, no harm done and no bickering in court over things that don't belong to you. Simple.

My idea of marriage (been married for 16 years) is that upon getting married everything I owned I now shared with my wife (and vice versa). Doesn't matter if we earned it before we met. Once we've committed to marriage everything we have belongs to both of us.
As such, the thought of a prenup would never occur to me.

And if you enter marriage as equals then that shouldn't be too hard a view to take.

But if you're a wealthy businessman who's built a millionaire fortune from scratch through hard work and healthy cynicism, and the girl you fall for doesn't bring a fraction of that wealth into the marriage and once in it has no intention to do anything but be a stay at home mum and just relax and enjoy the spoils of your success - you may be more reluctant to take the "what's mine is yours" attitude.

Especially if it's clear, and you know deep down, that you're punching above your weight!!

I suppose if you're a millionaire and you're not sure you're marrying the right person, and have doubts about her commitment and love, then you could have a prenup. Better yet, don't marry her!

I did not even consider a prenup when me and TSMR married. Firstly there was never any chance of her leaving me as she has hit the husband jackpot and also from a more practical point of view I struggle to imagine she really wanted a bunch of boxing books and some early 90s indie records which was pretty much my total estate when I entered into our marriage.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suppose if you're a millionaire and you're not sure you're marrying the right person, and have doubts about her commitment and love, then you could have a prenup. Better yet, don't marry her!

Some really hot women do legitimately go for ugly men though, so it is tough to gauge if they are gold diggers or not. My mate who doesn't have a very good job or personality has a girlfriend who is one of the hottest women I've seen. He's ugly and I have no idea what she see's in him. So you can see the predicament rich men could find themselves in.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suppose if you're a millionaire and you're not sure you're marrying the right person, and have doubts about her commitment and love, then you could have a prenup. Better yet, don't marry her!

Lol totally agree.

Personally if I ever find a girl stupid enough to want to marry me there's no way I'm upsetting the boat with a pre-nup!!

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I suppose if you're a millionaire and you're not sure you're marrying the right person, and have doubts about her commitment and love, then you could have a prenup. Better yet, don't marry her!

Some really hot women do legitimately go for ugly men though, so it is tough to gauge if they are gold diggers or not. My mate who doesn't have a very good job or personality has a girlfriend who is one of the hottest women I've seen. He's ugly and I have no idea what she see's in him. So you can see the predicament rich men could find themselves in.

Your mate isn't Bernie Ecclestone is he?

He's a Bernie in the making, but has less money, flair and charisma.

He must have a huge Winkle, it's the only explanation.

Why get married at all???

The whole day can cost well over £15'000. Why not just save a few quid by asking your misses "If I gave you 12k cash right now, would you be happy to stay as we are??"

You can guarantee they would bite your arm off for it haha

TopHat24/7 wrote:And if you enter marriage as equals then that shouldn't be too hard a view to take.

But if you're a wealthy businessman who's built a millionaire fortune from scratch through hard work and healthy cynicism, and the girl you fall for doesn't bring a fraction of that wealth into the marriage and once in it has no intention to do anything but be a stay at home mum and just relax and enjoy the spoils of your success - you may be more reluctant to take the "what's mine is yours" attitude.  

Especially if it's clear, and you know deep down, that you're punching above your weight!!

Like many have said, don't marry the girl if you think she is just after your money.

And as said previously a prenup has no standing in UK law, it is the courts discretion if it should be applied or not based on the circumstances eg length of marriage, children etc.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And if you enter marriage as equals then that shouldn't be too hard a view to take.

But if you're a wealthy businessman who's built a millionaire fortune from scratch through hard work and healthy cynicism, and the girl you fall for doesn't bring a fraction of that wealth into the marriage and once in it has no intention to do anything but be a stay at home mum and just relax and enjoy the spoils of your success - you may be more reluctant to take the "what's mine is yours" attitude.  

Especially if it's clear, and you know deep down, that you're punching above your weight!!

Like many have said, don't marry the girl if you think she is just after your money.

And as said previously a prenup has no standing in UK law, it is the courts discretion if it should be applied or not based on the circumstances eg length of marriage, children etc.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:I briefly read up on prenups a few years ago but I am pretty sure they don't mean much under UK law. Basically it is the courts discretion whether to apply the prenup or whether to ignore it based on the circumstances of the relationship and the divorce.

Ironically the first time they were tested and upheld by a UK court was when a woman used one against a man rather than their typical use the other way round. Think the woman was a German heir to something and ex-hubby to be was pretty well off himself but not to the same scale.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/20/prenuptial-agreement-enforced-uk-law

Also:

Are prenuptial agreements legal in the UK?

Yes.

A prenuptial agreement is a legal agreement in the United Kingdom.

Nothing in UK law that says you cannot seek to protect your property on divorce by having a properly-drafted prenuptial agreement.

They are not contrary to UK law nor are they, in the opinion of most people, contrary to public policy.

Such agreements, like any other form of legal contract, need to be properly drawn up and follow the legal rules governing any other kind of contract but there is no doubt that prenuptial agreements are recognized by UK law and are now increasingly taken into account by courts in UK divorce proceedings.

Are prenuptial agreements enforceable in the UK?

Yes, UK prenuptial agreements are enforceable provided they are properly entered into and there is no overriding reason that would prevent the court from adopting the provisions of the agreement.

http://www.prenuptialagreementsuk.co.uk/enf-prenuptial-agreements-uk.php

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:And if you enter marriage as equals then that shouldn't be too hard a view to take.

But if you're a wealthy businessman who's built a millionaire fortune from scratch through hard work and healthy cynicism, and the girl you fall for doesn't bring a fraction of that wealth into the marriage and once in it has no intention to do anything but be a stay at home mum and just relax and enjoy the spoils of your success - you may be more reluctant to take the "what's mine is yours" attitude.  

Especially if it's clear, and you know deep down, that you're punching above your weight!!

Like many have said, don't marry the girl if you think she is just after your money.

And as said previously a prenup has no standing in UK law, it is the courts discretion if it should be applied or not based on the circumstances eg length of marriage, children etc.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:I briefly read up on prenups a few years ago but I am pretty sure they don't mean much under UK law. Basically it is the courts discretion whether to apply the prenup or whether to ignore it based on the circumstances of the relationship and the divorce.

Ironically the first time they were tested and upheld by a UK court was when a woman used one against a man rather than their typical use the other way round. Think the woman was a German heir to something and ex-hubby to be was pretty well off himself but not to the same scale.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/20/prenuptial-agreement-enforced-uk-law

Also:

Are prenuptial agreements legal in the UK?

Yes.

A prenuptial agreement is a legal agreement in the United Kingdom.

Nothing in UK law that says you cannot seek to protect your property on divorce by having a properly-drafted prenuptial agreement.

They are not contrary to UK law nor are they, in the opinion of most people, contrary to public policy.

Such agreements, like any other form of legal contract, need to be properly drawn up and follow the legal rules governing any other kind of contract but there is no doubt that prenuptial agreements are recognized by UK law and are now increasingly taken into account by courts in UK divorce proceedings.

Are prenuptial agreements enforceable in the UK?

Yes, UK prenuptial agreements are enforceable provided they are properly entered into and there is no overriding reason that would prevent the court from adopting the provisions of the agreement.

http://www.prenuptialagreementsuk.co.uk/enf-prenuptial-agreements-uk.php

champagne_spcialist wrote:And as said previously a prenup has no standing in UK law, it is the courts discretion if it should be applied or not based on the circumstances eg length of marriage, children etc

The judges agreed that in the right case a prenuptial agreement could have decisive or compelling weight. Lord Phillips, the president of the supreme court, said the courts would still have the discretion to waive any pre- or postnuptial agreement, especially when it was unfair to any children of the marriage

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/20/prenuptial-agreement-enforced-uk-law

champagne_socialist wrote:And as said previously a prenup has no standing in UK law, it is the courts discretion if it should be applied or not based on the circumstances eg length of marriage, children etc

The main point of principle established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher –v- Granatino in 2010 “The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to the agreement”

Which is very different from:

a prenup has no standing in UK law

One does have standing and is a perfectly valid legal contract, however there is a little bit of wiggle room for judges to use discretion if extenuating circumstances exist. Which didn't help the bloke a jot in the first time a pre-nup was tested and upheld in a UK court.

Nice touch with the big bold letters though

TopHat24/7 wrote:Which is very different from:

a prenup has no standing in UK law

One does have standing and is a perfectly valid legal contract, however there is a little bit of wiggle room for judges to use discretion if extenuating circumstances exist.  Which didn't help the bloke a jot in the first time a pre-nup was tested and upheld in a UK court.

Nice touch with the big bold letters though

It has no standing because it is the courts discretion whether to apply it based on the circumstances of the divorce such any children etc. That was my quote which you tried to rebutt and failed.

Every link you posted said the exact same thing that I posted above in that the courts have the power to choose to apply the pre nup or choose to override the prenup and basically bin it if the court feels the prenup should not be applied.