MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Antony & Cleopatra get a pre-nup?

245

Comments

  • I guess it partly depends on how long they've been together. If it's a 'whirlwind'-type romance, then definitely arrange a pre-nup. If they've been together for ages, then possibly not.

    It's at least worth discussing, perhaps with a neutral advisor present, in any case. Cleopatra should not "demand" that Antony signs up to a pre-nup - rather they should make the decision mutually, and for the best reasons. As mentioned in previous replies, marriage is a legally-binding contract and sometimes the unthinkable can happen. It's only right to be sensible and doesn't necessarily imply a lack of trust in either party or a certainty that the marriage will come to a sticky end.

    Romance is a wonderful thing. But (alas), reality and being sensible HAVE to creep in at some point. Even in paradise, someone has to empty the bins.
  • Personally I think a pre-nup (or equivalent) should be an essential part of any relationship once there are assets involved. As many others have said if you can't discuss money openly then you are storing up problems for further down the line.

    The fairest option in my opinion would be to sign an agreement that stated what they each brought to the relationship remained theirs (property, savings etc), and anything from then on was joint.

    Certainly just mentioning the topic for discussion shouldn't be a reason to walk away from a relationship!
  • Stampede_2
    Stampede_2 Posts: 49 Forumite
    edited 23 September 2009 at 10:35AM
    My own parents had a long marriage and would never have considered pre-nups even had they been around. They brought up a large family and I personally have been lucky in my own marriage, having now got to the grandchildren stage. Again pre-nups just were not a consideration.

    However it is no good those of us of a certain age or older generation throwing up our hands in horror at the thought of pre-nups entering into and being part of the modern marriage arrangements. Conventions have changed in many things such as who and which side pays for what, and I do not see that a pre-nup means ' don't you trust me ?' or ' don't you think our marriage will last ?'

    At close hand I have seen others whose marriage is a hell. Sometimes people stay together 'just for the children', or because one side faces financial ruin, and a pre-nup might have meant a fairer solution - whatever fair means in such situations.

    :j totally debt free with money in the bank for, as Mum said ( RIP ) 'in case the roof needs repairing'
  • Prenups? I thought we went into marriage for it to last forever, so why plan for 'if it doesn't work out ' just make sure it does! What's money at the end of the day, you can't put a price on love! I've earnt more money than my husband for all of our 32 years of married life, he is great at DIY and so many other things, so has saved us a fortune in loads of other areas. I see us as totally equal. Prenup..pah!
  • pineapple
    pineapple Posts: 6,931 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 23 September 2009 at 11:06AM
    Kudos to Simtrain.
    When my marriage ended, we reached an amicable agreement to discount anything brought into the marriage, plus I refused to go after all I was entitled to, in law. We were guided by what we thought was moral and ethical in the circumstances rather than the law.
    But you can't guarantee that civility will prevail. Nobody knows what the future will bring. Marriage is a contract anyway. Why not go the extra distance? In fact I would suggest that this should be a compulsory addition to the marriage contract. That would get rid of any awkwardness and maybe get rid of the gold diggers who pray on vulnerable people too.
    In fact, finance by default is a part of the marriage contract anyway. But the law can be an a**. So I would have no problems if a partner, much richer than I, requested this. Plus I would definitely consider it myself should I chance on a younger, penniless hunk (some chance).
  • Absolute necessity. You never know what is round the corner. I've been done over twice by greedy dishonest wives. So with that experience my advice might also be, do not get entangled.:beer: Cheers!
  • Yes, she should go ahead with the prenuptial agreement and Anthony's acceptance of this (or not) will reveal his true feelings towards her. Joint coffers are never a good idea when one party brings an empty coffer into the relationship.
  • if i was anthong, i'd be looking to protect cleo's interest.

    It'd be her i was interested in, not the money

    And if you never split, you never have to use the pre-nup
  • Pre-nups should be made a legal necessity for anyone getting wed. If you want to keep it simple, sign it for a 50/50 split, otherwise sort it properly.

    I got married quite young (against my parents' wishes). They had a successful business and were quite well off, my husband was one of their employees. He was 24 when he actively started to pursue me when I was 13. I was just young and *in love* (AKA hormonally stupid!). We hid our relationship until I was 16 and amazingly, the olds never found out.

    Wanting to prove how loving our relationship was, I signed him a 50% share of everything I owned. I struck out on my own and started up another succesful business, making my ex my business partner.

    My ex was illiterate (though he denied this during our initial divorce proceedings) so it was always down to me to sort anything that needed a pen putting to paper (and a lot of other things in our day-to-day life). A few years later, I became ill and had to employ a few part-timers to help cover me as the ex was almost as useful as a chocolate teapot (he couldn't even write our address). He did, however, manage to start knocking off one of the assistants. She had big ideas and they decided on a takeover. The business suffered big time and my accountant got in touch with me to let me know what was going on. It all became a huge mess and I started divorce proceedings after being held down by him while she attacked me.

    After all this, there wasn't much left but the biggest shock I had was in court when the judge ruled that as he was illiterate (must have come on suddenly according to my solicitor!!) and was unable to hold down a *proper* job, I was to hand over everything PLUS a third of all my future earnings over a certain level to him! He then promptly went bankrupt (after hiding everything first), leaving me with huge debts run up in my name whilst I was ill (yep, he was clever enough to hide the post then have it re-directed to her address).

    Love's young dream was certainly shattered for me - as it is for a third of marriages these days. Common sense goes out of the window when emotions (and money) are involved. Thankfully, I'm well-rid of a nasty piece of work, though I've never fully regained my health nor have I any incentive to get a good job or start in business again. Signing a pre-nup would have prevented all this and left me free to get on with my life to what I would like to be my full potential.

    I understand that my case may have been unusual in many aspects, but I'm sure taking the *romance* out of the proceedings at the start would make life easier for a lot of couples to start married life without arguements, doubts or suspicion.

    My friend is getting married next year. We've all suggested she sorts out a pre-nup as her fiance (they've known each other less than two months, he proposed a fortnight after meeting her - on the internet!) has a really bad track record, being engaged four times already and a lot of debts to his name. She has her own house and a young child to think of. She's refusing to suggest as she's afraid it'll put him off! No, it isn't romantic, but if it was part of the marriage contract, she wouldn't have to think that way.

    Strange, though, that the vast majority of pre-nup requests that I've known of are made by men to women who rarely think twice about signing, yet the other way around and women don't want to ask in case it's seen as unromantic or selfish.

    (Sorry 'bout the long post but it's a subject that's close to my heart.)
  • Solitaire64 - good post. It is a warning for everyone in a materialistic world.


    Anne Workman
    "The fairest option in my opinion would be to sign an agreement that stated what they each brought to the relationship remained theirs (property, savings etc), and anything from then on was joint."

    Yes. Totally agree.


    Having divorced from a long marriage and willing split everything 50/50, I can see the pitfall of meeting someone with nothing, it not working out, and having to split again 50/50! The same applies if my partner brings more into the marriage - I will sign a prenup to this effect. Everything we gain after the marriage would be split 50/50 should we divorce.

    *That said, I would want my marriage to go the distance.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.9K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards