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

JayD

Unreservedly - resounding YES SHE SHOULD!

We all want our marriages to last forever but sadly many don't.

wildthing01

i think, with a litle common sense, people can protect themselves without the need for pre-nups - and anyway, pre-nups would not help people who are living together and not married. e.g. if one of you earns a lot more and pays all of the mortgage, then just keep the house solely in your name. keep a joint a/c for joint outgoings, but separate accounts for personal money - then you can spend what you like out of your own account, without having to justify it to your partner.

i see people commentign that not havign a pre-nup implies you're losign your independance - my husband and i share all our money, but we are completely independant financially,and in the highly unlikley event of an acrimonious split, would each have our own assets to take away with us.

juliaw

It isn't the entrepeneur who is taking the risk here, it's the teacher.

How many successful entrepeneurs have suddenly lost everything? Many.

And how many teachers have suddenly lost everything? Have you ever heard of one? People who work in education don't take risks with their money because they don't live with the illusion that they are going to get rich quick.

Not much use getting a pre-nup anyway in this country as they are not legally binding.

tangowithcash

Something else to consider, which has intrigued me for some time.

I'm sure an acceptance of the dissolubility of marriage is grounds for an annullment in the Catholic Church. And surely a pre nup, with the implied acceptance of a possible split, is this?

So if either party requests a divorce, the other could possibly use a pre nup as grounds for an annullment and claim they were never truly married.

In these circumstances, what claim would they have on anything but what was thiers to begin with.

Bargainetta

Your story (Solitaire 64) should serve as a big warning to women not to get to hung up over what is and isn't romantic. OK so both men and women can fall foul of the gold-diggers but men do have the greater earning power generally to dig themselves out of the doo-doo and they are less likely to be carers of any sort.

elephant-astic

Flickering_Ember wrote: »

I remember Paul McCartney saying he decided against a prenup as they're not very romantic. He paid the price in more ways than one.

As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a contract anyway; it's legally binding two people together. So it's not all romance and flowers either, and I'd certainly go for a prenup.

We all hope things will go well in whatever we do, but the reality is, a lot of things don't, so it's best to be prepared....it'll save a lot of money and heartache should things go wrong.

Totally agree that a pre-nup is the way to go, as others have said it may not seem romantic, but it's best to get this sort of thing sorted out reasonably & fairly while both parties are still on good terms, just in case the worst does happen; I have a close friend going through a somewhat messy divorce at the moment, & he's regretting not arranging a pre-nup now, like many people it's something he and his ex talked about but didn't do because it felt unromantic. I know the divorce is causing him no end of stress now, and imagine it's the same for his ex too.
Like insurance it's one of those things which you hope you'll never need, but which is still worth having anyway.