if 1 of you wants to marry and the other doesnt what do you do?

Tamsin_Temrin

There may be a wife already - not unknown.

OP I don't know if you are still reading this, but if there is no wedding make sure that there is a will and that she is named on his pension as benefactor, or she will be stuffed.

seven-day-weekend

He should marry her.

He told her he would, she was led to expect this. She led her life expecting this.

It means not a lot to him. It means a lot to her. Therefore he is the one who should compromise his views.

I would expect him to honour his promise (to marry her); if he doesn't keep his promises then there is no point them marrying anyway.

Some friends of mine were in a similar position. They have been together since she was seventeen, she is now 27; they have two children; he always promised her they would be married before she was 30. They have a villa in Spain where they live full-time.

Last month he booked a wedding in Gibraltar, secretly, and come the day he drove her there (he had arranged a hairdresser and a new dress) and said they were going to a friend's wedding . When they got there he asked her to marry him, she said 'yes, when', he said 'now' and they were married half an hour later with their little boys as pages.

There is a man who keeps his promise.

euronorris

As I understand it though, no 'promise' was made. Simply a 'maybe' for the future, when things have settled/expenses have reduced etc.

Plus, not having been privvy to the conversation, he may have made his intentions crystal clear in the past, but she only heard what she wanted to hear.

Or, he may have wanted to marry before, and has simply changed his mind.

I don't think we should condemn the man for not keeping his, so called 'promise' to her, or assume that he is lying without a lot more info. Especially as he isn't here to put his side across.

seven-day-weekend

euronorris wrote: »

As I understand it though, no 'promise' was made. Simply a 'maybe' for the future, when things have settled/expenses have reduced etc.

Plus, not having been privvy to the conversation, he may have made his intentions crystal clear in the past, but she only heard what she wanted to hear.

Or, he may have wanted to marry before, and has simply changed his mind.

I don't think we should condemn the man for not keeping his, so called 'promise' to her, or assume that he is lying without a lot more info. Especially as he isn't here to put his side across.

Yes of course we must be very aware he is not here to give his side of the story. I was giving my view based on what the OP said which is all I have to go on.

Katie-Kat-Kins

swiss69 wrote: »

If the will is changed without the beneficiary being informed then maybe that is beacuse the person writing the will didn't want them to inherit anything...........?

A correctly written will (Done via a solicitor not one of those cheap ones that you can get) would do the job.

The key to all of this though is that there a 2 children to think about.

This man might be the most loving man on the planet, adore his kids, be faithful (Unlike many many married men!) and hard working....

Would you really leave a man because of this in the hope that there may be a better one out there who will want to come along and take on two kids and marry you? Doesn't seem sensible to me

And would probably cost as much (maybe more than) a registry office wedding with the minimum fuss!!!

Then there are the other issues that can't be dealt with in a will:

Like the fact that as co-habitees they aren't each others next of kin. I know someone whose partner wasn't allowed into the hospital when they were seriously ill because it was "next of kin only" and they weren't married........
As they aren't next of kin they don't get the say about when life support is switched off, whether they are an organ donor, whether the potentially life saving but risky surgery is carried out........
Then there is the married couples exemption to inheritence tax, a will can ensure that your co-habiting partner inherits but they may be left with a crippling tax bill which has to be paid in advance!! Who wants their devastated partner to have to find lots of money they don't have in a hurry before they can get their hands on your estate (which most likely includes joint assets).....

Any partner who can't see the benefit and comfort in the protection that marriage gives in these circumstances is in my mind selfish!

daska

Lotus-eater wrote: »

OH so now we're getting married in case we split up? Romantic

You can go and get a will done very cheaply which sorts all that out. If a dad won't be with a child/put his name on the registration certificate, then I call into question his worth as a dad. And forcing this dad who doesn't want his kids, into marriage, does what?

Maybe if people didn't enter into relationships just on the basis of romance there might be less relationship break-up?

A will provides no protection in the event of a couple splitting up, whether married or not, because it can be changed without the beneficiaries knowledge. Marriage is about protecting both parties, For some of us, being married has given us protection we never believed we would need. It would be nice if no-one ever needed this protection but c'est la vie...

seven-day-weekend

If what the OP has said is accurate, I don't think he wants to marry HER. I think he has fobbed her off with excuses all these years and his reluctance now is nothing to do with not agreeing with marriage per se, it is to do with marrying her. He doesn't want to and isn't going to. He does not love her enough.

I appreciate that we only have what the OP says to go on; on these assumptions this is what I see.

RobertoMoir

*Louise* wrote: »

I think rather than walk out, she should say she is going to have the children's names changed to her surname -- that might wake him up a bit lol.

...better than breaking up the family, she obviously still loves him.

Yes changing the names of the children in a fit of temper is certainly considering the needs of the children in all this, and not at all using them as pawns in a little game or anything.

That's a disgraceful comment, if you are serious.

wifeforlife

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

He should marry her.

He told her he would, she was led to expect this. She led her life expecting this.

It means not a lot to him. It means a lot to her. Therefore he is the one who should compromise his views.

I would expect him to honour his promise (to marry her); if he doesn't keep his promises then there is no point them marrying anyway.

Some friends of mine were in a similar position. They have been together since she was seventeen, she is now 27; they have two children; he always promised her they would be married before she was 30. They have a villa in Spain where they live full-time.

Last month he booked a wedding in Gibraltar, secretly, and come the day he drove her there (he had arranged a hairdresser and a new dress) and said they were going to a friend's wedding . When they got there he asked her to marry him, she said 'yes, when', he said 'now' and they were married half an hour later with their little boys as pages.

There is a man who keeps his promise.

:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j:j

Love this idea - I would love that

RobertoMoir

Katie-Kat-Kins wrote: »

I've not read all the replies yet but I think the friend has been silly. She has accepted excuses all along that are meaningless, and has continued on blindly hoping that it would be ok.

Why on earth did she have a planned baby with this man when he wouldn't marry her if it was important to her???

Well that's the thing isn't it. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the institution of marriage as people seem to be talking about that now, the problem is that it's apparently very important to the OP's friend, but not to her partner. If some aspect of a relationship is that important to you (whether marriage, or children or even where the two of you plan to settle down and live) then you have to wonder at going on for 10 years without nailing it down.

Without any of us being there for their discussions, we don't know if the partner set out to deceive the OP's friend, or if the OP's friend heard what they wanted to hear from non-committal answers or what, but either way 10 years, some kids and a house later is a long time to find out that you have a major issue with someone. For both "sides", I mean. They both have a lot to throw away here if things go wrong.

My thoughts are that both parts of the partnership have to take a look at what they have now, what they both want and what will happen if they can't work something out which both sides are happy with. Trying to force someone into marriage seems like a good way to scare them away, as does promising marriage "some day" and then following through with it.

Katie-Kat-Kins wrote: »

At the end of the day marriage is important to her and she believes in it, if he loves her won't he go through a ceremony that he doesn't see the point of to make her happy? If they have a lifelong partnership anyway from his point of view what difference would it make if they married???

I'd be asking him why he doesn't want to marry. Most people struggle to find a coherant reason. If he says what is the point, then she should answer "because it is very important to me and will make me happy". That alone is a very good reason if he has no other reasons not to marry.

Well quite, if it doesn't matter to him then why not do something to make someone you've lived with for 10 years and made all kinds of plans with happy? The "I don't see why it matters" argument is as much an argument for as against in some ways.

Katie-Kat-Kins wrote: »

Of course there may be reaosns he doesn't want to but they may be ill-founded such as "it will cost alot" or he "doesn't want to stand up infront of lots of people".

Of course we don't know, the problem might be that when the OP's friend says "marriage" they mean the kind of ceremony that makes the average royal family marriage at Westminster Abbey seem like a quiet anonymous get-together for a few close friends in comparison. It may be that their partner isn't objecting to the bit of paper but to the big ceremony that maybe the OP's friend is insisting they want, which is a legitimate objection imho... We just don't know.

Katie-Kat-Kins wrote: »

Your friend should also be armed with the practical reasons for marrying as many don't understand that there is no such thing as a common law wife and that marriage makes a difference to inheritence, rights as next of kin etc.

If he still won't marry her and hasn't given a rational explanation then i think she is right to question her relationship with him, and his feelings for her.

Absolutely.