Partner still not divorced, 3 and half years into our relationship !

Georgiegirl256

Errata wrote: »

That was his wife. His fiance seems to have done the decent thing and kept away from the media. She is also a serving soldier and has been supported by her colleagues. His family haven't denied the engagement.

Ah right, I had no idea. I guess they must have parted on good terms. The poor fianc!, I had no idea she existed, but I guess I maybe didn't read all the news stories properly.

Georgiegirl256

tea_lover wrote: »

Some places (not all, of course) will also disregard anything different you've requested and assume that your spouse is still your NOK (which they are, legally).

It's a minefield all this legal stuff if you're not clued up on it I guess!

Errata

Even if it does default to the spouse, the doctors advise that switching off is the best option and they hit the button that makes it happen. The problem may be when the NOK doesn't agree out of spite with the doctors, but I would suggest some loving NOK don't agree with the doctors at first as well.
But ............. dead is dead.

tea_lover

Errata wrote: »

Even if it does default to the spouse, the doctors advise that switching off is the best option and they hit the button that makes it happen. The problem may be when the NOK doesn't agree out of spite with the doctors, but I would suggest some loving NOK don't agree with the doctors at first as well.
But ............. dead is dead.

Oh absolutely, I agree that the drs have the final say. I was just making the point that I cant understand why anyone would want that link to someone who's apparently been abusive throughout their relationship. Whether that's regarding medical treatment, pensions, assets, etc - why on earth would you want someone who's treated you badly to have any element of control over your life.

tinkerbell28

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Ah right, I had no idea. I guess they must have parted on good terms. The poor fianc!, I had no idea she existed, but I guess I maybe didn't read all the news stories properly.

That's because legally she doesn't. The wife is still the NOK, hence her being the press conferences. Legally she'll be the only one "accepted" for the formalities and all the money, basically.

The fianc! is quietly acknowledged by those who know. It is a huge responsibility setting up home with someone. With absolutely no security. When a wife can come along and stake claims to things.

zzzLazyDaisy

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

That's because legally she doesn't. The wife is still the NOK, hence her being the press conferences. Legally she'll be the only one "accepted" for the formalities and all the money, basically.

The fianc! is quietly acknowledged by those who know. It is a huge responsibility setting up home with someone. With absolutely no security. When a wife can come along and stake claims to things.

That just goes to show how important it is to make a will, which means that the new partner IS protected against the wife staking a claim on money/property that the deceased would want his new partner to have, and it would also normally include instructions about the will (sorry meant to say funeral).

As for the pension, in some occupations the wife automatically gets the pension and that cannot be changed unless they are divorced, in which case the employee can then nominate another person to have the money. Of course it may have been a conscious decision by Lee Rigby to organise things this way, since even though he was separated from his former wife, they did still have a child together, and no doubt, as a serving soldier, he would have thought about the need to keep a roof over his child's head and financially support for the child, should anything happen to him.

tinkerbell28

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

That just goes to show how important it is to make a will, which means that the new partner IS protected against the wife staking a claim on money/property that the deceased would want his new partner to have, and it would also normally include instructions about the will.

As for the pension, in some occupations the wife automatically gets the pension and that cannot be changed unless they are divorced, in which case the employee can then nominate another person to have the money. Of course it may have been a conscious decision by Lee Rigby to organise things this way, since even though he was separated from his former wife, they did still have a child together, and no doubt, as a serving soldier, he would have thought about the need to keep a roof over his child's head and financially support for the child, should anything happen to him.

Not necessarily. A legal next of kin has a very good chance of successfully contesting a will. Just not worth it for the sake of short cuts.

zzzLazyDaisy

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Not necessarily. A legal next of kin has a very good chance of successfully contesting a will. Just not worth it for the sake of short cuts.

I appreciate you sharing your superior knowledge about the legalities of making a will

tayforth

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

That just goes to show how important it is to make a will, which means that the new partner IS protected against the wife staking a claim on money/property that the deceased would want his new partner to have, and it would also normally include instructions about the will (sorry meant to say funeral).

As for the pension, in some occupations the wife automatically gets the pension and that cannot be changed unless they are divorced, in which case the employee can then nominate another person to have the money. Of course it may have been a conscious decision by Lee Rigby to organise things this way, since even though he was separated from his former wife, they did still have a child together, and no doubt, as a serving soldier, he would have thought about the need to keep a roof over his child's head and financially support for the child, should anything happen to him.

But he was engaged to be married. Therefore, presumably, he was intending to divorce. And then his new wife would have been the one getting his pension if anything happened to him. Obviously, we don't know what timeframe they had in mind.

A very sad situation, in any case. Was the fiancee acknowledged by his family, did she go to the funeral? I saw the photos of her visiting the scene, poor girl.

Dunroamin

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The only 'control' he has over my life is that I am unable to remarry. Which I could change in a heart-beat if I wished, with or without his consent, as we have been separated more than 5 years, so hardly an effective form of control. We have no other links or connections, so it makes no difference.

What would worry me much more would be a new partner giving me an ultimatum to 'get a divorce or else' and threatening to end the relationship if I did not comply with his demands. That would signal alarm bells about controlling behaviour.

Horses for courses. I am happy with my singledom and don't wish to change it. I am simply posting my views on this thread as it might throw some light on OP's situation. I accept that you and others may see things differently, but that has no effect on me, or how I wish to live my life.

Sorry to nitpick but you're not single - you're married.

(No criticism intended, by the way, but your comments are rather contradictory.)