Marriage Before Babies or Vice Versa?

Lunar_Eclipse

I never thought I was traditional, until the time was right to have a child with my partner, upon which I definitely wanted to be married first.

Assuming neither partner is opposed to marriage, ideally it should become before children.

I also think you're right that you'll never spend money on a wedding after having a child since you suspect you'll feel like that now. I know that whilst I had a fantastic dream-like wedding day that everyone enjoyed, I would never waste that amount of money, or even a fraction of it, on a celebratory party now.

Jagraf

As long as you are committed at the time, I don't see why it's important either way round.

In my experience life happens and stuff happens. You can spend the first thirty years doing things the 'right' way and then pow your life isn't a pattern anymore

IMO commitment isn't about marriage - you don't marry your kids, your parents, or your friends.

DigForVictory

I was raised in part by a very old-fashioned Granny & for her, matrimony before motherhood every time.

She'd come to family christenings where that order hadn't been managed & just seemed to spend an extra few moments on her knees - either averting disaster or pleading for strength & sense to emerge - whatever, she'd get back up & carry on & there were no thunderbolts.
It took. I grew up thinking that was the right order, and it worked for us. I fully acknowledge that it doesn't always happen, but I was raised old-fashioned.

I do wonder what Granny would think of as more important when saving for a house is added to the mix & I reckon she'd be going through her cupboards & digging out family things (we had a dress & a veil - the dress got lost about 30 years ago, the veil is currently held by mum but it'll be my responsibility next) to help the wedding go by without it knocking the economics to flinders. She was Old Style long before we needed a forum to help us remember how!

One relative would make the cake, another ice it, all would contribute flowers from gardens (my wedding had three Gardening Aunts in play & I recall the decorations as glorious, individual, delightful & above all, Their Gift as each had raided her garden of its treasures that morning), another relative hand a hand press and would typeset & print the invitations, order of service etc (you can see the same "style" across about 5 family weddings across 3 generations if you know where to look on the order of service!) and so on.

It would be a family production, so it would be biggish, but it wouldn't cost the earth as nearly every guest, certainly every branch of the family would have brought something, to the marriage. Not the wedding, necessarily, but to the marriage. Money was the couple's business - advice might be offered, cash *might* be given, but Granny would definitely be on her knees if she thought the wedding day was a foolish squandering of resources. Not using the gifts already in the family would be definitely be foolish.

So I'd rather see a bunch of relatives in 'familiar' suits & frocks helping their young relations to the altar (thus set up to start another branch of family) rather than a Sensational Day. Fireworks are very pretty, but a bonfire lasts longer.

If you can't afford a wedding likely you haven't asked your extended family what they can do to help you. Most affordable, fun & unique wedding presents going, getting folk to do what they're good at.

lulu_92

DigForVictory wrote: »

So I'd rather see a bunch of relatives in 'familiar' suits & frocks helping their young relations to the altar (thus set up to start another branch of family) rather than a Sensational Day. Fireworks are very pretty, but a bonfire lasts longer.

If you can't afford a wedding likely you haven't asked your extended family what they can do to help you. Most affordable, fun & unique wedding presents going, getting folk to do what they're good at.

Your post was very nice to read it and it sounds like a great way for weddings to be planned.

I'd never ask for contributions towards my wedding. Family would offer their help and it'd probably be accepted, but I would never expect people to do xyz for my wedding because I decided to get married. I am the second eldest of 11 grandchildren, that is a lot of weddings!

anotheruser

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I kind of feel if i had kids first the marriage part would get put off and possibly never get around to happening.

This.

We are getting married and buying a house before children.
There's something nice at looking at the title deeds to a property saying Mr & Mrs AnotherUser or a child's birth certificate saying Mr AnotherUser & Mrs AnotherUser.

If marriage isn't that important to you, then don't bother. But having an attitude like that makes me sad. I am a promoter of TRUE marriage, rather than those who get married expecting something to happen down the line that will split them up.

Jagraf

anotheruser wrote: »

This.

We are getting married and buying a house before children.
There's something nice at looking at the title deeds to a property saying Mr & Mrs AnotherUser or a child's birth certificate saying Mr AnotherUser & Mrs AnotherUser.

If marriage isn't that important to you, then don't bother. But having an attitude like that makes me sad. I am a promoter of TRUE marriage, rather than those who get married expecting something to happen down the line that will split them up.

What do you mean by TRUE marriage? If its something nice you want to look at you can buy a pot plant. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean lack of love and commitment, but I don't see bricks and mortar, or a piece of paper with Mr and Mrs on it, as that important to a child. Most people don't have their deeds before a child is born :cool: the house belongs to the mortgage provider til the house is paid off, usually way after kids have left university. :eek:

Brallaqueen

The way I see it, marriage is a win-win. It confers extra rights if the couple stay married, it confers extra rights if the couple divorce.

Speaking as someone who doesnt even want children, I really really can't understand why parents would have it any other way than giving their children the most secure circumstances, come what may.

Its not about marriages being unbreakable and ever lasting, but that being married, even in the event of a relationship breakdown, gives better protection.

Jagraf

Brallaqueen wrote: »

The way I see it, marriage is a win-win. It confers extra rights if the couple stay married, it confers extra rights if the couple divorce.

Speaking as someone who doesnt even want children, I really really can't understand why parents would have it any other way than giving their children the most secure circumstances, come what may.

Its not about marriages being unbreakable and ever lasting, but that being married, even in the event of a relationship breakdown, gives better protection.

What sort of extra rights for the children that are not there anyway? What better protection?

Brallaqueen

The children benefit from the right to remain in the marital home, and the divorce settlement financially compensating the primary carer.

Noctu

I wouldn't commit to a man who would have a baby with me but couldn't be arsed to commit to marriage.