Why do people think less of a couple who aren't married?

lulu_92

BarryBlue wrote: »

This is exactly the point. Even if it doesn't mean a load of debt around their necks, £20k or so can be far better invested into setting up home than fancy weddings with all the overpriced nonsense that goes with it. (Put "wedding" in front of an item or service and you seem to double the price!)

Money wasn't an issue for us but we still had the wedding we wanted. No fancy do because it wasn't a big deal. That doesn't mean to say we didn't have a great time with the people we care most about. Being laid-back is definitely a plus where weddings are concerned.:)

I completely agree with you, which supports my original stance on this thread, which was that I wanted to wait because home and family come first. I don't think money will be an issue for us (although who knows what the future holds) and as we will want our ideal wedding we will be determined to do it without loans or credit cards. It's terrible how much the word can jack up the price. For my sister's wedding I'm booking in to have my hair done and I'm not mentioning weddings at all!

As we're not even engaged yet we don't know what our wedding will be like. We might have our hearts set on something now but when it comes to planning we might hate it. Regardless, it will be our wedding and if we hear anyone being rude about our choices they won't be wedding guests for long.
...but that's a long time away

jaylee3

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Get married and call him your husband. Otherwise he is your boyfriend or partner.
.

Totally agree.

I find it ever so weird when someone middle aged or older calls their 'man' their boyfriend. It makes me cringe a little. My sister is not married to her fella, and has been with him 9 years. She is now 36 and says she is starting to feel a bit daft calling him her boyfriend. She hasn't said it directly, but I am under the impression she would like to be married now. (Just from things she says...)

I think (and this is just my opinion,) that younger people (women moreso) are more keen on getting wed. Older people - especially who have been married before - don't seem so bothered about it.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I am attending the wedding in August of some friends who have been together for thirty years, have children and grandchildren and have now decided to make it legal. I'm really looking forward to it.

She has always called herself Mrs Hisname, so nothing will change there, either.

However, she is having a big white dress and bridesmaids and loads of guests. Don't blame her if that is what they want

What a funny surname! :rotfl:





I am kidding.

Seriously though, why announce herself with her boyfriend's surname when they are not married?

How odd.

lulu_92 wrote: »

seven-day-weekend yes you're right, but I don't think I can justify spending the money on a wedding yet. I prefer to have a family and make sure they're looked after. If that means I don't have the funds to have the wedding I want right now then so be it. (plus my tastes might have changed and I might want a low-key do!)

You don't have to spend a lot to get married Lulu.

Jagraf

I think there needs to be an added definition somewhere for long term partner, as more and more people are cohabiting.

Also many married people keep their maiden name - changing a name is obviously a choice but I find it as weird as changing your name when you are married as changing your name if you're not.

Society is gradually altering the meaning and approach to marriage, just like with everything else in life. It will be interesting to see what happens.

seven-day-weekend

jaylee3 wrote: »

Totally agree.

I find it ever so weird when someone middle aged or older calls their 'man' their boyfriend. It makes me cringe a little. My sister is not married to her fella, and has been with him 9 years. She is now 36 and says she is starting to feel a bit daft calling him her boyfriend. She hasn't said it directly, but I am under the impression she would like to be married now. (Just from things she says...)

I think (and this is just my opinion,) that younger people (women moreso) are more keen on getting wed. Older people - especially who have been married before - don't seem so bothered about it.



What a funny surname! :rotfl:





I am kidding.

Seriously though, why announce herself with her boyfriend's surname when they are not married?

How odd.



You don't have to spend a lot to get married Lulu.

She always has, ever since they started living together. Their daughter has his surname too, although her sons from a previous marriage have retained their original surname. She also calls her son's partner (they are not married) her daughter in law, although actually she is not 'in law'. So really, she has always acted as though they were married even though they are not.

I've noticed many of her Facebook friends, who she has invited to the wedding are surprised, they thought they had been married for years!

Anyway, it will be good to see them get married and I hope it's a lovely day for all concerned.

jaylee3

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

She always has, ever since they started living together. Their daughter has his surname too, although her sons from a previous marriage have retained their original surname. She also calls her son's partner (they are not married) her daughter in law, although actually she is not 'in law'. So really, she has always acted as though they were married even though they are not.

I've noticed many of her Facebook friends, who she has invited to the wedding are surprised, they thought they had been married for years!

Anyway, it will be good to see them get married and I hope it's a lovely day for all concerned.

Yes. And I hope they will be very happy. :j

As I said I find it odd that a woman not married would use her 'boyfriend's' surname. These people seem soooo against marriage, but then clearly want people to think they are married. WTH?!! :rotfl:

I also find it odd that with almost every couple, if they are not married but do have children, the children have the man's surname. Why IS that? On occasions I have even known a woman fall pregnant when she she is not even in a relationship with the man, and she still gives the baby his surname. Now THAT is weird!

seven-day-weekend

jaylee3 wrote: »

Yes. And I hope they will be very happy. :j

As I said I find it odd that a woman not married would use her 'boyfriend's' surname. These people seem soooo against marriage, but then clearly want people to think they are married. WTH?!! :rotfl:

I also find it odd that with almost every couple, if they are not married but do have children, the children have the man's surname. Why IS that? On occasions I have even known a woman fall pregnant when she she is not even in a relationship with the man, and she still gives the baby his surname. Now THAT is weird!

In my friends' case, they had both had horrific first marriages and had resolved never to get married again.. Then they met at the checkout in the supermarket (seriously, he was the customer, she was the checkout lady ) and he refused to leave the shop until she agreed to go on a date with him. They moved in together soon afterwards, and were (and still are) so happy, I think it was a case of 'if it's not broke, don't fix it', and they never saw any need to be married, especially after their experiences of it, but just lived as though they were.

I remember the male of the partnership ringing us up (he had lodged with us for a couple of years previously) and telling us 'I went in for some Brillo pads and came out with a family'.

Aaaw. You couldn't make it up.

They have now been together for thirty years.

lulu_92

jaylee3 wrote: »

You don't have to spend a lot to get married Lulu.

I know it's the sheer volume of guests we would invite that would bulk the cost up :rotfl: The more, the merrier, I say!

BarryBlue

Jagraf wrote: »

I think there needs to be an added definition somewhere for long term partner, as more and more people are cohabiting.

Also many married people keep their maiden name - changing a name is obviously a choice but I find it as weird as changing your name when you are married as changing your name if you're not.

Society is gradually altering the meaning and approach to marriage, just like with everything else in life. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Before we were married we didn't give much thought to how we referred to each other. It was usually along the lines of 'other half' and after getting married we still used that out of habit as using 'wife' and 'husband' took a bit of getting used to.

My other half wife didn't change her name when we got married. It didn't seem important at our ages. She uses her maiden name professionally, plus she had several years left on her passport. She does correct people if they call her Mrs Blue.

lulu_92 wrote: »

I know it's the sheer volume of guests we would invite that would bulk the cost up :rotfl: The more, the merrier, I say!

It's down to whatever you want to do. For us it was the fewer, the merrier. Some of these big country house venues have a minimum of 80-100 people and you pay for everything, meals included, whether you fill the place or not. It is hugely expensive, nothing short of highway robbery in my view.

I thought we would have a small register office do for a few people and a party for all our friends at night. She said no way, so we did afternoon tea for 10 of us. I think it may have been down to "You can't invite A if you don't invite B" so we didn't invite any of them. She hadn't been married before, although I had and my first wedding was a bigger affair. Not huge, but there were certainly some issues, especially as my ex-in-laws wanted to make all the decisions even though they were paying nothing. It turned out to be a day I was glad to get behind me at the time.:o

Jagraf

jaylee3 wrote: »

Yes. And I hope they will be very happy. :j

As I said I find it odd that a woman not married would use her 'boyfriend's' surname. These people seem soooo against marriage, but then clearly want people to think they are married. WTH?!! :rotfl:

I also find it odd that with almost every couple, if they are not married but do have children, the children have the man's surname. Why IS that? On occasions I have even known a woman fall pregnant when she she is not even in a relationship with the man, and she still gives the baby his surname. Now THAT is weird!

A lot of it is habit - I think others people's assumptions that people are married and refer to them as Mr and Mrs X. A baby belongs equally to both parents, so that could be the answer to that question.

I go by three surnames. My maiden name because my family forget I am / have been married :rotfl:. My first husbands surname - I still use this as its my DD surname and its less complicated. And also my married name now. What really is funny is that sometimes my husband is referred to by my ex's surname, figuring that we have the same name.

I wish I'd just stayed with my maiden name to be honest. I'm not in to having the same name as my mother in law

Fireflyaway

I guess because its a public display and legal commitment and most couples share a surname so you seem more of a couple than 2 individuals.

I found that people took me more seriously after I married even though I had already been with my partner 7 years before we actually got married. For me it was important for my child to know mum and dad are married and religiously I felt it was correct for me.