Did life change much after marriage?

74jax

I totally think so. I love being married, I love having a husband. I love feel secure.


We had been dating for 8 years before we got engaged and then moved in together and a year later got married.


I felt so different, like a complete relationship. That's just me though.


We have now been married 3 years and only at the weekend did I call myself a newlywed, it feels it's still so new and exciting.

Georgiegirl256

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

True, but what the girl wants the girl gets. I am fully aware of spending money on a wedding which is essentially -

• Buying dinner for other people. A lot of which you won't really know
• Buying/renting clothes you'll only wear for one day and not even the entire day
• Spending a mini fortune on decorating and food just to impress other people

If it was entirely up to me, would have done it at a registry office and finished at a decent restaurant with everyone chipping in the bill. Fiance wants the fancy wedding dress, the drapes, lighting and that memorable experience.
.

She sounds like a total bridezilla. Reading on your other threads that you're now about to take a loan out and drop some of your guests, all I can say is I hope she's worth it as it sounds a right shambles.

burlington6

The way you're posting OP, you sound more like the bride than the groom!

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

She sounds like a total bridezilla.:(

To be fair, she's not the one starting loads of wedding threads all the time!

Turtle

We'd been together 17 years before we got married and have been married just over 3 years.

We both love being married my husband was reluctant as he's not a centre of attention person, so we had a very small wedding (just us and parents) and no debts which was fine by me as I wouldn't have wanted a big wedding either. Now he says he wishes we'd done it years ago and often tells people he loves being married.

It does feel different. Like others have said, changes are subtle but it does feel like secure. We refer to ourselves as 'Team Turtle' are although we get on each others nerves at times, we're definitely in it together and have loads of plans for our years ahead.

pollypenny

I suspect that most of we baby boomers did not live together before marriage, so it was an enormous change.

For many it was moving out of the parental home, budgeting etc for the first time.

[Deleted User]

Didn't change at all. We went to the registry office with 2 witnesses on the 10th anniversary of our meeting. Nice lunch after then ran some errands in the afternoon and went to our favourite pub in the evening and let everyone know from there. Back to work next day as it was a Tuesday. The aim was to spend under £500 and if it hadn't been for the rings OH wanted we'd have managed it I didn't change my name and we had been living together for over 7 years so we knew it would make no difference and indeed it didn't. Come to think of it, if we hadn't told it's likely people still wouldn't know! It was quite concerning how many people who had a more conventional day told us after they "wished they had done it our way" and they were only half-joking!

Pollycat

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

True, but what the girl wants the girl gets.

That's certainly not what your opinion was when you started your thread about your wife-to-be wanting to spend £2K on a wedding dress, is it?

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

I am fully aware of spending money on a wedding which is essentially -

• Buying dinner for other people. A lot of which you won't really know
• Buying/renting clothes you'll only wear for one day and not even the entire day
• Spending a mini fortune on decorating and food just to impress other people

Nothing on that list is an essential part of getting married.
And as for 'spending a mini fortune on on decorating and food just to impress other people', I think you've lost the plot about the true meaning of getting/being married.

Andrew_Ryan_89 wrote: »

If it was entirely up to me, would have done it at a registry office and finished at a decent restaurant with everyone chipping in the bill. Fiance wants the fancy wedding dress, the drapes, lighting and that memorable experience.

Firstly, I love her enough to do it. Secondly I am sensible enough to have our priorities in order (making sure we had a house first) and lastly, I have to recognise that not everybody is a moody (sensible) !!!!!!! like me who doesn't get a kick out of these things. The £10k I am spending on this wedding, to be honest, I probably would have spent on a car I don't need or home improvement which will simply come at a latter stage.

I am fortunate than I am relatively young (27) and can recoup the money spent in less than a year.

It's not about 'recouping the money' you've spent on the wedding.
That money is gone.
If you'd not spent it, youd be £10k better off.
You even said in your other thread that you'd 'rather spend the money fixing the shower, building the entertainment cabinet, reglazing the patio door, get rid of the shed that is about to collapse or just save the money for a rainy day'.

CRANKY40

Pearl_Necklace wrote: »

Most people don't bother getting married these days, even if they've got kids together, which is a shame.

It is because if they aren't married and one of them dies they will receive sod all Widowed Parents Allowance. If anyone thinks this is another form of benefit claiming you're wrong. It is based on national insurance contributions made by the deceased parent prior to their death and could be construed as what should have been state pension being paid instead for the upkeep of the child.

If you weren't married, the child gets nothing. As a young widow (who was happily married to the father of my son until he died 7 years after our wedding), I was horrified to discover that people who did not marry the other parent of their children are not entitled to claim WPA.

Kynthia

CRANKY40 wrote: »

It is because if they aren't married and one of them dies they will receive sod all Widowed Parents Allowance. If anyone thinks this is another form of benefit claiming you're wrong. It is based on national insurance contributions made by the deceased parent prior to their death and could be construed as what should have been state pension being paid instead for the upkeep of the child.

If you weren't married, the child gets nothing. As a young widow (who was happily married to the father of my son until he died 7 years after our wedding), I was horrified to discover that people who did not marry the other parent of their children are not entitled to claim WPA.

At my work the pension scheme in place when anyone joined in 2002 or earlier only pays a widows/widowers pension to a spouse/civil partner. So there's thousand of people, many only in their 30s still, who may not realise their partner won't get anything. There are other schemes now thankfully.