Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MaxP779, 13 Oct 2012.
Off work in between contracts, means I can get some tubing time in on bf3
Wow marriage sounds great!
well that just put me off marriage, although tbh its not something that ever seriously entered my head in the first place, seems an old and outdated idea that made sense at some point but seems to have no meaning these days. always seen it as something other people do and end up regretting.
That's because they're based on marriages between wealthy people in the middle ages. Obviously, gendered roles were rather more of an issue back then (and divorce didn't exist). I say "wealthy people" because people who weren't wealthy didn't have much influence on the law a thousand years ago.
Norman law on marriage was that all assets of both spouses bar minor personal possessions were owned by the marriage itself, like a company owning equipment, etc. That remained the law until the married women's property acts in the late 19th century, which gave married women (and only women) the power to own major assets seperate from the marriage. This is the origin of a wife saying "What's mine is mine and what's his is ours". That wasn't a sexist cliche - it was an accurate statement of the law. I'm not aware of any law explicitly changing that situation.
So it's no surprise that settlements after a divorce are the way they are - they're based on vastly different circumstances of a thousand years ago, modified in a completely one-sided fashion ~130 years ago. A thousand years ago, marriage was for life and gendered roles made it practically impossible for a wealthy woman to work for a living. If she was very wealthy she could get an income from owning large businesses and hiring men to run them, but that was rare. It wasn't unusual for an unmarried woman to own and run a small business, but not a big one. Also, dowries were common in wealthy marriages, so the husband would probably have been paid to support the wife. For life, since divorce didn't exist.
Yes you can, though it all depends who paid what etc, chances are someone wouldn't lose it just have to repay the other half what they spent.
Incorrect. They've been legally recognised by UK law since October 2010 when the Supreme court ruled that they were legally binding.
Source: Guardian, Wednesday 20th October 2010
Defo not getting married to my gf now! And now I can site evidence for why not!
One of the times my parents split up (he's an alcoholic, long story, they're currently back together) Mum went and got legal advice, and she was told whilst my brother was still in full time education (he was at uni at the time) she could force him to pay the mortgage, and she and my brother were allowed to stay in the house as long as he was at uni.
The most recent time he buggered off, she went and got legal advice (its now 6 years since that time) and was told as there were no dependents, everything would be split 50/50 and he would also be entitled to half of her pension, which is in a lot better state than his is. She'd be worse off financially if they split up now.
They're back together again though.
No, it's correct. The Supreme Court did not rule that pre-nups will now be legally binding. However, since the Radmacher case, as long as certain safeguards are followed (full disclosure, no duress etc) then parties are likely to be held to the terms of the agreement, as long as the agreement meets the needs of the financially weaker party.
I am afraid there was a lot of inaccurate reporting around the Radmacher decision at the time.
Or Hulk Hogan... He got royally shafted in his divorce. But that's with the silly US laws!
What if your parents get divorced?
You kill them both and get your house back
wow, people have so much faith in there relationships
I have been with my partner for thirteen years, we have worked through many issues together both small and large, with this in mind and such a large amount of our lives invested in each other i feel confident that marriage would be as safe a bet as it can be all things considered.
This in mind im in no hurry to get married, not for financial risk reasons but i just see it as an expense we do not need, we are happy and committed to each other and have no need to spend a large amount of money and have a legal document to solidify this statement.
You have a wee problem.
Exactly: pre-nups are covered under the same rules of any other "unfair" contract. That is, you cannot sign away rights that the law gives you. The law says that the wife is entitled to a proportion of the wealth (it's not always half, and can be rather less), and no pre-nup can negate this. It can be taken into account if the wife has previously agreed to a settlement which would allow her to live reasonably comfortably (itself open to a lot if interpretation), and cover the upkeep of any children. But it remains, and is likely to remain, a guidance for the courts at best.
As for Norman marriages, my understanding is that Angilion's summation is simplistic: the assets may have resided with the marriage, but the marriage was effectively owned by the husband. Divorce was only possible for those who could successfully petition the Pope, and in each case the division of lands etc was likely to be ad hoc. In the event of death of the husband, property remained with the wife only if there was no son old enough to run the household. Once old enough, he then took control. In England at least, the King could and did seize control of assets of widows, or force them into marriages to put the lands into a family who were friends of the monarch. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of Magna Carta dealt with issues of inheritance, not freedoms.
why would that give you a urinary issue?
you're not Scottish are you sim?
Brb opening up an offshore trust.
Today I've learnt that I'd rather receive medical advice from OCUK than legal advice.
Separate names with a comma.