It’s time to change the narrative on prenups.
Despite almost 50 per cent of people over the age of 16 being married or in a civil partnership, research from early 2024 suggests that only 20 per cent of those people have some form of pre-nuptial agreement in place.
That’s a substantial number of couples and individuals entering into a legal agreement with all sorts of tax and estate planning implications without something which, ostensibly, only exists to protect those involved.
Is this a problem? Many would say no, that marriages have begun, continued and ended for centuries or more without the modern incarnation of a pre-nup, and this is true. However, the implied suggestion that follows this argument, that this has always been the best way of approaching marriage for all involved, doesn’t float for long.
What do pre-nups offer?
Despite their reputation as an antiquarian measure designed to turn marriage from romance into a transaction, pre-nups are a refreshingly enlightened way of approaching matrimony.
The idea behind them is to identify all assets that both spouses bring to a marriage and identify how these, and any identified shared assets, will be divided in the event that the relationship breaks down.
The stability and assurance that this offers to both spouses, as well as any children they might have, is unparalleled.
Additionally, pre-nups are agreed in advance of a marriage and over the course of a period of discussion, meaning they often carry far less emotional weight and potential acrimony than divorce negotiations.
While all spouses benefit from the practicalities and security of a pre-nup, they are particularly beneficial to spouses who may otherwise be vulnerable.
Most commonly, I see this in relationships where one spouse (historically this is typically the wife, but this is changing as gender roles shift and same-sex couples marry more frequently) pauses their career to care for children, thereby putting themselves in a risky financial position if the relationship should break down.
Spousal support exists for this reason, but these decisions don’t always reflect the reality of the more vulnerable spouse. In fact, pre-nups may be used in formal Court proceedings as a consideration regarding orders for spousal support and asset division upon divorce – indicating the growing importance of these agreements in the law.
So why are the stats on pre-nups still stagnant?
Why the scepticism?
Let’s answer this question with another one: Where did you first come across pre-nuptial agreements (pre-nups)?
For many people, even legal professionals, the answer lies in the dramatic reels of Hollywood and the wealthy heiresses, high-flying suits and sordid infidelities we find there.
Pre-nuptial agreements, for the entertainment industry at least, are the stuff of melodrama. They are the cause of the implosion of countless fictional engagements, with accusations of mistrust and selfish asset hoarding flying in all directions.
Where this is the cause or a sign of the public mood around pre-nups, this attitude bleeds into real life. From my experience, it is an inescapable fact that some couples view pre-nups as a litmus test for trust and planning for the future of the relationship.
This concept of planning for the relationship to fail is a particular bee in the collective bonnet of the UK’s affianced. It’s a common view that a pre-nup is essentially a plan for the relationship to fail or end, and that couples who aren’t already thinking of this before the wedding wouldn’t countenance such as thing as a pre-nup.
This is the issue I come up against time and again, and what I am seeking to change. Even if I were to concede that it is a plan for the breakdown of a relationship, I would ask why that is a problem.
I’ll illustrate it in this way. We would never view the presence of a fire extinguisher in the office as a defeatist assumption that a fire will break out, but rather as a reassuring safety net that’s able to limit the damage caused by any wayward flames that do ignite.
Shifting perspectives
My work is all about changing the public perspective on pre-nups. I am particularly keen to stress the importance of impartial education around the subject with regards to pre-nups for couples of all wealth and income levels.
Pre-nups aren’t the reserve of the uber-wealthy – they are a sign of a wider desire of couples to look after their collective best interests as well as those they hold as individuals.
I would never say that all couples must have a pre-nup, rather that they should consider the benefits in practical terms before making the decision.
This is what I encourage in my own practice when speaking with couples looking to safeguard themselves and one another. Even if they don’t end up signing a pre-nuptial agreement, the discussion allows them to identify any points of tension or areas of concern and navigate a path through them before they are married.
Beyond that, discussing assets and equitable property division demonstrates an approach to marriage that is practical as well as idealistic. These are, in my experience, the hallmarks of a relationship set up for success.
