Lovers have little interest in prenuptial agreements, according to research by lawyers.
Nearly four in 10 people questioned in a survey said entering into a “prenup” had never crossed their minds.
More than four in 10 said they were “happy to keep to the traditional marriage system”.
London law firm Seddons and the Marriage Foundation, a charity which aims to promote “stable relationships”, commissioned the survey and research consultancy Populus questioned more than 2,000 adults.
A Seddons’ spokeswoman said results showed a “staggeringly low level of interest” in “prenups”.
“Just 2% of the married respondents had entered into a prenup before getting married, with the vast majority (95%) never even discussing a prenup as an option,” said the spokeswoman.
“Of those respondents that are living with a partner, but not married or in a civil partnership, only 4% had in place a cohabitation agreement, with 79% of cohabiting respondents stating they were not even aware of the existence of cohabitation agreements.”
She added: “Despite the cost of divorce being high, almost half (45%) of respondents cited ‘being happy to keep to the traditional marriage system’ as the main reason for not getting a prenup. Almost four in 10 respondents (38%) said entering a prenup had never crossed their minds.”
Lawyer Deborah Jeff, head of the family department at Seddons, said: “Despite the increasing public references to prenuptial agreements, particularly amongst high-net worth individuals, our research has found that for the vast majority of people prenups are not a part of their relationship planning.
“There is a lack of understanding of how important a prenuptial agreement may be and its enforceability now in English law.
“Provided the agreement is properly prepared, fair and all reasonable needs are met, they can be of magnetic importance and extremely persuasive if a marriage ends in divorce.
“They also demonstrate to a court that from the outset of a marriage the parties had decided for themselves how their finances should be divided.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here