It is a truth not quite universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of good sense should, before marriage, secure her financial future with as much care as she selects her spouse. The prenuptial agreement, once regarded with suspicion as the province of the overly calculating, is now considered the mark of a person with foresight. And yet, in England, where sentiment so often triumphs over prudence, the subject remains curiously delicate.
A prenuptial agreement, for those unacquainted with such legal refinements, is a contract entered into before marriage, setting forth the division of assets should the union despite best intentions fail to endure. While not yet wholly binding in English law, the courts, with increasing regularity, honour these agreements, provided they are fair, properly executed, and entered into without coercion or undue haste.
One must, however, attend to the particulars with diligence. A prenup drafted the week before the wedding, in the fevered excitement of final preparations, is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. The law, like society itself, prefers its agreements to be made in tranquillity, not in desperation. It is therefore advisable that both parties receive independent legal advice well in advance, ensuring that each fully comprehends what is at stake.
Critics of the prenuptial agreement often those whose livelihoods do not depend upon untangling the wreckage of matrimonial misfortunes argue that such documents suggest a lack of faith in the marriage. This is much like objecting to the construction of a roof on the grounds that one does not expect rain. To prepare for misfortune is not to invite it. Rather, it is to acknowledge that even the most harmonious of partnerships may, through no fault of either party, find themselves beset by misfortune, incompatibility, or as the poets delicately put it an alteration of affections.
For the woman of property or indeed, the woman who intends to acquire property a prenuptial agreement is particularly advisable. It is all very well to enter marriage with romantic confidence, but to do so without legal clarity is rather like stepping onto a boat without first ensuring the presence of a lifeboat. One hopes never to require it, but if one does, its absence may prove most regrettable.
Modern courts, ever eager to balance fairness with autonomy, will not blindly uphold agreements that leave one party destitute while the other departs in triumph. A properly drafted prenup should provide protection for both parties, recognising contributions that are not purely financial. It is, after all, a poor sort of arithmetic that measures only bank accounts and disregards the care of children, the support of a spouse, or the invisible yet essential labours that sustain a household.
It is thus that the modern woman, possessing both sentiment and sense, may approach marriage with an untroubled heart. For she knows that in securing her future, she does not diminish love, but rather fortifies it ensuring that should the worst occur, there will be dignity in parting, as there was hope in beginning.
Jane Seymour Austen
Advocate of Reasonable Romance and Sound Legal Provisions
Comments