As Olivia* was picking her wedding dress, she and her partner Leo were also discussing divorce.
Despite being in love and ready to commit, having a prenup, they both agreed, was simply the sensible thing to do when starting married life.
“You go into it with love and hope for the future,” Olivia says. “But also realism.”
They are not alone. Once the preserve of Hollywood celebs and the super-rich, prenuptial agreements are on the rise among “normal” people too, with legal and marriage experts saying numbers have increased dramatically in recent years; around one in five weddings in the UK now involves some form of legal agreement, according to several polls.
Olivia and Leo got engaged last year after meeting on a dating app. Olivia, in her early 40s, is a business founder and Leo, who is in his late 30s, now works for her company. He was the one to initially broach the subject of a prenup.
“I didn’t want to at first as it doesn’t feel very romantic,” says Olivia. “It kind of puts a dampener on things – you’re at this really happy stage of getting married and then you’re potentially talking about, what happens if we split?”
Both have children from previous marriages, both have been through divorce. They decided a prenup was the right thing to do. Now, just a few weeks after their honeymoon, they are happily reminiscing through their wedding day photos; the prenup filed away, no longer a talking point, but there should they ever need it.
Image: Experts say it is not just about protecting money, but about property and other assets, too
“It didn’t feel right that if something was to happen in the future, I could just have what she had built with her business,” says Leo. “I wanted to make the decision from my heart and do what’s right and to focus on building shared assets together.”
“Both of us had amicable divorces,” Olivia adds. “But we know what can happen. It’s reality, and I think life is more complex these days.”
Advertisement
The law on prenups in the UK
A prenuptial or premarital agreement is one made before a couple marries or enters into a civil partnership, setting out how they wish assets to be divided in the event of a split. They are not automatically enforceable in England and Wales, but following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010, courts now take them into account as long as they have been made in good faith.
They have long been commonplace for celebrities: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie reportedly had one, as apparently did Britney Spears and Sam Asghari. Catherine Zeta Jones reportedly told Vanity Fair back in 2000, the year she married Michael Douglas, that she thinks prenups are “brilliant”. And over the past few years, they have filtered into the real world, too.
Co-op Legal Services says prenup sales in 2023 were up by 60% on 2022, as were cohabitation agreements – and that postnup agreements almost trebled (an increase of almost 185%) in the same period. It says 21% of married people in Britain, or one in five couples, now have some form of an agreement in place, tallying with research published by marriage advocate charity the Marriage Foundation in 2021.
The average value of the assets included in Co-op prenups sits between £500,000 and £600,000, it says. Family law firm OLS Solicitors also reports a big increase in requests – a rise of 60% between 2021 and 2023, with a further 26% increase in the first quarter of 2024 compared with the same period last year.
Experts put the rise down to a number of factors: women earning more; more people remarrying and going into partnerships with children; the internet increasing savviness and accessibility when it comes to the law. Millennials and younger generations are also generally getting married later in life than their parents, therefore accruing more assets individually ahead of the milestone.
Plus, these generations have grown up experiencing divorce between mums and dads or other people close to them, in a way that was far less common for their parents and grandparents.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
‘Break-up talk isn’t romantic – neither is death, but we make a will’
Despite the rising number of couples choosing this route, it seems few are comfortable talking about it publicly. The idea of a prenup being “unromantic” still prevails.
Olivia and Leo did not want to give their real names, saying they did not feel ready to share the details with the world. They arranged their prenup through Wenup, an online platform aiming to make couples’ deals more accessible and affordable, launched in the UK in 2023 in response to the increasing demand.
“Prenups are considered taboo, unromantic and are something very private to most people,” says Wenup co-founder James Brookner.
“This is changing for younger generations who have a more open, pragmatic and non-traditional view of marriage, but for many people, thinking about what will happen if they break up in the lead-up to a wedding is a difficult enough conversation to have in private, let alone public.”
Image: Couples who have children from previous relationships are among those seeking more security to protect their assets
Nicole*, who moved from the UK to New Zealand several years ago and married her husband, Will, after three years together in 2019, says they discussed getting a prenup – or contracting out agreement, as they are known there – before she moved in with him, six months into their relationship.
“[He] raised the idea because he had worked hard to buy his first house and wanted to ensure he retained his rights to ownership should our relationship break down,” Nicole says.
The 38-year-old admits she was “caught a bit off guard” when he first broached the subject, but due to the law in the country – the Property Relationships Act, which means any individually owned property is shared equally in the event of a break-up after three years of a couple living together, regardless of marriage – it felt like the right thing to do.
They reached an agreement they were both happy with and Will, 42, covered legal costs as they had to have independent advice. The couple now have a young daughter and are happily married – and for this, you have to balance romance and practicality, says Nicole.
“Talking about breaking up isn’t romantic – nor is talking about death, but we all have to write a will at some stage. I think the reluctance is often because one party is trying to protect assets from the other, with no ill intent usually, but I can see why the other party may feel a little despondent about the suggestion if they don’t understand the law.
“Personally, I have seen too many nasty break-ups that could have been a lot cleaner had the proper agreements been in place at the outset.”
What do prenups cover?
While couples in the UK might not be showing them off along with their engagement pics, attitudes are changing privately. A YouGov poll in 2023 found that 42% of British people consider prenups a good idea, compared with 13% who consider them a bad idea. A similar poll on prenups 10 years earlier found that 35% would sign a prenup if asked to, with 36% saying they would not.
Family law solicitor Tracey Moloney, who is known as The Legal Queen online – with more than a million followers across her TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube accounts – says social media has made legal advice more accessible.
Up to about five years ago she would probably get one prenuptial request a year, if that. Now, she averages about one a week, taking cohabitation agreements for unmarried couples into consideration as well. She says she would always advise couples to have one.
“I think any family lawyer is going to say that because we see so many divorces. We’re realists. I think people can forget that when you say ‘I do’, you are entering into a contractual relationship anyway… financial ties exist because your marriage has created a binding contract. If you’re going to go into a contract in any other scenario – buying a property, buying shares in a company – you’re going to take advice. I don’t think marriage should be seen any differently.”
Prenups can cover anything from money to property to assets – including future assets such as expected inheritance – whether they are worth millions or simply of sentimental value, she points out, citing a recent agreement drawn up to protect an antique writing desk. It was “really dear to that person, passed down from generation to generation”, but of no real monetary value.
Image: Prenups used to be associated with the rich and famous, but are becoming more mainstream
At the other end of the scale, she recalls one divorce after a long marriage which didn’t involve a prenup; the wife had inherited jewellery worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. “It was never intended to be sold but it had significant value and it was added to her side of the balance sheet. She kept the jewellery but as a result, the ex kept a lot more of his pension, which she was entitled to. If she’d had a prenup, it could have been ring-fenced.”
Michelle Elman, a TV life coach and author known as Queen Of Boundaries, says when it comes to prenups she encourages any conversations about finance early on in a relationship.
“It’s hard to say, black or white, whether prenups are good or bad as it depends on the couple,” she says. “Some people might think a prenup is going into a marriage with bad faith, but if you’re going into the marriage with more certainty and clarity because you have it, then that’s best for you.
“The unhealthy option is not going into a prenup because you’re scared to have the conversation. I think for any healthy marriage to survive, you need to have already spoken about money before you get married, whether it’s because of a prenup or not.”
From proposal to prenup
Harry Benson, research director for the Marriage Foundation, says he was surprised at the results of the charity’s survey findings. “I thought this was something we would only find among the very richest people,” he says.
The 20% having some form of agreement applied to those married since 2000, compared with just 1.5% who were married in the 1970s, 5% in the 1980s and 8% in the 1990s. The charity’s poll did find higher earners were more likely to have prenups; higher earning women in particular. In terms of education, the findings were the other way round.
Mr Benson says he personally finds the idea of “dividing up the spoils before you even get started” as “deeply” unromantic. “Divorce law, broadly speaking, protects people,” he says. “For the vast majority, there’s not an awful lot of point to getting them. And of course, there is the risk that you make the proposal, down on one knee, and then say, ‘please sign my prenup’. The response? ‘Get stuffed! Are you the type of person I want to marry?'”
However, he says the research found no link to divorce rates – that having a prenup did not make it more or less likely that a couple would go on to break up.
“It’s not for me, but it is for some people,” he says. “I can see why people do it and I can certainly see the benefits for some… I just personally find them a bit oxymoronic.”
But the idea of the prenup being unromantic is definitely changing. Wenup says making the process more equitable and open means they are seeing the shift firsthand, with customers who don’t necessarily fit the stereotype of rich wealth protectors.
“If you’re not sure you need one, you probably need one,” says the Legal Queen. “They’re a bit like insurance – you hope you never have to claim on it, but it’s there to protect you if you do.”
Donald Trump said being the first US president to enjoy a second British state visit was “one of the highest honours of my life”, as he wined and dined with royalty at Windsor Castle.
Wednesday evening’s state banquet came after a day full of pomp and pageantry for Mr Trump, who was treated to a carriage procession, military parade, and plenty more lavish treatment.
Suited and booted for the banquet to bring the day to a close, sat between the King and Princess of Wales, the president thanked the monarch and Queen for their “extraordinary graciousness”.
Mr Trump said it was a “singular privilege” to be the first American president to be granted a second state banquet, adding: “This is truly one of the highest honours of my life, such respect for you and such respect for your country.”
He suggested it might be the last time it happens, adding “I hope it is actually” to laughter.
Image: Pic: PA
Mr Trump’s speech at the banquet followed one from the King, who referenced trade, Ukraine, and environmentalism.
The monarch said the UK and US “fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny” during the First and Second World War, and added: “Today, as tyranny once again threatens Europe, we and our allies stand together in support of Ukraineto deter aggression and secure peace.”
He mentioned trade between the two countries early in the speech, saying: “Today, our alliance spans every field of endeavour and shows vast potential for growth.
“The United Kingdom was your partner in the first trade deal of your administration, Mr President, bringing jobs and growth to both our countries.
“And no doubt we can go even further as we build this new era of our partnership.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:46
King gives banquet speech
The King also referenced the environment and said that “in striving for a better world, we also have a precious opportunity to safeguard and to restore the wonders and beauty of nature for the generations who follow us”.
And in more lighthearted comments, the monarch said that “I cannot help but wonder what our forefathers from 1776 would make of our friendship” to audible laughter from the president.
Image: Pic: Reuters
Red Arrows, tech giants and French menu
The dinner capped off Mr Trump’s first day of his state visit to the UK, with the US president joining King Charles to watch a military parade – replete with a Red Arrows flyover – held at Windsor Castle.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:49
King and Queen welcome Trump
He and first lady Melania Trump also paid tribute to the late Queen Elizabeth II at St George’s Chapel, where they laid a wreath at her tomb.
The banquet had 160 attendees, including the Prince and Princess of Wales, Sir Keir Starmer, and a long list of American technology CEOs – including Apple’s Tim Cook, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella.
Sir Keir, meanwhile, has his focus set on talks with Mr Trump at his Chequers country retreat on Thursday.
Photos from Windsor Castle ahead of the banquet showed a lavish arrangement – with a menu in French as has been tradition since the Norman conquests of the 11th century.
Image: Pics: Reuters
Image: Pic: PA
Has the royal Truman Show for Trump been worth the enormous effort?
Trump state visit II has so far been like The Truman Show.
A lavish production and spectacle revolving around just one man, while outside the set of Windsor Castle, beyond the big walls put up to fence it in, the world goes on.
The question is – has it been worth all the enormous effort and expense?
On the relationship between the UK and US, Mr Trump said that “seen from American eyes, the word special does not begin to do it justice,” before adding: “We’re like two notes in one chord or two verses of the same prose.
“Each beautiful on its own, but really meant to be played together. The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal.
“It’s irreplaceable and unbreakable.”
Image: Pic: PA
Image: Pic: Reuters
He then made a reference to former US president Joe Biden, saying: “We had a very sick country one year ago, and today I believe we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world.”
Mr Trump also told the King he had raised “a remarkable son” in Prince William before saying: “Melania and I are delighted to visit again with Prince William and to see Her Royal Highness Princess Catherine so radiant and so healthy, so beautiful.”
Trump state visit II has so far been like The Truman Show.
A lavish production and spectacle revolving around just one man, while outside the set of Windsor Castle, beyond the big walls put up to fence it in, the world goes on.
The question is – has it been worth all the enormous effort and expense?
Britain’s constitutional monarchy has mustered all its ceremonial might to pull off an extraordinary show.
Image: The King and Donald Trump watch the Red Arrows. Pic: Reuters
Image: The King and President Trump at a military ceremony at Windsor Castle, but the public was not invited. Pic: Reuters
The real world starts crowding back in on Trump on Thursday afternoon when he faces journalists at a closing news conference.
Two words threaten to upset the president’s mood. Jeffrey and Epstein.
The gathering storm surrounding the infamous paedophile soured the mood ahead of this visit and claimed the scalp of Britain’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson.
MSPs have voted to abolish Scotland’s controversial not proven verdict.
The Scottish government’s flagship Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed on Wednesday following a lengthy debate of more than 160 amendments that began the day before.
The new legislation makes a series of changes to the justice system, including scrapping the not proven verdict; establishing a specialist sexual offences court; creating a victims and witnesses commissioner; reforming the jury process to require a two-thirds majority for conviction; and implementing Suzanne’s Law which will require the parole board to take into account if a killer continues to refuse to reveal where they hid their victim’s body.
Following Royal Assent, the legislation will be implemented in phases.
Image: Justice Secretary Angela Constance and First Minister John Swinney. Pic: PA
Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: “This historic legislation will put victims and witnesses at the heart of a modern and fair justice system.
“By changing culture, process and practice across the system, it will help to ensure victims are heard, supported, protected and treated with compassion, while the rights of the accused will continue to be safeguarded.
“This legislation, which builds on progress in recent years, has been shaped by the voices of victims, survivors, their families and support organisations, and it is testimony to their tireless efforts to campaign for further improvement.
More on Scotland
Related Topics:
“I am grateful to those who bravely shared their experiences to inform the development of this legislation and pave a better, more compassionate path for others.”
Not proven verdict
Currently, juries in Scotland have three verdicts open to them when considering the evidence after a trial, and can find an accused person either guilty or not guilty, or that the case against them is not proven.
Like not guilty, the centuries-old not proven verdict results in an accused person being acquitted.
Critics have argued it can stigmatise a defendant by appearing not to clear them, while failing to provide closure for the alleged victim.
Notable cases which resulted in a not proven verdict include Sir Hugh Campbell and Sir George Campbell, who were tried for high treason in 1684 for being present at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.
The murder of Amanda Duffy, 19, in South Lanarkshire in 1992 sparked a national conversation around the existence of the not proven verdict and double jeopardy rules.
Suspect Francis Auld stood trial but the case was found not proven by a jury and an attempt to secure a retrial failed in 2016. Auld died the following year.
In 2018, a sexual assault case against former television presenter John Leslie was found not proven.
And in 2020, former first minister Alex Salmond was found not guilty on 12 sexual assault charges, while one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape was found not proven.
Victim Support Scotland (VSS) had earlier urged MSPs to put aside party politics and vote “for the intention of the bill”.
Kate Wallace, chief executive of VSS, believes the act is a “solid foundation” on which to build further improvements.
She added: “The passing of this act represents a momentous occasion for Scotland’s criminal justice system.
“It marks a significant step towards creating a system that considers and prioritises the needs of people impacted by crime.”
VSS worked with the families of Arlene Fraser and Suzanne Pilley to spearhead Suzanne’s Law.
Ms Fraser was murdered by estranged husband Nat Fraser in 1998, while Ms Pilley was killed by David Gilroy in 2010. To date, the women’s bodies have never been recovered.
Before the bill, parole board rules dictated that a killer’s refusal to disclose the information “may” be taken into account.
The new legislation means parole boards “must” take the refusal to cooperate into account.
Image: (L-R) Suzanne’s Law campaigners Isabelle Thompson and Carol Gillies, the mum and sister of Arlene Fraser, alongside Gail Fairgrieve and Sylvia Pilley, the sister and mum of Suzanne Pilley. Pic: PA
Carol Gillies, sister of Ms Fraser, and Gail Fairgrieve, sister of Ms Pilley said: “We have done everything possible to make this change to parole in memory of Arlene and Suzanne, and for other people who have lost their lives in such a horrific way.
“For our families, the passing of this act and the change to parole are momentous.”
The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour voted against the bill.
Although in support of the abolition of the not proven verdict, the Scottish Tories said they had been left with no alternative but to oppose the bill after the SNP rejected a series of amendments.
The party had called for a Scotland-only grooming gangs inquiry; wanted victims to be told if a decision was taken not to prosecute an accused; and for all victims to be informed if a plea deal was struck between defence and prosecution lawyers.
They also wanted Suzanne’s Law to be strengthened, which would have compelled killers to reveal the location of their victim’s body or risk having their parole rejected – ensuring “no body, no release”.
MSP Liam Kerr, shadow justice secretary, said: “This half-baked bill sells the victims of crime desperately short.
“By ignoring many of the key demands of victims’ groups, the SNP have squandered the chance for a long overdue rebalancing of Scotland’s justice system.
“The Scottish Conservatives’ common sense amendments would have given this legislation real teeth but, by rejecting them, the nationalists have delivered a victims’ bill in name only.
“While we back the abolition of the not proven verdict, the SNP’s intransigence on a number of key issues meant we could not support this bill in its final form.”