A revised marriage vow, such as ‘for richer or poorer, subject to contract is not as off-the-wall as one might think, as the principle of prenuptial legal agreements is already up and running.

A parental view is expressed in a query from the father of a betrothed daughter. He mentions that his offspring has a nest egg of capital in her own right and is about to marry ‘a good chap but without any visible means of support’. How best might he broach the sensitive topic of a marriage contract that would enable his child to hang on to her capital in the event of the marriage failing?

I suspect that any such move on the part of a parent – no matter how well-intentioned -would run the risk of being misinterpreted. That said, the few options open might be for him to invite his prospective son-in-law to a decent meal and air his concerns tactfully and candidly. He could mention a lifelong wish to protect his daughter financially and (if the facts fitted) that his own precarious funds would preclude any further gestures of support if she were to find herself on her own.

On the other hand, he could counsel the value of a meeting with a legal adviser so that both parties could hear the pros and cons. I suggest with respect that Papa should make himself scarce on this occasion.

All Love Stories readers know that it would be easier if the daughter was open-minded on the proposition. Without her tacit consent to contemplate a discussion I would think there was too much goodwill to be lost in pressing the point. Added to which, my understanding is that the type of contract predicated is dodgy as far as legal enforcement is concerned. Underlying my reservations is that going into marriage without faith in your partner can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Popularity: 4% [?]