Taylor Swift’s ex-boyfriend could have been entitled to millions of her fortune, despite making no legal commitment to her, under UK Government proposals, The Christian Institute has warned.
Under Ministry of Justice proposals for England and Wales, those “who have lived together for at least three years or live together and share a child” could ask a court to assess whether a former partner’s financial needs should be met by the other when separating or if a partner dies without a will. This would echo what takes place in a divorce or the death of a spouse.
The Institute argues that these sweeping changes would disincentivise marriage and encourage cohabitation, despite the fact that marriage is far more beneficial for couples and their children.
Taylor Swift
In one example, the charity highlighted that Taylor Swift could have been sued for millions of pounds by her ex-boyfriend Joe Alwyn.
The singer lived with Alwyn in London during the course of their six-year relationship, which ended in 2023, when Swift’s net worth was approximately $400 million.
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, said: “Many people would feel strongly that since they did not commit to one another in marriage, Joe Alywn should not be legally entitled to portions of Taylor Swift’s wealth.
“But this high-profile example simply exposes one kind of injustice these proposals could create.”
Unique benefits
Mr Calvert emphasised that marriage is “the conscious, public, voluntary union of two lives – spiritually, emotionally, legally, and financially. Yet these proposals force financial and legal obligations onto people who have not made that commitment, fuelling the myth of ‘common law marriage’.
“This creates a very poor imitation of the marriage union, generating financial obligations without the promises and without the key benefits they bring – namely, greater likelihoods of permanence and family stability.
“Marriage is uniquely beneficial for couples, their children, and wider society. The financial and other advantages attached to it rightly reflect that. People who don’t promise to stay together shouldn’t be treated like those who do. We should be encouraging marriage, not making it look redundant.
He concluded: “At a time when family breakdown is already at a record high, Government policy should focus on strengthening marriages, rather than creating alternative legal routes that replicate parts of marriage after separation.”
Warning
Earlier this month, the Centre for Social Justice also warned that granting cohabitants similar financial rights to married couples is likely to reduce the number of marriages.
The think-tank calculated that following similar changes in Finland fifteen years ago, the first-marriage rate for a woman “was 23 per cent lower within seven years of the reform than it would have been in its absence”.
If England and Wales had introduced Finland’s legislation in 2011, the centre extrapolated, there could have been 111,014 fewer marriages between 2012 and 2023.
Think-tank: ‘Family stability is strongly associated with marriage’
New study shows marriage boosts family stability
Govt ‘ties itself in knots’ over 21st century wedding makeover