I love to read the questions that come across Nancy Dunnan's desk, and I equally enjoy her answers because I learn much from this give-and-take format. One recent question seemed simple: "I have my IRA with you. I am not married but live with someone. Can I make my partner the beneficiary?" The answer wasn't easy, as Nancy needed to touch on a multitude of subjects before she finally advised her questioner to seek an attorney.

Nancy's answer was appropriate and correct; however, while I don't live with a "significant other," that specific Q&A left me with a guilt complex buoyed by an undercurrent of fear. I can only imagine how the questioner felt when he discovered how costly his living arrangements might be for his partner upon his death. Then I pondered that memorial phrase, "to have and to hold 'til death do us part" and I wondered if this declaration was meant for the bride and groom or for his or her IRA. A look at weddings and their connections to marriage might answer this question.

I love to watch people get hitched because these public displays often reveal much about the couple and society. Princess Diana was, perhaps, the singular symbol of a twentieth-century western European wedding ideal. The recent Trump merger was intriguing, because this wedding represented an Americanization of the Princess Diana event. Both weddings were undoubtedly costly, and both couples could afford their indulgences.

But, were these weddings performed as public affirmations of love, or were both unions conducted to protect financial empires? While we can't assume an answer to this question, we can make a good guess when we rewind the tapes and study the grooms' faces. I have no doubt in my mind that these two specific marriages reveal more about public relations and finances than romance. The reason both weddings (just the event - not the actual marriage) seemed successful was because the appearance of romance was accomplished.

In 1981, Georges Duby wrote a controversial argument about the demise of formal weddings in "The Knight The Lady and The Priest: The Making of Modern Marriage in Medieval France." Duby wrote his book at a time when people began to question the legal validity of the marriage ceremony immediately following the Vietnam War and the hippie era, and his argument often concerns reasons other than financial gain. However, he illustrates how marriage trappings - the engagement, the wedding contract, and the veil - emerged from the Middle Ages.

It might be easy to picture Prince Charles as medieval, because - well, just because he represents royalty (you can form your own opinion here). But, before you decide that Donald Trump doesn't fit this mold, try to visualize this multi-millionaire with a crown on his head and his bride as a symbol that would protect his image and his empire. Then type the words, "wedding history" into your favorite search engine to learn just when, where, how, and why various wedding traditions emerged.

Your cultural roots and belief systems will determine what you believe as you read about wedding traditions and why people marry in the first place. While I can't change your ingrained perspectives, I can suggest that you try to read these articles with an eye to finances. So, after you learn about wedding traditions, type "marital finances" into that search engine. Wait - type the name of your residential state into that query as well, because each legal state in this union modifies the financial state of your union.

Wedding themes usually incorporate happy, happy stuff while themes that run through marital finances seem morbid. Tips from the latter group include how to protect yourself, your finances, and your sanity from the engagement to the divorce. It seems that weddings and marriages are two separate entities, when weddings are - supposedly - meant to tie a couple to marriage. After this exercise, it seems that the wedding is a romantic cover-up for a life-long financial affair, and it resembles an insidious and costly veil of secrecy at that.

Most U.S. citizens who view marriage as a financial bonus fight for their legal right to wed, but various obstacles sometime prohibit these unions. On the other hand, many Americans don't want to marry, and they are financially penalized for this choice. Granted, this is a bifurcated perspective, but I believe we need to look at extremes to understand the middle ground. This ground is a minefield, and one wrong step may alter our well-planned financial goals forever.

For instance, if Nancy's questioner lives in Colorado, his partner could take the IRA case to court after his death and try to prove that her neighbors believed they were married. In this case, the judge may deem the couple married despite the lack of a ceremony and legal documents. However, this is a rough bus ride to take in that mountainous state, and the couple might debate now which event would cost more - a sure wedding or an iffy post-funeral court case.

On the other hand, a couple who want to marry but cannot in one state could possibly marry in other states, dependent upon the situation. In Maryland, for instance, you don't need to be a resident or supply a blood test to obtain a marriage license. However, the license is not the end of the legal loop in that state - you must also formally wed and the justice of the peace or a religious clergyman must sign the license and send it to the proper government agency for validation.

The majority of us like to think we're special and that our finances are important, although we may not be royalty or Trumps. And, while many of us also agree that love should not be governed by laws, legalities remain as thorns on the rose. We must contend with these sore points unless we all agree "to have and to hold" pre-medieval values. Since that recourse is currently unavailable, I hope that Nancy's questioner follows her advice.

Until Next Week,
Linda Goin