Would you accept a very long engagement after a partner’s difficult divorce?

Wow. This does feel like high school.

If I were you I would sit DP down and have a mature grown up conversation about marriage - how he feels, how you feel (if unsure about a long engagement that's fine to share with him) and ask if you could be the first point of call in future when discussing this rather than via his friends and their spouses.

If he isn’t emotionally ready to get married straight away, then he has no business proposing to anyone. He won’t have given you an engagement ring. He’ll have given you a ‘shut up’ ring.

All this is far more important, at the OP's stage in life, that a ring.

To be honest, I would consider myself to be beyond an ‘engagement’ at this point. If I owned a home and had 2 children with a partner then turned up sporting an engagement ring I think my family and friends would piss themselves about shutting the door after the horse had bolted. But each to their own. (We owned our house 4 years, had been together 8 years and had no children - marriage was discussed and the deed was done six weeks later.)
I know you say you feel protected, but - are you the beneficiary of his life insurance (to pay off his half of the mortgage), are you the beneficiary of his pension death benefits, if you are tenants in common (rather than joint tenants) are you sure there’s a will that leaves his half of the house to you. Not saying the marriage would solve all the above, but it bears thinking about. Maybe instigating a ‘review’ of how protected you and the children are might give you a better idea of where he stands then your ‘friends’ can mind their own beeswax.

If he still wants a long engagement after a house purchase and two children he doesn’t seem like a decent man.

Good enough to buy a house.
Good enough to carry his children.

Not good enough for a marriage certificate.

He’s proposing engagement not marriage.

With 2 children in the equation already I wouldn't be happy. I'd want to be sure that they're protected if the relationship should fail again.

Suggest you go and talk to him rather than his mates.

This.

OP has said she wants to get married, even though she doesn't need to for financial reasons. Tbh, if I was you, I'd be massively pissed off at a) hearing about his 'proposal' from a 3rd party and b) that he can have 2 kids with you but not trust you with his money. Which is what this boils down to!

I'm perplexed at people saying that he's already fully committed - no he isn't. If he was to be fully committed he'd be proposing an actual marriage!

No one has to take the financial hit. It's a decision.
Someone has to take the financial hit to actually care for the babies, if we are to have another generation. Yes, it is a decision to have children, a perfectly normal one, which men should fund as well as women.

Much like the decision to have children as a lifestyle choice.
To me, a 'lifestyle choice' is something like choosing one gym chain over another, or choosing to always have your nails done.
Bringing up the next generation is a choice, but deserves more respect than the derogatory term 'lifestyle choice'.

My company made the decision to pay those on maternity their normal wage after 5 years service. I made the decision to wait to year 5 to start a family. I haven't been down a penny.
Lucky you. Do you have any idea how rare that is?
And even after a year's maternity leave, there is the gap until they start full time nursery/school to cover.

Relying on your husband or wife is a decision.
Of course it is a decision to have a baby and rely on a partner. No-one is saying otherwise.
I am just saying that when a couple choose to have a baby, it needs to be recognised that the woman (it is nearly always the woman) will take a hit to her career and earnings potential, and her pension. Marriage pools assets so offsets this loss to some degree.
There are some mothers who have successful full-time careers, but it is expensive to fund the childcare: pre-school, wrap-around before and after school, and the 13 weeks school holidays, plus random child sick days, inset days, etc., so you need a well-paid and flexible job to do that.
If you earn minimum wage, you won't be able to pay for all that childcare. And if you work shifts, including weekends, good luck with finding ANY childcare.

Let's stop peddling this narrative women have a gun to their heads. We're capable of better.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What if the man loses their job or is unable to work?
Non sequitur. What has that got to do with anything?
Presumably the woman will go to work full time and he will do the childcare, or they will go onto state benefits.

You need security, commitment and certainty. It’s not reasonable for your DP to punish you for what happened in his marriage, with his first wife.

What celestial sign would he be waiting for to know that everything was ok, given how long you’ve been together already for a considerable amount of time and the fact that you have DC together?

The point about getting engaged is that you are engaged to get married. It’s not an end point in itself. If he doesn’t want to get married then there’s no point getting engaged.

Where is her vulnerability as the higher earner?

No one has to take the financial hit. It's a decision. Much like the decision to have children as a lifestyle choice.

My company made the decision to pay those on maternity their normal wage after 5 years service. I made the decision to wait to year 5 to start a family. I haven't been down a penny.

Relying on your husband or wife is a decision. Let's stop peddling this narrative women have a gun to their heads. We're capable of better. What if the man loses their job or is unable to work?

I'd take an even harder look at any man who's willing to put the woman he apparently loves, in a vulnerable position.

But clearly you and I have different standards when it comes to who we choose to father our children.

I honestly don't know why people get married. Do you really feel any different? If you need marriage for protection, you should take a long hard look at why you can't protect yourself without a man.

That is one possible interpretation.
But we don't know if OP even wants to get married, or if she is in need of 'shutting up', i.e. whether she has been hinting / nagging about marriage.

If she is the higher earner, and they own their house jointly, what benefit would marriage bring now? And why is she 'settling for so little' if she chose to have DC because she loved him?

I do agree that a long engagement is just public humiliation once you are both beyond your twenties. Better to keep your pride intact and remain unengaged and let friends assume that is a positive choice on both your parts.

@Sally20099
Don't get engaged.
Do consider marriage further down the line, as it is above all a legal contract, with implications for things like inheritance and tax, not just some romantic fairy tale wedding day.

Read up on the law.
Make sure you both have wills in place, with power to make medical decisions for each other, and plan who would care for your children if the worst happened to you both.

An engagement is an engagement to get married.
It's non genuine if marriage is not intended.

Not at all strange to expect a man to commit financially, when the woman has to take the financial hit of maternity leave, often followed by years of part-time work around the school pick-ups. This can affect her career and earning potential, and thus pension, for many decades or even the rest of her working life.

You are the exception. Most women DO need financial provision from the man they have children with.

Do he was divorced before you met and you have been together long enough to have two children together? How much longer does he need to get over it?

And… have you ensured you are on the title deeds/mortgage of any shared property etc, because otherwise you are completely vulnerable if he decides to end the relationship at any stage, leaving you homeless with two kids and no legal rights?

Do you want to be married to him? You have said a lot about him, but not so much about how you feel. You said you are not sure about a long engagement, but how sure are you about wanting a marriage?

Given that the rumour you are hearing is true, and not exaggerated in any significant way in the telling.

It sounds to me like he values what he's got with you, doesn't want to lose it, but isn't ready to full-in commit. So he thinks getting engaged is the compromise. It takes you off the market, gives you a promise that you'll eventually get the full deal, but with no full commitment from him.

If you are currently able to finance your own life should you split and have a fair financial split in your current arrangement, and you and your children would be taken care of should he die, what would be in it for you to have your status downgraded to Waity-Katie fiancee instead of upgraded to wife?

He sounds like he wants his cake and eat it - to pretend he's really committed to you, and gaining your true commitment in return for a ring, while all the time keeping his options open and his financial commitment to you limited.

I'd be insulted if my long-term partner pulled this sort of move, especially blabbing it to acquaintances to get their feedback before having a serious discussion with you, which he seems to be avoiding.

When he proposes I'd tell him my answer depends on when he wants to get married. It's yes if he's prepared to do the deed within 2 years (or whatever your preferred timeframe is), but the answer is no if he's planning a very lengthy engagement.

I’d be really annoyed with your DP, your friend and her husband, though more annoyed with your DP. It feels like they are talking about you behind your back and that’s not a nice feeling.

Your DP talking to his friend about how he would propose but would want a long engagement (bit like dangling a carrot), his friend for discussing it with his wife and she went running to you with the story.

At the very least I’d be telling your DP that you heard via his friend’s wife that he is thinking of proposing but no intention of actually marrying and that you want to preempt this by saying no thanks. Find someone else to insult and horrible to be told this by your friend.

I had a long engagement, a child before getting married so I’m not against them. But I don’t see the point in purposely going into a long engagement. It doesn’t show any (to me) additional level of commitment than having 2 kids. Being engaged also doesn’t protect you against splitting up. Being married however does protect you against inheritance tax and all of the possible logistical nightmare of a spouse dying without marriage (it happened to someone in our family and it was a pretty rubbish thing with the additional stress of not being married). If he’s worried about the financial side, can’t you do a prenup?

This is very relevant info, OP. For many women their financial security is very much tied to their male partner, especially if they had children and moved into a 'lesser' job to look after them. They earn less, have a worse pension etc.

That's not the case for you, so you have to consider if/how being engaged would improve your relationship and your life. Or not.
And whether or not being married sooner rather than a very vague "later" is important TO YOU.