to not understand people announcing that they're 'Getting Engaged'.

[atthewelles]

I mean, either you've agreed between you that you want to get married or you haven't. Tellling everyone that you're 'going to get engaged at Christmas' or that 'we're going to Paris to get engaged' doesn't really make sense. Surely its more exciting to wait until you have the ring and then make a general announcement that you 'are engaged' instead of letting everyone know in advance and then expecting them to get excited and ooh and aah when you appear with a diamond flashing on your finger.

I'm not giving out about it, I just don't understand why people want to take the excitement and surprise out of the occasion like this.

I don't get it either. I don't get 'engagements' at all actually - it's such a quaint and ancient idea. My best mate didn't get engaged - they just told people they were getting married in 6 months time. No ring either, she didn't want one - didn't like the significance of it (i.e. she's off the market) and she doesn't wear any jewellery at all so was horrified at the thought of wearing an expensive diamond. She's fab (even if she did marry a wanker )

I think what people often mean by 'getting engaged' is saving up for a ring, so the engagement begins once that's been done. Daft I think as I agree with the 'engagement = you've agreed to get married' definition. Plus why tell everyone if it's not 'real' yet?

The arranging of a formal proposal in a particular place etc is also daft. It must feel like being in am-dram and waiting for someone to deliver their lines properly.

'The arranging of a formal proposal in a particular place etc is also daft. It must feel like being in am-dram and waiting for someone to deliver their lines properly.'

I know! The thought of it makes me cringe myself silly

my aunt was engaged to her beau from she was 18 until she died in her seventies - they never lived together but were life-long companions. So no, not everyone conforms to the 'engaged, then married' norm...

also, i think it's great that women can now negotiate and have some sort of equal say in 'getting engaged', rather than the 'man-asking-woman' format - I wouldn't like that sprung on me in public, unexpectedly!

But surely that is simply agreeing to marry?

not agreeing that at some point in the future you will get engaged? On a certain date (normally involving being on holiday), a ring and a great story about how he got down on one knee on a sunny beach with blue seas and white sands and the ring was placed on your finger by angels

It's still the same thing, isn't it? Man asks woman either there and then or they put it in their diaries for 18 months away and he does The Proposal then?

Equal say would be nothing more than sitting down together, discussing marrying, agreeing it and doing it.

Scheduling a proposal and ensuring that the perfect conditions are created seems more about creating an event than anything else. Artificially creating what you perceive to be the most romantic way to propose.

Which is fine! If that's what someone wants. Same sort of thing as the £50k wedding It's about the day.

I think the issue is that it's an agreement to marry, but without consequences. It used to be that one could be sued in the UK for breach of promise for calling off an engagement. That meant that some commitment was needed. Nowadays, it's pretty meaningless, except that one might feel obliged to return any presents....

Birdsgottafly - you're right that there is a form of Jewish engagement that means you need a divorce document to get out of it, but it's not often used nowadays. As a result, the formal engagement and marriage are often done together at the wedding. That's what we did, anyway. But Jewish engagements tend to be pretty short. [NB: this is in my experience - no need for loads of replies from people saying that they've been engaged for 27 years and recently attended their grandson's brit, etc....]

I think it's a bit odd. Once you've decided you're going to do it surely you already have?

As for the depth of meaning to an engagement, I guess it's whatever level people choose to ascribe to it. Personally, I don't get engagements at all. If you want to get married, do it already. If you feel you need to delay it for a year or two, then you're not really ready to make that commitment. I know lots of people will say it's to save for the wedding or whatever, and if that's what they want, fine, but I personally think there's a lot wrong with big weddings, too, but that's another thread.

I don't suppose everyone sees it like that (simply agreeing to marry) Hecate, and that's why they do it? I'm not in that situation, so just conjecture on my behalf...

i.e. it has a different meaning to it than clearly we understand

YANBU. If you've decided that you're going to get engaged then you've already agreed to marry, hence you are already engaged, formal proposal and ring or otherwise. Ridiculous.

I also think engagement parties are ridiculous.

I think when they say "getting engaged at Christmas/on holiday" etc, it's either because they want the nice story to tell people later. "We got engaged on Christmas day/on the beach at sunset..." or because they are waiting to buy the ring or have the party to make it 'official'. Or perhaps to have family or friends around them when it happens

I know someone who was 'planning to get engaged at X time' and arranged a party just so the boyfriend could get down on one knee with the ring and propose in front of everyone. That seemed a bit 'showy' to me as everyone gathered around to watch and clap.

I was proposed to in front of a jewellery shop window, in front of a crowd of Christmas shoppers. I was horrified and said no. Looking back, we were in the final throws of a relationship that wasn't working and I think it was his idea of a last quick fix for it.

When DH proposed, he was 250 miles away and it happened over the phone, but it all felt very right without the need for parties, holidays or a crown of witnesses.

I think it's just a case of each to their own, but I do agree that if you have agreed to get engaged then you actually are engaged right then and there, regardless of when the ring is presented or the party takes place. If it ever does.

I suppose my point is that different people 'do' (or don't 'do') engagement differently, so YABU to not understand this

although YANBU to admit that the performance of admitting you're getting engaged' gets on your nerves!

[The arranging of a formal proposal in a particular place etc is also daft. It must feel like being in am-dram and waiting for someone to deliver their lines properly.]

Totally agree. Staged proposals sound ridiculous to me. I don't see anything remotely romantic about a couple resolutely plodding up to the top of the Eifel Tower so that the proposal can take place in an appropriate setting.

There was a thread on here not too long ago from an OP who was outraged that her SIL had announced she and her partner were 'getting engaged' on the OP's birthday or wedding anniversary, and clearly felt the couple should have rung round all relatives to check they weren't getting engaged on someone else's significant date.

I quite agree this OP isn't BU - apart from cultures/religions in which 'betrothal' still has some formal meaning, and in which there is a point to pre- announcing an engagement. Otherwise, however you view engagement, it's a bit like announcing that next Tuesday, you and your friend are going to announce that you are going out to dinner at some point in the future.

To be fair my husband and I agreed to get married but he insisted in doing the whole asking my father and asking with a ring before he would consider us "engaged" so theoretically I could have announced "we're getting engaged.." (But I didn't cos it would spoil his fun!)

Mind you, I am the wrong person to ask. We got married less than a year ago, and when a friend recently asked what date, neither of us could remember, both made vague guesses, and when we eventually found the certificate, neither of us was right.

I think the old "breach of promise" thing was more that if a man broke off his engagement to a woman, people would assume that he had found out there was "something wrong" with her - ie not a virgin, madness in the family or something else unacceptable to Victorian squeamishness. So this would mean that probably no one else would want to marry the poor woman . . . therefore the breach of promise lawsuit was her way of asserting her right to be considered marriageable and making it clear that HE is the bad guy here.

"You get down on one knee and say will you agree to agree to marry me? We will be pre-engaged and become engaged next year, at which point I will whisk you away and propose?"

oh hec! do you think there'll be a new wave of 'pre-engagement' announcements and parties soon?

there will be FB announcements "X and Y are very pleased to announce that we will be having our pre-engagement party on Sat night, all welcome bring presents"

lotta

my parents didn't get engaged either and no ring. i think it was just assumed after a while that they were getting married although i've never really asked them about it. and it wasn't a 'necessary wedding' either.

someone i know got engaged recently and everyone knew it was happening beforehand but there had been no 'announcement' of intention to get engaged.

basically her boyfriend planned a holiday for them without their children and she put regular updates about how excited she was to be going away. loads of people posted things underneath her updates like "oh i hear wedding bells" and "make sure he gets down on one knee". the person responded saying " he better or i'm saying no". i just dont get it at all. she and everyone else knew he was taking her away to propose. why go along with the sharade and pretend it's all so exciting and surprising when you get back and "I'M ENGAGED!" followed by phonecalls round the important family members to announce it even though they all knew already.

Glad it's not just me who thinks this is weird. FWIW, the first time my best friend met my newborn, she turned to me and said "We're going to start trying for a baby next month". I was firstly , then . She told everyone they were going to start trying for a baby before they even started trying, which was really weird. For her it was all about the show, which sounds similar to a few posts here about some women wanting to be the constant centre of attention.

My neighbour got engaged last year and had THREE parties. All with the same people invited. Very very odd.

YANBU. I've never been formally engaged as it happens. I don't like engagement rings and didn't want one (let alone an engagement party) so just got on with planning a wedding. But then we were already living together so nothing much changed anyway!

When my ds1 got engaged a few months ago he and his (now) fiancee had discussed the idea of marriage but didn't count themselves as engaged until he'd proposed and presented her with the ring. Neither of them could understand why you'd announce that you were planning to get engaged. Although he did phone me earlier that same day to tip me off! The call was then followed by a very happy "She said YES!" call after he'd proposed.

I don't get it either. If you have reached an understanding that you are going to marry, you are engaged. If you haven't reached that understanding, you have nothing to announce it's daft.

I don't have a problem with announcing that you are going to start trying to a(nother) baby though. That's just conversation.

it reminds me of being a teenager-there were always girls who said 'we are getting engaged on my 16th birthday' and would then prouly display their argos, cubic zirconia engagement rings

it's very ..young