Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that 'getting engaged' is a means to an end not an end in itself?

132 replies

MrsSeanBean · 14/02/2009 09:53

increasingly, I am noticing that acquainances (mainly via FB) seem to announce, proudly, that they are 'getting engaged', but with no plans for any wedding.

Am I BU, or maybe old fashioned, to think this is a very illogical thing to do if you have no plans to marry?

I also think 'long engagements' are odd - ie, "yeah... we're getting married.... in 2012" - ?!
Surely, an engagement is just the period between acceptance of a proposal and the arrangement of a wedding, which takes 6 months maximum.

OP posts:
LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 14/02/2009 09:55

Totally agree, the ones even more incomprehensible are the ones who PLAN to get engaged? I mean wtf? If you are planning to get engaged surely you are engaged already?

anyway YANBU apart from the long engagements and that might be because they are saving the money themselves.

Also it takes longer than 6 months if you want to get married/reception in one of the nicer places *said with tongue very firmly in cheek.

themildmanneredjanitor · 14/02/2009 09:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsTittleMouse · 14/02/2009 09:57

I thought that "getting engaged" in that manner was something that only teenagers and pregnant celebrities did? Each to their own I suppose but I wanted to be married not engaged. I think that I am quite old-fashioned though - old-fashioned enough to not be on FB!

expatinscotland · 14/02/2009 09:57

i agree.

then you have people who are 'engaged to be engaged'.

wtf?

i've only ever eloped, so i don't understand engagements at all, tbh.

mindalina · 14/02/2009 09:57

I agree tbh.

I agree so much that I've removed my engagement ring, and I won't be putting it back on until we set a date. DP proposed in June 06, but has been reluctant to get married ever since, so it's sort of pointless to be 'engaged'.

RealityIsMyOnlyValentine · 14/02/2009 09:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
MrsSeanBean · 14/02/2009 09:58

OK, maybe 6 months is tight. I accept that some people nowadays need to save up themselves as well. That bit is probably a BU. But I still think 3 or 4 years is too much. If you really want to get married there's no need to spend a fortune. Better (IMHO) to have a basic wedding, and start saving towards your future, or a house.

OP posts:
RealityIsMyOnlyValentine · 14/02/2009 09:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

HolidaysQueen · 14/02/2009 10:00

Totally agree. IMO you are "engaged to be married" not just "engaged". Not a fan of long engagements myself - we did a biggish wedding with all the trimmings in 6 months, and I wouldn't have wanted it to go on for longer. However, we had the money to pay for it straight away. Think there is a difference between a long engagement for the sake of it (i.e. being engaged is a good enough state in itself) which is weird, and a long engagement while you save up the money. Lots of people don't have much money saved, and don't want to go into debt for it, but do want to have a day with everyone special to them there rather than do it earlier with a limited guest list.

TigerFeet · 14/02/2009 10:01

We had a long engagement - over three years - but that was taken up with house buying then saving for a wedding. It was always our intention to get married when we could - otherwise what is the point?

I know people who only wanted a sparkly ring though!

NinaNannar · 14/02/2009 10:01

yes, I agree, In birmingham they get " eternitized" snrot.

Mind you I dont see how you can endure 9 months of pregnancy and not get married. AND give the baby the dad's name - what is that about? as they say

kidcreoleandthecoconuts · 14/02/2009 10:01

I used to think exactly like you until I became one of 'those people'! Me and DP got engaged 3 years ago and there is still no wedding in sight. This is definately due to lack of money. We have 2 small children and only one wage.....saving for a wedding is an impossibility at the moment.
We have considered just going to a registry office on our own and doing the deed but we would both like a church wedding. And a nice honeymoon pref without the DC's! There is no way we could leave a 3 year old and a 1 year old while we jet off!!
Hopefully in the future we will get married but to be honest we've made the biggest commitment we can to each other already in having children.

NinaNannar · 14/02/2009 10:03

Just go and get married then. DOnt spend a fortune on it!
far more stylish.

independiente · 14/02/2009 10:04

Oh my goodness, totally agree. What is the point of those long engagements? The good old-fashioned six months (give or take) between proposal/engagement and wedding for me.
And 'engaged to be engaged'? That is ludicrous. I've honestly never heard of that... Is that also a FB thing? (Can't stand FB, sorry!).

kidcreoleandthecoconuts · 14/02/2009 10:06

We want a church wedding though so we cant just go and do it. Also we have the added complication of DP being divorced.....they dont like that over here! You have to get permission from the bishop or something to get married in church after that!

Gavlaar · 14/02/2009 10:07

can totally see why people have long engagements whilst they are saving to get married, although i've got a friend who's been engaged for 9 years! no lack of money she tells me, he seems to think that being engaged will do. not what friend had in mind!

Original poster
MrsSeanBean · 14/02/2009 10:08

I understand some people want a big wedding / occasion with lots of famnily and friends. But I think small registry office weddings are so romantic - pure focus on thye two of you and your commitment. Mind you, I am biased as DH asked me to marry him, I accepted, he went down to the registry office, I bought a bargain dress, 4 weeks later we were married. We had 2 witnesses and the four of us went out for a meal afterwards.
We were married in the winter and spent 4 days in a nice hotel in the Brecon Beacons where DH showed me the freezing waterfalls where he did his military training...

OP posts:
Cloudspotter · 14/02/2009 10:09

I agree it seems odd these days.

Mind you, the practice is as old as the hills.

'The Long Engagement'

Gavlaar · 14/02/2009 10:09

and i just couldn't be doing with planning a wedding for years. 1 year was bad enough!

BitOfFun · 14/02/2009 10:10

@ Reality

I do agree, but it makes me a bit sad because I have ended up having one of those interminable engagements myself, although that wasn't the idea when DP proposed.

Basically, although we could afford a basic wedding, we can't afford to live together as financially things have gone tits up, made worse by some very bad luck and now this recession. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it would be harder to survive as one household than two, so things are dragging on until the money/housing situation changes a lot.

So in principle, yes, getting engaged should mean planning to marry, but you don't always know people's circumstances.

Pruners · 14/02/2009 10:13

Message withdrawn

tumtumtetum · 14/02/2009 10:14

Totally agree. DH and I got engaged to be married when we had been together 3.5 months and were a bit pissed

Married following summer and v happy!

At work everyone said "ooh how did he propose - was it v romatic etc etc" which it was but I embellished the story somewhat! I don;t understand all this competitive engagementing where you have to do it under a shooting star at the top of the eiffel tower while in a horsedrawn carriage and snorting champagne or something. Most of the people I know who have done a OTT engagement have subsequently broken it off..

I reckon the longest you can reasonably leave it to get married is the year after next. If you have to say the actual year eg 2012 then it is too far off.

I do know someone though who has kids with her partner and is a churchgoer and a bit shy, and she wears an engagement ring to ward off the questioning eye from the congregation. They have no intention of actualy getting married.

Things like that I don't kind - up to them - but it's more the people who just "get engaged" because they want to wave a massive sparkler around and a flashy story to tell and have not even thought about how it connects to a wedding at all which get on my tits.

Gavlaar · 14/02/2009 10:15

true BitOfFun, probably more important things for people to be thinking about at the mo.

must admit though, am going to a big lavish wedding in the summer (kids not allowed, what a shame!) and can't wait, i love weddings!

solidgoldbullet4myvalentine · 14/02/2009 10:15

It's not a modern phenomenon: couples used to be engaged for years in the past because the man needed to get enough money together to set up home, or he would be studying for a profession and not able (or not allowed) to marry till he had graduated and got a job, but being engaged was a serious commitment. Long courtships with no sign of an engagement were disapproved of, though...
I think these days it's more a matter of one partner being keener than the other to get married, so the indefinite engagement is a compromise to shut the keen one up and allow the less keen one the feeling that his/her options are still open as an engagement isn't as binding as a marriage.

RustyBear · 14/02/2009 10:16

It depends on your circumstances really. DH & I got engaged in June 1977, just as I was leaving university - we wanted to make a committment to each other, especially as his mum was actively suggesting that DH should 'look around' a little more.

I then went off to spend a year in Kent before going to library school, while DH started his Phd at Reading. We didn't move in with each other until the following year, and by the time we were in a position to get married, my sister had gone off to Thailand with her diplomat husband, and I wanted to wait until they could get back on leave. We finally got marrried in May 1980, nearly 3 years after getting engaged.

I can't really see why anyone should object to somone else's long engagement -why on earth should it bother you?