Very much an academic question about engagements

[Allergictoironing]

I am single and have zero intent of even having a committed partnership let alone ever marry. But I's quite like to know what the general view is on engagements and marriage.

My reason for asking was I was thinking about a male ex work mate a little while ago. He and his fiancée live together & have for about 15 years; they are past the age of having children. They are engaged and has been for about 10-12 years now as far as I can gather, he has not and never has ever intended to marry his poor long suffering fiancée and told me he only asked her to get engaged to keep her happy.

I was horrified at this, as I had always considered the term "engagement" to mean "engaged to be married", (and in fact in days long gone a woman could sue a fiancé who left her for breach of promise). I knew his DP slightly through work functions and got the feeling that to her engagement means the same as it does to me, but he really didn't see this as a form of deceit on his part even though he agrees she probably DOES think of it as an agreement to marry at some later date. He also said she was fine with it because "she's given up nagging me about setting a date for a few years now".

So I'd like to get a few more views on this. I may be old fashioned but how many people these days really do get engaged with the intent to actually marry, and how many just to be engaged?

Personally if you get engaged it is with the intent to marry, otherwise what's the point ? Why not just remain in a relationship. I'd certainly be disappointed if I was his fiancé.

After 10 years I assume she's got wind of his intentions or lack thereof...

DH and I decided when the wedding would be within about a month. DB just got engaged, they're having a party and everyone will be asking when the wedding would be.

I've never known anyone get engaged and not start planning the wedding. I wouldn't have been impressed if DH had stalled once we were engaged.

What Hettyfeathers stated.

Is the fiancée called 'Nurse Gladys Emmanuel' and does this ex work mate run a shop? :) I think in the olden days when sex outside marriage was frowned on the term fiancé was used much as we'd use the word partner i.e. conferred a little respectability on the relationship. Neither mean anything legally, of course. Unless there are legal agreements in place a fiancé is entitled to nothing in the event of death or a split. Unlike 'partner', 'fiancé' does still imply there's an intention to marry. Your ex colleague might not be deceitful necessarily but his poor partner sounds like she's never going to get her wish.

I don't think too many people go in for long engagements any more.

I used to work with a woman who was "engaged" with no intention to ever marry and had been for many years. So said it was because people view the relationship with more legitimacy and as a more serious commitment when she is wearing a ring and talking of her fiance than not.

There is another thread on here about the lack of an engagement ring after a proposal.

I am recently engaged and we are sorting out the marriage, which will be this year. It is important to both of us that the engagament is a short prelude to actual marriage. However i think people see things differently which is fine so long as one party is not eager to wed and the other is all deferments and avoidance.

I vividly recall my English teacher at secondary school telling us that her niece had announced that her and her boyfriend were having a 'trial engagement'. She was perplexed as to what this might entail. We were only 15 but there must have been a context. It has stayed with me.

With regards to the OP, he is clearly a twunt but she is accepting of the status quo so.....

Heh no CES, this was a guy I worked with at a big IT consultancy and last I heard (about a year ago) he was still there. Though his "fiancée" was a health visitor....

I know full well this guy was a twunt, and I'm pretty sure the poor woman accepted the situation because it was clear it was the best she could expect from him and clearly adored him. As far as I could tell he had no intention of leaving her, had the house in both their names etc & there was no real abuse apart from taking her for granted. He was just a total commitment-phobe

IME Wealthy men who are 'commitment phobes' are more usually worried about the effect on their wallet of a split. Call it the Heather Mills Syndrome.

OP, maybe she is just happy with the engagement. You know, here is my ring, he ,loves me, we are a 'serious couple'. My sister works with a woman who lives with her partner. They are not married but this woman wears an engagement ring and wedding ring she bought herself and refers to him as her husband.

Each to their own as Robbie Williams might say.

I reckon lots of engagements have occurred out of keeping the woman from nagging, rather than an actual real desire to marry said woman.

If you have to nag a man into marrying you, it's time to either settle for living together or time to look for a man who actually shares your view of commitment.

I know several people who've been engaged for years with no wedding date set because they're waiting until they've saved up enough money or their financial fortunes change so they can have a big wedding that they're currently unable to afford.

However, now that 'engaged' no longer carries the same weight and connotations as it used to (using your example, a woman can no longer sue a man for breach of promise if he calls off an engagement) and marriage is no longer considered necessary for a couple to live together and start a family, I can see why many couples feel that it's perfectly legitimate to see 'engaged' as a step in itself: it's a mark of commitment between partners and, in most cases, of relationship longevity.

Very strange:

Ken Dodd has never been married, although he has had two fiancees. Anne Jones is his longtime girlfriend, partner, and manager, in addition to being a sidekick and support act for more than 20 years. His former fiancee Anita Boutin died in 1977 after 22 years together.

I know a few couples who have been engaged for years. Bizarre but not uncommon round these parts. DH and I didn't even get engaged we just got married!

I don't really get engagements at all. If you want to get married, do it already. A long engagement implies either that you're not really quite ready to do it, or that you're one of these types that has to have the wedding of the century, with co-ordinating chair covers and invitations, which will cost a fortune and require 4 years of planning which is probably 3.5 years longer than the marriage will last.

I know a couple where the man has done exactly this and I find it very dishonest.

Dahlen although I agree that there are many couples like this it is not always so simple. I have been engaged for nearly a year and we haven't set a date yet as my fil is very ill. It just doesn't feel right to plan at the moment.

It took us nearly 2 years to get married as we didn't do anything about it for about a year. So I am not against long engagements. But we did intend to get married. I do think it is odd to get engaged without intending to get married.

The thing I find really odd is "we are going to get engaged at Christmas (or whenever)". Either you are intending to get married and have agreed to or you haven't. Jointly planning to get engaged at a later, specified date is odd.

What I've never understood is couples who say they're going to get engaged next month/year/whenever

Surely once you've decided you are going to get married, you are engaged

Dahlen- funny you should say that- I knew a couple who were engaged for 5 years, planning the wedding the whole time, and ended up married for just 13 months

It is engaged to be married.

DP and I got engaged in September last year, we are due to marry September this year. I have had 3 proposals prior to DP's, each was refused as I had no intention of marrying them.

I think engagements are a declaration of intent to marry, seems daft to do it otherwise?