Engaged?

[CFLarsen]

Sure but it is a convient way to tell everyone else to start planning

For what?

If you don't tell the family/friends:
1)they may not show up

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

2)Tradition demands that you get married in Gretna Green and these days that would require you to spend 3 weeks in Scotland

"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The other thing is demark hasn't fought worth a damn since the Second Schleswig War so the number of young men going off to war and worried about their ladies staying faithful has been limited.

Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

 

[athon]

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, what the hell do you think an engagement actually is, if not just proclaiming intent to marry?

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

 

[athon]

I know what the hell an engagement is. I'm asking why people in this day and age do it.

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Athon

 

[Ian Osborne]

I met my partner while we were students. We were engaged within three months of getting together, but we'd known each other for over two years as friends by then.

We were engaged in the Summer of 1989. We're still together and still happy (probably because I didn't pee on her leg after proposing ), but still unmarried.

incidentally, I've never understood the need to get eternitised either. What a silly ritual. I guess it was made up by the jewellers as a way of selling more rings, just like Mothers' and Fathers' Days were created by greetings cards manufacturers...

 

[CFLarsen]

You didn't answer the question. If it is just an intent to marry, then what's the issue? Two people who feel they want to be married discuss it and then say 'cool, let's do it'. They organise paperwork, save some money, make arrangements for an event, and in the meantime tell people they are going to get married.

What's the alternative? What do you think an engagement is, if not that?

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there? There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing. There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time. And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age. The whole ritual of engagement seems to have little value in today's modern world. Apparently, in Norway, it has lost its original meaning altogether.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

 

[athon]

Ah, but there is sometimes a little more to it than that, isn't there?

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

There's the ring issue, which Teek pointed out - a rather anti-feministic thing.

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

There's the need to publically announce plans to marry, maybe years ahead in time.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

And there's the pressure on women that start at a very early age.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

The alternative? Just live together, and if you want to get married, announce a date, and start planning.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Athon

 

[geni]

For what?

Turning up.

I'm not talking about not telling family/friends that you are getting married. You can tell them the date long time in advance. But why get engaged for that?

Convient way to do it.

"Demands"? Should people uphold traditions because others think they have meaning, or because traditions have meaning to themselves?

The tradition has a meaning. There are still relivant legal issues. You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.

Ah, but then, those off to war got married - or postponed it altogether until after the war.

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement. Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Such as? I ask yet again, what is an engagement, then, if not an intent to marry? Why is it so difficult for you to answer that I have to ask three times?

Why is it so difficult for you to read what I say?

I'm not sure I understand why it is an 'anti-feministic' thing, however this is a separate issue. Asking 'why do people get rings at engagements?' is rather different to 'why do people get engaged?'.

Is it? Rings at engagements have a meaning: It is a visible symbol of the commitment to marry later on. But if it is just the woman who wears an engagement ring, then it is very much anti-feministic. Or, if you like, anti-equality.

The alternative is what? Keeping it a secret? Are you serious? Two people begin to make plans to get married, and they tell people this. That is an engagement. My brother has been engaged for about a year to his fiancee and the mother of his kid. They're trying to scrape enough together to have a nice little wedding, and in the meantime are telling people that they love each other enough to be married.

No, I am not saying they should keep it a secret. The alternative is - like I said - live together, and if you want to get married, announce the date.

Huh? What does this have to do with being engaged? This is a marriage issue more than just an engagement one.

But engagement is seen as a necessary preamble to marriage. Which is what I find peculiar, in this day and age.

I've seriously missed something here, then. You'll have to explain what an engagement is in Denmark in which case. Because in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, that is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.

Engagement in Denmark is the same. But - again, like I said - people here don't "get engaged". We skip that. No rings (or ring), no ceremonials. Couples live together, and at some point, if they decide to get married, they get married. But no formal announcements of "engagement".

 

[Luciana]

You must have missed the 'marking of territory' bit in my post. How do you stop your woman finding a better man during the planning stage? Buy her a diamond! How do you stop other men approaching your woman during the planning stage? Brand her forehead!

This is curious, around here, if they get engaged at all, both men and women get rings. On the left hand means they're married, on the right hand means they're engaged. It's a gold ring for both. The definitive ones are exchanged, of course, at the wedding ceremony.

I believe engagement means different things. a) we have the date, let's get engaged until then; b) we don't have a date or definite plans, but this is more than a passing relationship. This one works also for couples who never intend to get legally married.

I believe it's only a stage, not a black and white thing, as things related to relationships.

Not that anyone is asking, but I think that spending an awful lot of money on a wedding ceremony is only acceptable if you're wealthy. If you're not, that money is better saved for the honeymoon and the future.

I know a woman who spent all her savings, including an inheritance, in a party. Two years later both lots their jobs and for six months they ate rice and bananas and she had a nervous breakdown because of all the debts. Wow, I hope that was a great party.

 

[CFLarsen]

Turning up.

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Convient way to do it.

Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.

The tradition has a meaning.

But to whom?

There are still relivant legal issues.

What legal issues?

You might want to consider where Gretna Green is geographicaly.

Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?

Nyet. Can't get married before war since you don't really have time. Engagement is the tool by which people make it clear that the duration of the war is only a postponement.

How do you know you don't really have time?

Engagement rings in particular are due to this.

Wrong.

 

[Brian Pears]

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

A few weeks ago a couple of youngsters I know announced that they were 'engaged', but when I asked if they'd 'named the day' - ie arranged a date for the marriage - they burst out laughing as if that was a ridiculous notion.

Another young couple - the girl is a distant relative - held an "engagement party" as a prelude to the birth of their daughter, but again show no inclination to marry.

I suspect that "engagement" these days is a state in itself rather than a prelude to marriage. Something to give a semblance of 'respectability' to their cohabitation wthout the legal commitment of marriage.

People who want to marry, on the other hand, tend to live together and then marry without any formal 'engagement' - others just live together without any thoughts of either engagement or marriage. So, without any real evidence, I think that heterosexual couples these days mostly divide into three groups

1) Those who cohabit then marry.
2) Those who cohabit and are 'engaged'.
3) Those who cohabit.

In recent years I don't know of anyone who has taken the traditional route of a formal engagement followed by marriage - nor anyone who hasn't cohabited before marriage.

For my own part - my wife and I lived together for four months and then decided to marry - and three days after making that decision we married in a civil ceremony. (That was in 1980 - more notice is needed these days.) We both wanted something very quiet so we told nobody of our intention to marry apart from the two close friends who acted as witnesses - even our parents weren't informed until afterwards. I thoroughly recommend this practice.

 

[geni]

Like I said, announcing a marriage date will do the trick. Why wouldn't it?

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments

Just as convenient as announcing they will get married a particular day.

see above announcing a particular day has problems.

But to whom?

Signficant chucnk of the UK population.

What legal issues?

Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.

Yes, the Scottish Las Vegas. So?

Not remotely.

How do you know you don't really have time?

Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.

Wrong.

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well to start with any randomly chosen date will result in a large number of no shows due to prior comittments

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Signficant chucnk of the UK population.

Evidence?

Differences between english and welsh law and scotish law.

Such as?

Not remotely.

OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?

Time between reciveing call up papers and have to join the relivant unit compared to typical time to plan a weding.

But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

What, you never heard of marriages at sea?

Dude that has like zero citations and is mostly talking about the upper class.

Dude, I don't see you coming up with better references. Or even references at all.

 

[geni]

Why is a marriage date announced without a prior engagement "randomly chosen", but a marriage date announced with a prior engagement is not?

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.

Evidence?

~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.

Such as?

Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.

OK, Gretna Green is not a preferred place to marry. What did you mean, then?

It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.

But weddings don't need to be planned way ahead in time. Find someone who can marry you, and go.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.

What, you never heard of marriages at sea?

Legal validity isn't always great.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because it gives the family a chance to sort out what dates are doable.

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

~1/8th of scotish wedings take place there.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Question not well enough diffined we are talking about two seperate legal systems. There are various differences one is that 16 year olds do not require parental permission to marry in scotland.

What does that have to do with engagement?

It is but not for the same reasons as vegas and I don't think it has casinos or neon on a large scale.

Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.

Historicaly this hasn't been the case in england. Generaly major contractal arangements whould be planned ahead of time.

Evidence?

Legal validity isn't always great.

What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?

Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

 

[geni]

That is only a reassertation of your postulate. You need to explain why this isn't possible with a marriage date sans engagement.

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Provideing evidences

What does that have to do with engagement?

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

Nevertheless, people go to both places in great numbers to get married.

Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.

Evidence?

Marriage Act 1753

What does that have to do with whether it is possible to marry quickly?

legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless

Any chance of a reference of your claim that engagement rings are due in particular to the postponement of marriage due to war?

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's posible but since you would be going for an engagement in everything but name there would be little reason to do so.

Rrrrrright.

Marriage Act 1753 in effects mandates a minium of 3 weeks engagement.

Where does it say that?

If true, is it still mandatory with 3 weeks of engagement?

Vegas is what I understand is technicaly called a city. Gretna Green is a small village.

And this is relevant how?

legaly invalid marrages are largely meaningless

Wrong.

nope google reacts badly to any mention of ww2 and engage.

Too bad for your argument.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I can't believe nobody's brought up the whole point of engagement:

It's to give your friends and family time to find ways to show you what a horrible choice you've made and how you're about to ruin your life.

If they can't convince you to snap out of it in the time allotted, either your love is strong enough to make it through, or else you're stupid enough to deserve the disaster you're bringing upon yourself.

And if you think people aren't going to say "I told you so!" during the divorce proceedings, well, you're naive and that maniac you married is going to have you on toast in the settlement.

 

[Ysidro]

I'm friends with at least two couples where both partners where/wore engagement rings. None of them had gemstones at all, IIRC.

Never heard of getting "eternitised" before. Sounds rather silly, though I can't find much information about it beyond what's been mentioned here.

Claus, are you saying that weddings are pretty much spur of the moment things over there? Because otherwise I can't see how there isn't an engagement.

Mind you, there's the whole "fairytale tradition gimie diamonds and I'm going to show everything off" engagement. Then there's the "let's get married, we'll tell everyone, and take some time to put our affairs in order. Oh and there may or may not be a ring involved in this." Don't get them confused. Both ostensibly end in marriage, but one is purely a show-and-tell event.