Engaged?

[baron]

The word "engaged" means that a betrothal has taken place; a vow to marry at some time in the future. It's therefore the period between the agreement to marry and the actual marriage. In my case it was more like engaging the enemy, but I gather that's not always the case.

 

[MWare]

In my case (I am planning on proposing this weekend), I see the proposal as the promise to dedicate the rest of my life to my gf. That's what's important IMO. The wedding is a legal arrangement which will most likely happen in a small civil event (just the two of us) at City Hall. This legal arrangement has a lot of implications since my gf is an immigrant. Some serious legal and cultural logicistics will need to be worked out between the engagement and the wedding.

The wedding will occur whenever she wants it to occur, but whether it happens next week or next year is of little importance to me. I've made the promise. I'm not sure what this "what if she finds better man" nonsense is, so I really can't speak to that. Our engagement is not a warranty period. It is the time between making the promise and getting the logistics settled for getting married.

Incidentally, I get the sense that the whole proposal, engagement, fanfares, traditions stuff is not very popular in this thread. For added punch, I'm also calling her parents Wednesday to formally ask her hand. How's that for traditions?

But pointless? I wouldn't call it that. All the time and effort I put into making the proposal and the engagement special will be abundantly obvious to her. Since my promise is to do everything I can to make her happy for the rest of my life, it doesn't seem pointless to me.

Maybe I'm a romantic. I believe this in no way contradictory to my being a skeptic.

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Brian Pears]

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

You mean the act that was repealed by the Marriage Act 1836 which in turn was amended by Marriage Acts in 1898, 1936, 1949 and 1994 (I may have missed one or two). When I married in 1980 the minimum period between giving notice of marriage and marrying was 3 days, since 1994 it has been 15 days.

 

[The Atheist]

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

Excellent idea, thanks.

Custom change requested!

Now having said all this, there is no 100% guarantee that she will actually say yes. Perhaps next week I may be less of a romantic. We will have to wait and see.

Probably more chance of you becoming less of a romantic in the long term if she says yes!

(Good luck!)

 

[tkingdoll]

I can't believe the amount of chutzpah I'm about to demonstrate, but...

Teek, I have to disagree with you.

To my way of thinking, two people (a) decide to get married, and (b) get married. There has to be some time in between (a) and (b), whether it's 5 minutes or 5 years. During this time, you are "engaged", by definition. The engagement may or may not involve a ring, it may or may not involve deciding on china patterns, it may or may not involve hiring a 12-piece orchestra, it may or may not even involve telling anybody about it. But either way, that time period exists, and that is the "engagement".

This is nothing but a semantics debate. You are defining 'engaged' as 'the period of time between agreeing to get married and actually doing it. I am defining it as 'the period of time where a couple declare themselves engaged'. Clearly, other cultures do not call that period an engagement. My hubby and I didn't call it an engagement either, and none of the hallmarks of an engagement were present, other than an eventual wedding.

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

 

[The Atheist]

You can't say "you were engaged because Nobby Nobbs says you were according to his definition of the word."

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.



Interesting aside.

Dictionary.com, when I checked to make sure that some other Grammar Tyrant hadn't hacked the dictionaries in my absence, I looked up "betroth", which brought up these ads:

Ads by Google
The Truth About Hell
No One Will Burn in Hell For All Eternity-And We Can Prove It!
www.realtruth.org

God is Warning the World
Repent or perish! 3 prophecies re the coming judgement of God
www.godswarningtotheworld.com/

I've always thought god must be pretty useless when people have to resort to paying for ads for him.

 

[The Atheist]

May I suggest, for no particular reason, that you adopt Grammar Tyrant rather than Grammar Stalin as your avatar label?

And done, as quickly as that!

Good thought, cheers.

 

[tkingdoll]

No more than you claim that you weren't "engaged" because you don't like the term.

Throughout the British Commonwealth at least, "engaged" merely means that you have agreed to get married. Given the universality of meaning, backed by any dictionary you choose to use, there's not really any way out.

Sorry, but in the UK, it is absolutely clearly defined. Many, many people are married but were never engaged. An engagement is a period whereby the couple announce their engagement, the woman usually has a ring, often an engagement party, etc. But always, always, the couple call themselves engaged and refer to each other as 'fiance'.

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

Engaged is a really specific thing in the UK to anyone who has ever been engaged, or avoided it. Simply "waiting for the legal paperwork to go through" is not it.

Engaged is not a legal term. This is nothing but a semantics debate based on differences in usage. You might as well argue that 'fanny' means buttocks. In the UK, it does not.

And as has already been demonstrated here, many people get engaged with no intention of marrying. Does that mean they're not really engaged? Cause TA and Nobby say so?

 

[HarryKeogh]

There are people who don't do any of the above, but have to wait a few weeks to get married because of the law, as per my hubby and myself. They don't call themselves engaged, and no-one else does either.

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?


I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

 

[athon]

Well that's news to me. Can anybody British back up Teek's claim? Not to say I was married or engaged in the UK, but here in Australia (which reflects English tradition and culture in many respects) there's no real petty distinction. And I never encountered that feeling with those British friends of mine in the UK (of who I had three different couples get engaged, two of which had simple drinks-at-the-pub celebrations and didn't engage rings. The other couple didn't have any celebration but bought each other a simple token, in the form of a ring for her and a watch for him).

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me. Sure, you mightn't use the term fiancee, but then I know of one or two couples who don't like the terms husband and wife, and don't use them (they typically just say 'my partner'). Doesn't mean they don't have a partner referred to in common tradition as a husband or a wife.

I can see all sorts of arguments for and against celebrations and rings at a time of engagement. I can see some people not feel comfortable with the term fiancee. But to say 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' is insanely foreign to me. I associate nothing else with the term other than the fact two people are in the process of arranging a wedding and a marriage.

Athon

 

[DanishDynamite]

Something struck me recently.

Danes don't get engaged. We tend to skip that part. Usually, people decide to live together, and if people do agree to get married (often after the kids have arrived), it seems like a good occasion to have a great party, fill up the house with blenders and microwave ovens, and get the tax issues out of the way. The latter matters a lot here.

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking, getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: What will you do, if your betrothed one breaks up with you? Sue for breach of promise?

Why is betrothal ridiculous?

Today, it seems more like a tradition for the sake of tradition. But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?

Tradition is often tradition for traditions sake. What exactly is the point, other than tradition, to have a Sankt Hans fire? Or to celebrate Morten's aften? Or to celebrate New Year? Or....?

 

[tkingdoll]

I would. I never saw an engagement as requiring a ring, a party or special announcement. In my neck of the woods a conversation would be like:

Teek and her husband are getting married!

Really? When did they get engaged?

Yesterday. He proposed via the scoreboard at Wembley.

How wonderfully romantic! Who won the game?


I always saw it as just a term for that period between deciding to get married to each other and the actual wedding. No more, no less. So to me, the OP doesn't make much sense. In fact, I would find it impossible to get married and not be engaged (even if for a few minutes).

Now if we're talking about couples who are living together for 10 years, call themselves engaged but have no plans to marry...I've known people like that and that makes zero sense to me. What's the term? Crap or get off the pot.

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Absolutely anyone you ask, friends or family, will tell you that I was never engaged. I was unmarried, then married. There was a brief period in the middle where we had to make lots of phone calls and sign some stuff. But no-one referred to that as an engagement, and no-one referred to either of us as 'fiance' during that period without being told that we were not any such thing. And this is not uncommon, I assure you. My sister and her boyfriend plan to marry but would laugh if I suggested they are 'engaged'.

I suspect that most couples these days use an engagement as a road test as much as anything. Of my friends who are or were engaged, most didn't start planning the actual wedding until quite some time into the engagement.

I couldn't imagine somebody saying to me 'we're getting married', and I say, 'so who's your fiancee', only to be told, 'oh we're not engaged'. That seems absolutely absurd to me.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

 

[Number Six]

However, what annoys me is that during this period the woman will wear an engagement ring but the man will not. That seems to me like the man has marked his territory but feels no obligation to reciprocate in a public showing of 'I'm taken, thanks'. Why not pee on her leg to leave a scent while he's at it?

I think you'll find in the US at least that the engagement ring exists because women want it, not men. You won't hear many men say that in mixed company though because not only does the guy have to buy an engagement ring he has to pretend like he enjoys it, otherwise something hits the fan. I think 99% of guys would be ecstatic if their marriage proposal and engagement ring gift were answered with "I'll marry you on one condition: you take the ring back and get a refund." Maybe in the past it was meant to mark territory but not any more. And I don't think something that can be removed so easily is much of a territory mark anyway.

As far as the engagement period in general goes I think it's serves as a time when people ask themselves "Are you really sure you want to make a permanent commitment?" Of course, it's taken too far sometimes with long engagements and a long time to plan a big wedding, but I think at least some time to really think over what you're getting yourself into is good.

 

[madmonk76]

Well Noblecaboose and I are engaged. That means we discussed it, came to the conclusion that it was what we both wanted, and are now going about the paperwork and organising of events. We didn't have an engagement party or anything but we did tell people our intentions.

I'm assuming, however, that 'engaged' means something else in the context of this thread. I mean, I can't foresee people coming to a conclusion that they want to marry and then file the papers and arrange the services that very same moment.

Athon

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.


ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

 

[athon]

But the very fact that you are aware that couples who are engaged but have no plans to marry proves that 'being engaged' does not mean what some people are claiming it does.

Plan is different to intent. They mightn't have a celebrant organised, and papers filed, or a date set in their diary, but they fully intend on getting married.

This absolutely happened, regardless of whether or not you can imagine it

Oh, knowing you I don't doubt that this occured. We're not discussing so much whether situations such as that have occured, but rather what the common view of the term is. As I said earlier, just because some people avoid terms such as husband and wife doesn't mean that a guy's married partner is not commonly referred to as his wife, in law and in common acceptance.

I think it's a cultural shift. I think couples are moving away from traditionalism and all the labels that go with it.

But 'engagement' is an accepted term following the decision of intent to marry. It's not a legal or even so much a religious state of being (except in some cultures where betrothal is still all the rage). I'd agree that more and more couples aren't doing parties and buying rings, which is a drift away from tradition, but unless the vernacular changed radically to drop the label, the period of time still exists and is typically referred to as an engagement. Abandoning the term doesn't mean you're not engaged - it means you're not openly using the terms that go with it, such as 'fiancee'.

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.

Athon

 

[tkingdoll]

I don't begrudge anybody that, but how you can define that as not being engaged when that's what the term means in the wider community makes no sense to me.

I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not. As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

 

[athon]

That is pretty much the exact case with Mr Humphreys and I.
The official date, by the way, is to be 10th November.
Most of our engagement was spent filing paperwork for the proper visa.

That's where Noblecaboose and I are at now. The fact her family is in the US and mine is here means we'll be having a couple of parties, it seems, but we haven't gone to any lengths with the engagement. The papers are completed, celebrant in the process of being organised...it's now a waiting game.

ETA: I like my ring very much, but it isn't a diamond.
I'm not a big fan of the diamonds.
They're very expensive for something that looks quite boring, IMO.
I got something pink, cuz I'm a big girl.
The truth is, I don't really own a lot of jewelery, so I'm glad we got a ring.
I absolutely love it, and since it doesn't look like an engagement ring, I'll be able to wear it forever on my right hand anyway.

Does this make me a horrible person?

According to some, it seems so.

I bought NC an opal pendant because I know she likes opals. I wanted to get her a gift to mark the moment. Gifts are for just that - mementos to say you're loved. I sure as hell don't own her and I'm certainly not under her thumb (just don't let her know that ).

Athon

 

[madmonk76]

Bah!
The world thinks less of me for having a ring.
I am crushed...or something or nothing.

 

[athon]

I think that's the crux of of our disagreement - I believe the wider British community would consider a couple only engaged if they declare themselves engaged. But that's likely to be biased by my own social circle, which isn't particularly representative of anything but the bohemian 30-something middle classes.

I'm pretty much of the same class, albeit here in Australia, and (admittedly suffering from the same alleged bias) feel that if I said 'we're getting married but aren't engaged' I'd get some pretty peculiar looks. My time in the UK was probably too limited to get a good feel on this ground, but nothing in my experience made me think it was any different.

Some of it is down to little semantic differences too - for example many couples 'get engaged' which I would see very clearly as a formal announcement of their betrothal. But is that the same as 'being engaged' - perhaps not.

This is the root of my confusion. I can't see the difference at all. Both are being engaged to marry - one has more formal celebration about it, the other less so. If 'being engaged' had some legal or social connotation, adding an expectancy to behave differently or to perform some ritual, and the couple didn't perform said rituals or behaviours, I might agree that there needs to be a distinction. But there isn't.

As I said, pre-engagements (eternity rings) are also popular. People plan to get engaged, so to many it must be a formal state, not just an inbetweeny nothingness.

Which says, to me, that such a practice makes even less sense. Not saying this doesn't happen, but I've never known anybody do this, so can't even begin to fathom what they're thinking. Then again, people do a lot of silly things that hardly makes any sense.

But in the absence of any countrywide 'what is an engagement' study, I guess we'll never know. It really doesn't matter. I and many others will continue to say 'I was never engaged' and some people will continue to insist that we were, even though no traditional aspects of engagement were present.

The thing is that the distinction seems to matter enough for some people to say they aren't engaged. I'm curious to know if this is based on a real social phenomena that actually exists, or if its a perception of some undefined state of relations that some small groups have.

I might be swayed to think it's an actual phenomena if there were couples who were engaged and had no intention to wed. I don't mean they have no solid plans set down, but they have absolutely no intention of ever being married.

(we can agree to disagree, but this really has me curious).

Athon

 

[sphenisc]

My girlfriend and I got engaged in March and eighteen months later we got married, in November.