Ruined engagement surprise, what can we do ??

arbroath_lass

Errata wrote: »

As one in three Victorian brides went to the altar pregnant, and it's anyone's guess how many were banging their HTB like a barn door and didn't get caught - it's not a Victorian tradition to not be sexually active before the wedding, makey upey or otherwise

Makey-up as in what was said and what was done were two completely different things. ie so called Victorian morality.

Person_one

daisiegg wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is the father that paid the dowry not the groom! :rotfl:

(Not read any further than your post yet so others may have pointed this out already!)

Oops, yeah you're right, post in haste! I've got confused between a dowry and a bride price.

Person_one

daisiegg wrote: »

Just what I was about to say. I only know one woman who didn't want to take her husband's name, so she didn't. Everyone else I know WANTED TO. Which is their right and should not be looked down upon or mocked.

Can it not be questioned even?

Why is it the norm for a woman to give up her name, a part of her identity, and swap it for her husband's? Why is this 'tradition' still around if we're so equal these days that feminism isn't needed?

Person_one

arbroath_lass wrote: »

I don't think it is "feminist" (not sure what that means really). All I want is to be treated as an equal. I do accept that people are all good/bad at different things but we are still all equal.

Bingo, you've just pretty much defined feminism in a nutshell.

Gloomendoom

Person_one wrote: »

Can it not be questioned even?

Why is it the norm for a woman to give up her name, a part of her identity, and swap it for her husband's? Why is this 'tradition' still around if we're so equal these days that feminism isn't needed?

When/if you get married you will have the option of keeping your own name, taking your wife's/husband's, your wife/husband adopting yours or both of you making up a new one. So does everyone else... if they want to.

Where is the inequality in that?

arbroath_lass

Person_one wrote: »

Bingo, you've just pretty much defined feminism in a nutshell.

Lol, thanks . I get feminism but not "feminism". I've no idea what the poster meant by putting it in quotes.

sarahg1969

OP - they'll get over it. Disappointing, yes, initially. Life-changing, no. Have a laugh about it. It's no big deal.

Dunroamin

Gloomendoom wrote: »

When/if you get married you will have the option of keeping your own name, taking your wife's/husband's, your wife/husband adopting yours or both of you making up a new one. So does everyone else... if they want to.

Where is the inequality in that?

Unfortunately, not everybody understands that they have a choice and that it's a tradition rather than a legal requirement. You have regular questions on here from women who are divorcing who think that they need a deed poll to go back to using their own name.

Person_one

Gloomendoom wrote: »

When/if you get married you will have the option of keeping your own name, taking your wife's/husband's, your wife/husband adopting yours or both of you making up a new one. So does everyone else... if they want to.

Where is the inequality in that?

If men changed their names in anything like the numbers women do, you might have a point.

Pollycat

anniec19 wrote: »

The response she received shocked her, “It's @@@@@ here; can you tell him that the ring is ready.” She replied,”I don’t think you were supposed to tell me that!”

She said 'I don't think you were supposed to tell me that'?

To me, that sounds a really strange response.
I'm sure I'd have said 'Ring? What ring?'

It sounds to me that, despite all your subterfuge, that the cat had been let out of the bag way before the jewellers phoned.