One for the ladies

Spendless

Having just googled it, I believe the De bers ad said 'how could 2 months salary last forever'

Nothing about 3 months salary and as previously pointed out was an ad campaign at a time when barely anyone received a diamond engagement ring.

As someone who could barely go away as  a couple as their kids grew due to lack of family able  to help out and also as said on a prev post had a 'cheap' first engagement ring. Id still pick the hol (even if not guaranteed to see the Northern lights). I had to wait a lot longer for the kids to be adults so me and DH could holiday just us two, than I had to wait for a dearer replacement ring. 

silvercar

maman said:

A straightforward answer would be go on the holiday and buy an outrageously cheap, flashy, fun ring (Primark or similar). I'm with other posters who say definitely don't get credit and when you can afford a decent ring then choose it together.
 

This!

Get a beyond cheap ring for mow and then choose a forever ring together. I wouldn't give yourself the responsibility of choosing a ring that may not be the one of her dreams. 

itsthelittlethings

Also presumably you secretly have the money for the ring in personal money (which is good to have). However it would be nice to buy the holiday from joint money so you can choose it together.

RAS

"We've always wanted to travel to Iceland and see the Northern Lights."

How long ago did you last discuss this want? Have you checked in to see if it is still your partner's dream? You can't really do a surprise job on this, because you are going to need very warm clothing. Does your partner prefer a couples break or a family holiday?

I'd add I've seen the lights twice, both in Norway when I was working, and was somewhat underwhelmed, albeit both times it was early evening and I didn't check out later. I love the country, the scenery and the people. Prices are steep, but cheaper than Iceland. Unfortunately flying there costs more.

Try to separate your desires. Your dream may be proposing under the lights, but these depend on good weather. Last few times they performed here, locally we had cloud so there was nothing to see.

So is Iceland enough of a draw if the weather doesn't co-operate? What's plan B?

Added: Skip a coach trip. If the lights shine, just move away from street lighting as in the the edge of the trees next to the car park. Maybe research local restaurants near the end of a bus route?

Wyndham

All of this is assuming that a) your partner doesn't have any preference or say in this b) that she is going to say 'yes'.

Engagements should be private. The idea of a public one is awful. It assumes an affirmative answer, which may happen due to the public nature of it, but may not be what she actually wants.

Your views are I think traditional - some would call them old fashioned. I think this is also reflected even in the title of this thread. So, for clarity, these days a woman is no longer 'owned' by her husband, and it should be an equal partnership.

They even let us vote these days

Pollycat

I've never understood the concept of 'we've been living together for years and have kids together and we've just got engaged'.
Surely a partnership and kids is a bigger commitment than putting a ring on someone's finger.
Engagement had a very different meaning years ago.
You got engaged, fixed a date for the wedding then found somewhere to live together (hopefully in a house with a joint mortgage or in rented accommodation) whilst both living with parents.

If I was in the OP's position, I would skip the engagement and have a low key wedding ceremony.

MyRealNameToo

Pollycat said:

I've never understood the concept of 'we've been living together for years and have kids together and we've just got engaged'.
Surely a partnership and kids is a bigger commitment than putting a ring on someone's finger.
Engagement had a very different meaning years ago.
You got engaged, fixed a date for the wedding then found somewhere to live together (hopefully in a house with a joint mortgage or in rented accommodation) whilst both living with parents.

If I was in the OP's position, I would skip the engagement and have a low key wedding ceremony.

Joint mortgage? She wouldnt have been working and hopefully her dowery would have gone a long way to buying the home. 

Getting engaged literally means the pair of you have agreed that you will marry in the future but haven't yet. Taxes, pensions etc are common reasons why people get married after a long time of living together. Even if they do absolutely nothing about it there is still a point in time when the agreement to marry happens and therefore they have technically become engaged. There is therefore no way to "skip" the engagement but you dont have to do anything lavish, exchange presents or have a party. 

A friend got engaged then married after nearly 30 years together because his DB pension would only pay out to a spouse (or civil partner) but not a long term cohabiting girlfriend. He drinks like a fish so the assumption was always that he'd die first. Unsurprisingly their whole thing was a low key affair at the local registry office and to the pub afterwards without any area reserved or such. 

At the end of the day the OP knows what they want and hopefully has a fairly good idea of what their future spouse wants and so is the best person to know if they want the big romantic gesture with a diamond the size of their fist or if they'd rather have a great holiday and a cheap/no ring. 

Things get a bit more complex if you're a case of opposites attract and you want the big white wedding and they want the registry office followed by 'spoons but if your getting married there'll be many compromises down the road so start now. 

Pollycat

MyRealNameToo said:

Pollycat said:

I've never understood the concept of 'we've been living together for years and have kids together and we've just got engaged'.
Surely a partnership and kids is a bigger commitment than putting a ring on someone's finger.
Engagement had a very different meaning years ago.
You got engaged, fixed a date for the wedding then found somewhere to live together (hopefully in a house with a joint mortgage or in rented accommodation) whilst both living with parents.

If I was in the OP's position, I would skip the engagement and have a low key wedding ceremony.

Joint mortgage? She wouldnt have been working and hopefully her dowery would have gone a long way to buying the home. 

Getting engaged literally means the pair of you have agreed that you will marry in the future but haven't yet. Taxes, pensions etc are common reasons why people get married after a long time of living together. Even if they do absolutely nothing about it there is still a point in time when the agreement to marry happens and therefore they have technically become engaged. There is therefore no way to "skip" the engagement but you dont have to do anything lavish, exchange presents or have a party. 

A friend got engaged then married after nearly 30 years together because his DB pension would only pay out to a spouse (or civil partner) but not a long term cohabiting girlfriend. He drinks like a fish so the assumption was always that he'd die first. Unsurprisingly their whole thing was a low key affair at the local registry office and to the pub afterwards without any area reserved or such. 

At the end of the day the OP knows what they want and hopefully has a fairly good idea of what their future spouse wants and so is the best person to know if they want the big romantic gesture with a diamond the size of their fist or if they'd rather have a great holiday and a cheap/no ring. 

Things get a bit more complex if you're a case of opposites attract and you want the big white wedding and they want the registry office followed by 'spoons but if your getting married there'll be many compromises down the road so start now. 

I had a joint mortgage aged 24 back in the late 1970s.
Admittedly the building society didn't take my full salary (more than my husband's at the time) into account.
No dowry in the 1970s.

And there is obviously a way to skip the engagement.
Just get married.

My post did say 'I'VE never understood...' and I do appreciate that the OP obviously wants to get engaged, as so many people do.

My view is that most engagements nowadays don't have the same relevance today as they did 50/60 years ago and certainly not during the earlier times of 'breach of promise'.

Cobbler_tone

Pollycat said:

If I was in the OP's position, I would skip the engagement and have a low key wedding ceremony.

This is what we are doing but the cost can still creep up. With the rings (£1,700) I think it is costing around £3,500 to just have 5 people we want there and a nice meal afterwards. Definitely a marriage to make the admin easier and most importantly to protect one another financially, with pensions etc. I guess in the world of weddings it is still low cost, especially for the protection it gives us....and I'm sure we'll have a lovely day.
The registrar said it is VERY common for couples to get married after many years for this purpose.

kimwp

Cobbler_tone said:

Pollycat said:

If I was in the OP's position, I would skip the engagement and have a low key wedding ceremony.

This is what we are doing but the cost can still creep up. With the rings (£1,700) I think it is costing around £3,500 to just have 5 people we want there and a nice meal afterwards. Definitely a marriage to make the admin easier and most importantly to protect one another financially, with pensions etc. I guess in the world of weddings it is still low cost, especially for the protection it gives us....and I'm sure we'll have a lovely day.
The registrar said it is VERY common for couples to get married after many years for this purpose.

What?! Rings don't have to be expensive ones and you can host a meal at your house - or not have a celebration meal. A wedding can cost less than £200, anything more is what you decide to spend.