I have been dating my SO for nearly three years now, and it is quite certain that we want to, and will, marry. We happily discuss it all the time, my parents realize it’s inevitable and welcome it, her mother is the same. Her dad’s a little different, but ignorance is bliss. Often we wish we could just get to the point where we’re not adhering to a far-too-juvenile “boyfriend/girlfriend” nomenclature, and say “fiancee.” Sometimes, in particular situations, we already do. But it’s not yet a consistent thing.
The cutoff we’ve come to an unspoken agreement upon is when there’s a ring; and there will be a ring as soon as financially possible. It’s obvious, easy to show off, and a common distinction. But so often we both want to just start now; as it is, we really do live like any engaged couples we know. It’s just that engagement rings are so expensive on college student salaries (read: next to nothing).
So when would you/did you start using fiancee once you know that marraige was certain? Anybody start before the ring?
A ring is a symbol of an engagement, not a prerequisite. If you are actively planning to marry, you’re engaged and thus have every right to call one another fiance/fiancee. I never had a ring, so obviously we didn’t wait for that.
No you don’t need a ring, if you are both comfortable using the term, use it.
I didn’t bother with an engagement ring at all, we both saw it as a total waste of money, but if you do both want a ring, does it have to be an expensive diamond? There are plenty of other, less expensive rings out there to choose from and also estate jewellery. If you both really want a diamond, you could get a synthetic one which you could replace with the real thing when you can afford to.
Here’s a suggestion for the ring situation, since my husband and I were also too broke to afford a big rock when we got engaged. He proposed with a diamond eternity band that served as my engagement ring and now as my wedding band. Sure, some people give me funny looks because I only have one ring, and even my dad said “THAT’S your ring?” when we were first engaged, but it has worked out perfectly for us. I told him he can buy me the big piece of jewelry for a major anniversary instead (I am actually leaning more towards diamond stud earrings, I’m not a big ring person). Yes, my wedding band is more expensive than most, but it serves double duty and I LOVE it. I also get so many compliments on it.
But back to your original question, if you have agreed to marry, then you are engaged and can refer to each other as fiancé. You can propose without the ring too.
I’m with all those here who say that a ring is really just a symbol (as you’ve acknowledged) and if neither of you “need” it, it is not a big deal. Damn society!!!
Seriously - a buddy of mine just got married. He and his girlfriend had already finished a big chunk of their wedding planning before they had a ring, partly because she couldn’t decide on the style of stone/setting she wanted. IIRC, the time line went something like started planning wedding in early/mid summer, actual proposal with ring in December, and then wedding in February. We gave him some good-natured grief about it.
People are different. Like the saying goes: “It’s the thought that counts.”
My engagement ring is an anniversary band too. It’s what I wanted, and at the time my job wasn’t really conducive to wearing a big rock. Also, I’m not really a “big rock” person; someday I’d like to have a nice emerald ring, but that’s about it.
My engagement ring (no wedding…sigh) cost less than $200. It’s not the money that counts. Besides, I wanted a sapphire, not a diamond. I still do, should I get engaged again.
If you’re really, really broke but she’d like a diamond they do make good fakes. As long as she knows it’s not real. Perhaps with a promise to upgrade later? No matter what the guys selling the rings say, there is NO REQUIREMENT THAT AN ENGAGEMENT RING BE EXPENSIVE. The sentiment is what really counts.
Well, I’m bringing my Russian girlfriend over on what they call a “K-1 Fiance Visa”. It’s called “fiance” because once she’s here we have 90 days to either get married or she has to return (no pressure there, eh?) and I had to submit a statement to this effect. This is all thanks to INS not allowing a relationship to occur naturally by allowing tourist visas except if you are a known terrorist or saboteur and hail from Saudi Arabia. Even though Americans are not known to commit terrorist acts in Russia and they therefore have granted me tourist visas 3 times, our gov’t seems to have some real fear of Russians; particularly the blond, 5’8", 125 lb types. Go figure.
We don’t have rings because we aren’t sure. She wants to see what America is like and how I live (“in a trailer, down by the river” - Chris Farley skit, SNL). So, technically, yes, you can have a fiance without a ring.
You are engaged when you set the date of the intended marriage. (Note that I did not say when you actually book the church.) ‘The spring after we graduate’ is close enough.
Refer to each other as your ‘affianced’ instead of ‘fiance/e’.
And don’t get a diamond as a ring; read up on civil wars in Africa, and the history of the diamond cartel.
Actually, I was responding to the OP, who wasn’t certain about using the term ‘fiancee’.
I believe that ‘affianced’ is the proper term in English for one’s betrothed.
And although I studied German, and not French, I am certain that ‘fiance’ is NOT the correct term for your girl-friend, whether you intend to marry her or not.
Just because it’s on a government form doesn’t make it correct.
I’ve always found the term ‘intended’ kind of sweet.
