Tradition is a nice ole thing but one 'engagement' is quite enough Mr Norman . .

Tradition can be a lovely thing.
But in engagement terms, once is definitely enough.
Does anyone else feel a bit cringeworthy about the Greg Norman engagement scenario?
Sure, no-one can ever begrudge anyone of finding magnificent, true, soul-saturating, ever-lasting love . . . but this whole 'we're engaged' palaver three times on just seems a bit, well, embarrassing.
And slightly juvenile.
We're talking a 55-year-old, mega-successful and wealthy man who had been there, done this all before and let's face it, it wasn't too long since the last time it all happened.
We've all seen first-time engaged couples get caught up the whole wedding preparation thing, and that is truly exciting, fresh and exhilarating.
But really, it shouldn't be a scenario that keeps getting repeated. And repeated. And repeated.
Around time three shouldn't you just get married?
Quietly.
Instead of dragging out the whole betrothal process as pics of some zillion-carat diamond ring get shoved down our throats?
Why not leave being 'engaged' to first-timers . . not thrice-timers.
****
According the wiki, "an engagement is a promise to marry, and also the period of time between proposal and marriage – which may be lengthy or trivial. During this period, a couple is said to be affianced, betrothed, engaged to be married, or simply engaged. Future brides and bridegrooms are often referred to as fiancées or fiancés respectively (from the French word fiancé). The duration of the courtship varies vastly.
Long engagements were once common in formal arranged marriages and it was not uncommon for parents betrothing children to arrange such many years before the engaged couple were old enough to marry. In 2007, the average engagement time in the United States was 17 months,[1] but the figure around the world varies greatly depending on culture and customs."
****