Ship of Fools: Wedding rings

Thread: Wedding rings Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024876

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I have been fortunate enough to have been invited to a number of weddings recently.

In nearly every case both bride and groom wore rings. I do remember my father refusing to wear one as it smacked of trinkets and seemed 'unmanly' but he was born in 1909.

I also notice that male members of the Royal Family don't wear them, and in the army it seemed rare amongst married officers apart from those who were 'LE' or late entry, and had therefore come up through the ranks.

On the other hand I also notice that male more fundamentalist clergy of my acquaintence seem to sport rather fat ones as if to proclaim 'I AM NOT GAY' although I have noticed them used in civil partnerships. I think that the Darren character in 'Rev' had one presumably placed by the producer to show that he was all 'nice and safe'.

Is this the same on either side of the pond? What might the trned be? Is it a class thing?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Dunno about class, but in my memory it was all but unknown for men of my parents generation. I doubt if it would have occurred to my dad to wear a wedding ring. Men just didn't. Any more than they wore ear-rings, or any jewellery at all. Jewellry was for women.

When I got married it had become normal for men of my age to wear wedding rings (and also to get their ears pierced), and I notice that a number of men I know who are five or ten or fifteen years older than me also wear rings, pretty much regardless or class. If anything it might be a more working class thing, but I have never really thought about it before and I'm not sure.

I'm in my fifties. So my observation would be that working-class men in the south-east of England who were born after about 1940 commonly wear jewellery, those who were older, didn't.

Of course that is all anecdotal and personal. YMMV.

And maybe its about money? Perhaps the older generation couldn't afford it?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

I believe that in England (things are different on the Continent), the traditional school of thought was that men should only wear a signet ring on the little finger — and then only if they were armigerous (which most people aren't). That was — and for many people still is — the only jewelery allowed, except perhaps a jeweled tie pin for weddings. Cufflinks should be discreet. A watch, however valuable, is not jewelery and, here again, the traditional view would be that an expensive wristwatch is vulgar, as wrist watches originated in the trenches and are not really to be worn in formal occasions. A solid gold pocket watch is much more seemly, on the grounds that it is more discreet.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

That was my understanding entirely. I am interested in others views as there has been a considerable growth in the wedding ring called by some a 'band'.

Posted by manfromcaerdeon (# 16672) on :

In the Catholic church, the marriage service includes an exchange of rings between the bride and the groom.

The Blessing of Rings follows the declaration of consent. The priest says a blessing over the wedding rings and then the couple exchange wedding rings

Groom (placing the wedding ring on his wife's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Bride (placing the wedding ring on her husband's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

When I was married, it also included an item of silver,given from Groom to Bride, as a token of worldly goods.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

In England the BCPs of 1662 and 1928 did not make provision for the husband to receive a ring, nor did series 1, which was essentially the same as 1928. I don't know whether there were series 2 & 3 marriage services. The ASB 1980 seems to imply, by the order in which it is set out that a single ring was more common, but makes provision for both to give and receive. Common Worship (2000) implies that exchanging rings is the more common.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

When I got married 25 years ago, rings for men were just becoming the norm. Today I can't think of a single married man who doesn't have one.I have even heard a young man express surprise that men didn't always wear rings.

Though I have read that in the royal family, the tradition is for the signet ring on the little finger.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

The other question is when is: when did the shift occur from right hand to left?

Mediaeval British marriage rites have the wedding ring placed on the bride's right hand, the same as in the east. Today, it is "common knowledge" in Britain that the wedding ring is worn on the left hand. When did this happen?

Posted by Papouli (# 17209) on :

In the Orthodox Church, both the husband and wife are given rings by the priest at the Betrothal, which immediately precedes the Sacrament of Marriage. The priest puts them on the right hand, ring finger, of the man and woman, and then their sponsor exchanges the rings between the couple three times, to symbolize the unity of flesh and spirit.

I encourage couples to always wear their rings on their right hand, as is our tradition. But since we're in the English-speaking world, many follow the prevalent use of the left hand. However, during the sacrament, it is required to be on the right hand.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I have always worn one since my marriage 37 years ago. In very few of the marriage services I have conducted since then did the groom not wear a ring. It just seems the norm, but I don't know when it came in. My dad never wore one but then he was married before WW2.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

mr whibley doesn't have a wedding band - we've been married 16 years. He had one for his first marriage and said he gave up wearing it as it was uncomfortable. Noone really comments and I don't mind as long as he isn't pursued by women. I had a previous boss who didn't wear one as he had had a friend who lost his finger due to it being trapped on a fence. Otherwise most married men of my acquaintance, including my 76-year-old father, wear a ring. I don't remember whether my grandfathers had them.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

Regarding wedding rings in the forces, my son does not wear his wedding ring while on base, as it could be a health and safety risk due to snagging etc.

I have been married for 34 years, and it was common practice here for men to wear wedding rings. I also wear a ring on the third finger of my right hand which indicates a community affiliation.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

A lot depends on the kind of work the man does--a ring could be a real nuisance in some jobs. As for the fatness or otherwise of the ring, my mother had fits that ours were both just ordinary size, because she was certain they'd wear away in a dozen years. We're heading for 25 though and in no danger yet. [Razz]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I'm gathering from this thread that Catholic and Orthodox bridegrooms traditionally wear rings, and that Protestant bridegrooms have only recently begun to wear them. I can add that Jewish weddings also traditionally include an exchange of rings.
The question then becomes: why, in that case, have Protestant bridegrooms been the odd men out?

The idea that an English gentleman doesn't wear jewellery goes back about a century and a half, not to time immemorial.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Australian men of my father's generation (he was born in 1904) did not wear wedding rings.

They seemed to come in with we baby-boomers.

The Puritans opposed their use at the 1604 Hampton Court Conference.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My husband and I exchanged rings in 1970 but he very quickly refused to wear his as he said it was uncomfortable. However most of our contemporaries wear rings. certainly at the many wedding at which i sing i see both parties exchange rings.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

My Brother had a ring when he married in the early 70's - it was a bit of a novelty to the family at the time, by the time I got marreid in 86 it was quite normal.

My vicar says they have only taken one wedding in the last 6 years where there were not two rings - And that was to an older couple on second marriages.

Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :

In the Anglican Church of Australi's 1978 Prayer Book there is a rubric right after what is called 'The Betrothal' :

They again loose their hands, and the man gives the woman a ring, placing it on the book. The priest takes it and gives it to the man to put it on the fourth finger of the woman's left hand. The man holds it there, and says.

There is also an extension to the rubric:
"if the bride is to give the bridegroom a ring, she does so after #8.

By the time of our second prayer book, the 1995 "A Prayer Book for Australia" , the mutual giving of rings was much more accepted as common place. In the 1st Form of Marriage(the First Order services of Baptism, Marriage and Eucharist are the modernized-BCP service forms for the Protestant wing, who also insisted and enforced that they were to be the First Order) again with no mention of betrothal, the rubic is given after the 2nd set of vows:

quote:
The man places the ring on the ring-finger of the woman, and holding it there, says

followed by:

quote:
If a woman gives a ring to the man, this procedure is to be repeated appropriately

In the 2nd Order, the one which I have used exclusively, the rubric at point 13 (again, straight after the 2nd set of vows and with mention of betrothal, says:

quote:
The giver places the ring on the ring-finger of the other's hand and says

In both Prayer Books, after the giving of rings, the bridge and groom are to acknowledge the receiving of their rings:

1995:

quote:
I receive this ring as a symbol of our love and faithfulness to the end of our days
and/or
May God enable us to grow in love together.

Though I'd prefer the more personal note of the 1978 book:

quote:
N, I receive this ring in token of our marriage. May God enable us to gow in love together.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

My father was born in 1910 and married my mother in 1944. Like all of his comtemporaries at the time, Dad did not have a wedding ring.

For their Golden Wedding anniversary, Mum and Dad exchanged rings - a gold ring with a diamond for Mum and a gold wedding ring for Dad.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Even though your father didn't have a ring at the time he married, Morgan, it sounds like the marriage was pretty golden.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

My parents married in 1932 and dad didn't have a ring, and I don't remember him wearing any sort of jewellery. When the first Mr Marten and I married in 1976 we both had rings, and I think most of our friends who married around that time did the same, so it was certainly becoming common then.

The first Mr Marten lost his ring some years into our marriage, while having floury hands through making dough. We looked everywhere for it, down the sofa, under the floorboards, in the cat, but we never did find it.

The present Mr Marten and I both have wedding rings, and most people I know (straight and gay) wear them.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

My parents were married in 1967 and Dad has never worn a ring. And of my aunts & uncles, only one of the men wore a ring. NOw, I'd be the first to admit I'm not hugely observant, but for most of the couples I know of my parent's generation, it's only the women who wear rings. Clearly, other's observations vary....

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
A lot depends on the kind of work the man does--a ring could be a real nuisance in some jobs.

Women, too, for that matter. Ever tried to unjam photocopiers, printers, office machinery etc with a ring on? How about cooks, certain health professionals using their hands, women on factory lines etc.

I think it's fine for a bloke (or a blokess) not to wear a ring if they don't want to or if it feels 'uncomfortable'. And maybe all the guys who feel wearing a wedding ring 'uncomfortable' for themselves, would be happy enough with their wives removing their own weddings rings for the same reason? It's also fine to remove it for work. But I'd wonder why my bloke didn't want a ring in the first place if he's expecting me to wear 'his'!

What application could a woman wearing her wedding ring have that becomes dispensable or optional with a man's wedding ring?

My parents' generation didn't grow up with rings for both sexes as the norm, so I can understand that as the prevailing custom. But in this day and age, the argument for a guy not receiving a ring as part of the ceremony to mark his marriage because of his work doesn't wash. Not unless he's willing to accept the same argument from his wife for not receiving a ring at the ceremony, too.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What application could a woman wearing her wedding ring have that becomes dispensable or optional with a man's wedding ring?

My parents' generation didn't grow up with rings for both sexes as the norm, so I can understand that as the prevailing custom. But in this day and age, the argument for a guy not receiving a ring as part of the ceremony to mark his marriage because of his work doesn't wash. Not unless he's willing to accept the same argument from his wife for not receiving a ring at the ceremony, too. [/QB]

I had always assumed that it was compulsory for the woman to have a ring, but optional for the man, because it's important to know at a glance that a woman is "taken", because her marital status is for some bizarre reason really important to broadcast to the world at all times. Right? I assumed this because only the woman has to wear an engagement ring.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I had always assumed that it was compulsory for the woman to have a ring, but optional for the man, because it's important to know at a glance that a woman is "taken", because her marital status is for some bizarre reason really important to broadcast to the world at all times. Right? I assumed this because only the woman has to wear an engagement ring.

My thoughts too. Just as a woman's title ("Miss" or "Mrs.") indicated her marital status before "Ms." came along, but "Mr." does not.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward do/did have wedding rings.

Prince Philip and Prince William do not.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
I had always assumed that it was compulsory for the woman to have a ring, but optional for the man, because it's important to know at a glance that a woman is "taken", because her marital status is for some bizarre reason really important to broadcast to the world at all times. Right? I assumed this because only the woman has to wear an engagement ring.
My thoughts too. Just as a woman's title ("Miss" or "Mrs.") indicated her marital status before "Ms." came along, but "Mr." does not.

I was given an engagement ring by my fiancee, it was a black onyx gold signet ring.

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

Reading this is all a bit odd—I can't think of a married man here in the States who doesn't have (and regularly wear) a ring. I remember seeing a comment in an old edition of Amy Vanderbilt that men wearing wedding rings became part of the culture during World War II, when married men were sent overseas; no idea why this never caught on in other countries, though. I even know of a few couples engaged in the last few years where the man wore some sort of a ring as an engagement ring; it seems it's no longer okay for only the woman to be engaged.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What application could a woman wearing her wedding ring have that becomes dispensable or optional with a man's wedding ring?

My parents' generation didn't grow up with rings for both sexes as the norm, so I can understand that as the prevailing custom. But in this day and age, the argument for a guy not receiving a ring as part of the ceremony to mark his marriage because of his work doesn't wash. Not unless he's willing to accept the same argument from his wife for not receiving a ring at the ceremony, too.
I had always assumed that it was compulsory for the woman to have a ring, but optional for the man, because it's important to know at a glance that a woman is "taken", because her marital status is for some bizarre reason really important to broadcast to the world at all times. Right? I assumed this because only the woman has to wear an engagement ring. [/QB]

Yeah, that's right. That's why I was drawing a line between what was normative in the days when men 'owned' their women and current times when marriage is an equal partnership. If a married woman needs to be labelled explicitly as 'taken', so does a married man. If I'm willing to show publicly I belong to my bloke, he should be willing to show publicly he belongs to me! [Big Grin]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12986535

This report on the BBC says the rise in popularity of mens wedding rings, started with the general interest in Men's jewellery, in the 60's and 70's.

Which fits with my experience, that when my brother married in the early 70's, his wedding ring was a novelty, by the time of my own wedding in the 80's they were the norm.

Certainly no men in my family, who were married in the 50's every wore a ring.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

The only piece of jewelry my father ever wore for most of his life was his wedding ring. Married in 1941.

It never occurred to me (married in 1978) to consider not wearing a wedding ring ... at that time it would, I think have been highly unusual for a Canadian male not to have one, though not necessarily to wear one at work.

My son will have to decide what to do with his when the divorce is finalized. Both he and his wife took it for granted. It never occurred to my son in law that he wouldn't wear one. My son in law elect will have one, but as he's a mechanic will certainly never wear it to work.

John

Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on :

American posting here.

My father has worn his weddsing band since he was married in 1963.

I don't know about my grandparents, but my brother's wedding ring was originally my great-grandfather's, dating from around 1904, so clearly wedding rings for men weren't unheard-of for American Yankee (i.e. New England WASP) men before WWII.

As for me, I wear my (plain gold) wedding band all the time except when I'm swimming in heavy surf. It got pretty scratched up within the first few months, from rock-climbing and suchlike pursuits that I used to pursue before we had kids. But it shows no sign of wearing through after six years.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

In the USA in the 1950's, "double ring ceremonies" did occur, but they were still novel enough to be described as such in newspaper stories. In the English-speaking world, a single ring "given and taken" goes back at least to the Sarum use, but I understand that in continental Europe, two rings have long been customary. I suspect that the change to two rings in this country was, at least initially, the result of intermarriage among various ethnic groups. The "New Feminism" of the 1970's may have given further impetus to this innovation.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

My parents married in the early 50's, and my dad wore a ring; I think that was pretty much the norm in their circle. He was a farmer, too, someone who was constantly tinkering with dangerous machinery, but he wore his ring for two decades before it finally got too tight for him.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In the USA in the 1950's, "double ring ceremonies" did occur, but they were still novel enough to be described as such in newspaper stories.

Huh, really? I have my great-grandparents' rings, and there's three, one's most definitely a masculine one. And they got hitched in 1922.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Even though your father didn't have a ring at the time he married, Morgan, it sounds like the marriage was pretty golden.

Yes, it was. Despite the normal ups and downs of life, they were a loving couple for the whole of their lives. I had a fortunate childhood.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

My wife has lost two wedding rings, one for each pregnancy, when she lost weight from her hands, and an engagement ring.

(Was she dropping hints?)

When she lost her first wedding ring in 1972 we had no money, so she went and bought a temporary cheapy replacement from Woolworths.

That was because she was very obviously expecting, and despite the sexual revolution of the previous decade, it still wasn't common to flaunt unmarried pregnancies - she got a supercilious look from the shop-girl.

She is now on her third wedding ring, and barring an obstetrical miracle on a scale to overcome menopause and a hysterectomy, will probably not lose it to another pregnancy.

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
A solid gold pocket watch is much more seemly, on the grounds that it is more discreet.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The American BCP of 1928 also didn't have provision for the man to receive a ring during the marriage ceremony, although many men wore wedding rings at the time. I suspect that the inclusion of a ring ceremony for the groom was simply not part of marriage liturgies at the time, but that men in America at least did commonly wear wedding rings once hitched. My parents were married in 1942 and certainly my Dad always had worn a simple silver wedding band. Both of my paternal grandfathers did as well, though I've no idea whether that was immediately from the inception of their marriages or not.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward do/did have wedding rings.

Prince Philip and Prince William do not.

They have never been worn as wedding rings. Prince Charles wears one either behind or in front of his plain gold signet ring on the little finger of his left hand.

No-one 'in the know' expected Prince William to wear a ring. It is still unusual for aristocratic or noble (and therefore by copy derivation Upper Middle Class)males to wear a wedding ring. And they would never refer to it as a 'wedding band'.

In an updated version of Nacy Mitford's 'U and Non U' 'wedding band' would most likey be put with 'pardon' lounge' and 'toilet' as words just not used, ot it would be suggested that it refers to the musicians playing at the evening part of the wedding breakfast.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
the BBC says the rise in popularity of mens wedding rings, started with the general interest in Men's jewellery, in the 60's and 70's.

My father (born 1928, married 1951) wore a wedding ring until it had to be cut off due to his fingers swelling. That's much earlier than the BBC would suggest. I only remove mine for hand drumming.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

My wife and I had a cultural collision when we got married in 1999. I was working on the assumption that I would not be wearing a wedding ring, and she was working on the assumption I would. The custom in my family up until that point being that men to not wear wedding rings. Thankfully the ring she had chosen was fairly light and silver, and has never been a nuisance.

The other ring I wear is my Episcopal ring, and I cannot say I am overly fond of wearing it, even though it is n he small and light side for such an object. I find myself echoing the words of a bishop born almost a century before me who describe wearing his - acquired om years after his consecration - as 'useful sometimes.'

PD

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The only rings I like on males apart from singet rings with crest on little finger, is the episcopal ring on bishops. I feel they ought to be large and obvious and fall slightly to one side. And Ameythest. Alternatively a cameo like John XXIII used to wear occasionally. I'm not a fan of those sort of Vatican II things that John Paul II used to wear.

It is always a disappointment to see current Anglican bishops' rings. They look almost invisible as if the wearer were somehow embarrassed.

The pectoral corsses leave osething to be desired as well. They are usually worn too high on the chest and look better with stones or - a bit OBVIOUS.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I would be pretty miffed if a future husband of mine did not wear a wedding ring. The couple wearing plain gold bands is part of the Jewish wedding ceremony and I like it. However, I would not like an engagement ring unless we both exchanged engagement tokens.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, I would not like an engagement ring unless we both exchanged engagement tokens.

I bought my fiancée (now wife of 21 years) an engagement ring and she bought me a Rover 100 [Big Grin]

She wears a wedding ring: it has never occurred to me to wear one. None of my friends wear the . Neither my father nor my father-in-law, married in 1964 and 1963 respectively, wear one. I suspect that it is a class thing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, I would not like an engagement ring unless we both exchanged engagement tokens.
I bought my fiancée (now wife of 21 years) an engagement ring and she bought me a Rover 100

She wears a wedding ring: it has never occurred to me to wear one. None of my friends wear the . Neither my father nor my father-in-law, married in 1964 and 1963 respectively, wear one. I suspect that it is a class thing.

Probably. No married man in my broadly very working-class family would think of not wearing a wedding ring.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Probably. No married man in my broadly very working-class family would think of not wearing a wedding ring.

But it isn't that simple. My father is Chapel-going-respectable Welsh working class,born 1938. I can't think of one of his contemporaries or his generation of male relatives who wear wedding rings. The next generation of this background seem routinely to wear them. My brother, who, though not Chapel-going and now living in England, married within that broad social demographic, wore, whilst married, a wedding ring.

My father-in-law is public school educated English very upper-middle class. I can't think of one of his contemporaries or his generation of male relatives who wear wedding rings. The next generation of this background seem not to wear them. I married into that milieu and...

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Perhaps a class thing in the UK. In America AFAIK it is an almost universal social norm that married men wear a wedding ring, at least apart from on-the-job situations in which there would be health and safety issues or simply risk of losing the ring off one's finger. The only proper jewelry for most men would be the wedding ring and wrist watch. After that, university class ring is acceptable but starting to push things just a bit (and also, of course, inescapably an artifact of social class).

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, I would not like an engagement ring unless we both exchanged engagement tokens.
I bought my fiancée (now wife of 21 years) an engagement ring and she bought me a Rover 100

Lucky you! I'd rather have a car than a ring!

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

Some friends of mine wear rings (both he and she) even though they are not married. The ring, for them, is the sign of their commitment to one another.

And, on this theme, only last week I overheard someone explaining that she and her boyfriend were planning to have rings, a dress, reception, photos ... but no actual wedding. They wanted all the bits they wanted, but without the marriage bit. [Eek!]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well, of course, if you are gay - before rather recently and still in some jurisdictions - you and your partner would IME normally wear wedding rings even though not legally hitched. My partner and I certainly did for years before we were able to be legally married in Canada in 2003.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
After that, university class ring is acceptable but starting to push things just a bit (and also, of course, inescapably an artifact of social class).

A class ring — which has no British equivalent — strikes me as conveying a certain very definite message about social class: namely that the wearer is probably the in the first generation of his* family to have gone to university and thus to have entered the middle classes (the two being more closely linked in the USA than they historically have been in the UK, and reflected in such things as the fact that all commissioned officers in the US armed forces must be graduates, which has never been true of their British equivalents).

*it is usually a male thing, right?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Yes, don't think I've ever seen a woman wearing a university class ring, although they do make them. Probably some women get them while at uni and wear them until graduation but then desist once they've left the university community. I think this is true for a lot of male uni students as well. Normally you might get one of these jobbies during your last year, as you are approaching completion of your degree. You might often continue wearing it for a while after graduation, but then cease to do so after a certain amount of time or after having completed post-graduate degree(s).

Goldsmiths, University of London, does BTW offer an approximation to an American style class ring.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by manfromcaerdeon:
In the Catholic church, the marriage service includes an exchange of rings between the bride and the groom.

The Blessing of Rings follows the declaration of consent. The priest says a blessing over the wedding rings and then the couple exchange wedding rings

Groom (placing the wedding ring on his wife's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Bride (placing the wedding ring on her husband's ring finger): (Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

When I was married, it also included an item of silver,given from Groom to Bride, as a token of worldly goods.

Does anyone know whether that has always been in the Catholic wedding service, or whether it was added about the same time as the CofE service started to include reciprocal rings? I'd suspect the latter may be the case. Neither the BCP (the real one) nor the 1928 book included reciprocal rings. I think if the older generation of catholic husbands normally wore them, my parents' generation would have referred to it as 'a funny Irish habit', and I've no recollection of any such thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Sebby
No-one 'in the know' expected Prince William to wear a ring. It is still unusual for aristocratic or noble (and therefore by copy derivation Upper Middle Class)males to wear a wedding ring. And they would never refer to it as a 'wedding band'.

In an updated version of Nancy Mitford's 'U and Non U' 'wedding band' would most likely be put with 'pardon' lounge' and 'toilet' as words just not used, or it would be suggested that it refers to the musicians playing at the evening part of the wedding breakfast.

Sebby, I'm sure you're onto something there.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Some friends of mine wear rings (both he and she) even though they are not married. The ring, for them, is the sign of their commitment to one another.

And, on this theme, only last week I overheard someone explaining that she and her boyfriend were planning to have rings, a dress, reception, photos ... but no actual wedding. They wanted all the bits they wanted, but without the marriage bit.

There could be many reasons for not having a ceremony-- if you're on public assistance you get more if you're not legally married, or if there's an inheritance or pension involved.

Or if you just plain think marriage is an antiquated institution and you just want to have a party.

I also know some heterosexual couples refusing to get legally married until homosexual couples are afforded the same rights.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, don't think I've ever seen a woman wearing a university class ring, although they do make them. Probably some women get them while at uni and wear them until graduation but then desist once they've left the university community.

The only person I know who wears a university class ring is my little sister, who went to a very small college in Virginia that was very big on traditions.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by manfromcaerdeon:
In the Catholic church, the marriage service includes an exchange of rings between the bride and the groom.

The Blessing of Rings follows the declaration of consent...
Does anyone know whether that has always been in the Catholic wedding service, or whether it was added about the same time as the CofE service started to include reciprocal rings?

Yes, it's always been in the Catholic wedding service, or been in it for a long time. It's included in the Roman Ritual.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Yes, it's always been in the Catholic wedding service, or been in it for a long time. It's included in the Roman Ritual.

It's also always been in the Orthodox wedding service (or, more properly, the betrothal service, which is normally done immediately before the wedding service). I can't imagine that we started doing it when the CoE started doing it. It's far more likely, when something is part of both RC and OC practice, that it's something that has been done for the last thousand years or so.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've just looked up my c1924 Daily Missal and the groom gives a ring to the bride, but not the other way round.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Josephine - your Father Vassily link isn't working.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Lucky you! I'd rather have a car than a ring!

Too right. It was a 1961 P4 and, by a long chalk. The nicest car I have ever owned.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

A gay friend did tell me that a wedding ring has its uses. At a drinks party when he sees one on the person talking to him, he tends to wind up the converstion and move to someone more interestng. haha

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Richard Feynman said he had better luck getting lucky with a wedding ring than without.

@venbede: try now.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Lucky you! I'd rather have a car than a ring!
Too right. It was a 1961 P4 and, by a long chalk. The nicest car I have ever owned.

My father had 3 - a 90, a 105S and then a 110; all cars of very high quality engineering and construction. Remember the way that the front suspension was in an oil bath, rather than needing greasing? The trouble was that they were nowhere near as roomy as the Buicks he had bought until quotas on US imports took them off the market. My sisters and I were growing, and we were very glad when he bought his fintail Benz. Perhaps though, you were thinking off piston rings rather than wedding ones

A lead in to the OP after that little tangent. Wedding bands for men really started to be worn here in the early 1970s. Until then, they were associated with men who used far too much Brylcreem on their thinning hair. When were married in the late 70s, they were almost standard. I've worn mine ever since and it would now need cutting to remove it - it's shrunk over the years.

[ 09. August 2012, 06:59: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In the USA in the 1950's, "double ring ceremonies" did occur, but they were still novel enough to be described as such in newspaper stories.

Certainly not the situation Out West where I grew up. Men of my father's generation (married shortly after WWII) invariably wore a wedding ring, and my grandfather (b. 1876, married 1923) did as well. In fact, it would have been thought unusual for a married man NOT to wear one, though I'm sure there were some occupations where they weren't worn due to hazards.

Even today the local newspaper still includes the phrase "double ring" in wedding announcements, even though virtually every couple who submits such an announcement has one. That might not be the case for those who have a quick civil wedding.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
...only last week I overheard someone explaining that she and her boyfriend were planning to have rings, a dress, reception, photos ... but no actual wedding. They wanted all the bits they wanted, but without the marriage bit.

On the other hand, my brother and his wife had the dress, reception, minister, party, etc., but they were already married. They had set a date and made arrangements, then run off the Nevada a few months beforehand. Some guests at the wedding knew they were already married, some didn't, but everybody had a good time.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
...only last week I overheard someone explaining that she and her boyfriend were planning to have rings, a dress, reception, photos ... but no actual wedding. They wanted all the bits they wanted, but without the marriage bit.
On the other hand, my brother and his wife had the dress, reception, minister, party, etc., but they were already married. They had set a date and made arrangements, then run off the Nevada a few months beforehand. Some guests at the wedding knew they were already married, some didn't, but everybody had a good time.

Oh I think there should be something called 'getting married' which anyone including singlies can do. You just have to dress up like a merangue for a day and get loads of presents.

Perhaps if you are not married by the time you are 35, you should just get all the presents anyway.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In the USA in the 1950's, "double ring ceremonies" did occur, but they were still novel enough to be described as such in newspaper stories.
Certainly not the situation Out West where I grew up. Men of my father's generation (married shortly after WWII) invariably wore a wedding ring, and my grandfather (b. 1876, married 1923) did as well. In fact, it would have been thought unusual for a married man NOT to wear one, though I'm sure there were some occupations where they weren't worn due to hazards.

Even today the local newspaper still includes the phrase "double ring" in wedding announcements, even though virtually every couple who submits such an announcement has one. That might not be the case for those who have a quick civil wedding.

The thing is, I'm not sure the ceremonies necessarily included a reciprocal exchange of rings, even though the husband might start wearing a wedding ring once married. Certainly the 1928 BCP of TEC didn't have a reciprocal ring ceremony, so I suppose that until the Liturgies for Trial Use emerged in the early 1970s, any reciprocal exchange of rings in the marriage rite would have been an idiosyncratic and unauthorised bit of tinkering whenever it may have occurred amongst American Episcopalians. I'm assuming that it was likely so too for many other denominations. Male wedding rings may have been very usual in America even when the reciprocal exchange of rings in the wedding rite was not done or certainly wasn't the usual thing.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

When I was married in 1982, I followed the older custom and gave (but did not receive) a wedding ring. To mark our tenth anniversary, my wife presented me with a ring, which I have worn ever since.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Wedding rings for men in the UK were very rare until the 20th century Wars, after which many men returned home liking the idea, having seen soldiers from other cultures wearing them, esp RC.

And yes, among the UK military "officer class", including Royalty & the nobility, it became customary to wear only a signet ring on the least dominant hand. It has been considered uncouth & flashy for a man to wear any other kind of ring.

The Prince of Wales, I understand, began the practice, now often seen among military officer types, of wearing his wedding ring under the signet

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Interestingly, though, King George V wore a wedding ring on the third finger. But, then again, he was one the dullest characters ever to walk the earth.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Maybe he was dull, but he was also subtle. George V and Queen Mary, probably quite consciously, did much to promote the modern notion of British Royalty, the walkabouts and so on.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Not so good at parenting, though, they say!

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Oh he had rather a good line that I wish had resonated with a church full of totally out of control children, and couldn't care less adults yesterday, who regarded the whole thing as a joke:

'I was afraid of my father, and my children will be afraid of me.'

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I'm sure you're not entirely serious. At the risk of going totally off-topic, are you able to tell me more of your experience?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I attended a baptism yesterday that was just frightful. Clearly it had been done to please the grandparents. One godparent vanished during the service and then came back after taking a phone call. I was amazed that he didn't just take it there and then. The noise drowning out the officiant was just foul. Mercifully it was in the afternoon or the morning service would have been ruined. They were all professional people.

All I could think of was my advocation on here of almost indescriminate baptism and I cringed with embarrassment and apology.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

bit off topic sorry. Most of the men were wearing wedding rings.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

That sounds terrible. My Vicar made me do similar things as a curate. He wasn't there, of course.

But he did wear a wedding ring of the kind I hate - like a signet ring but with a blank face. Like him, really.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I have never worn a ring of any kind. I find them annoying. My wife wears or doesn't wear her wedding ring according to mood/activity. It doesn't bother me. If you love someone, it takes more than the presence or absence of a ring to trouble that love.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...a church full of totally out of control children...

I believe that "free-range" is the usual expression, at least in these parts.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That expression tends to make me feel hungry.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

In an A-C parish (TEC) where I worked many, many years ago, there was one married priest who assisted/celebrated from time to time. (The staff clergy were all unmarried -- the vestry would not approve a contract for anyone else.)

The (rather) rigid rector insisted that he leave his wedding ring in the sacristy before going to the altar. (Wrist watches were also to be left behind.)
There was even a special lockable small drawer in the sacristy where they were stashed.

Has anyone else encountered this, or was it just the aberration of that one priest?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I have come across 1 CofE male priest who of his own choice would remove his wedding ring before celebrating.

One of our female priests has different earring for days she is celebrating, they are mych smaller and discreter than her usual preference

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:

The (rather) rigid rector insisted that he leave his wedding ring in the sacristy before going to the altar. (Wrist watches were also to be left behind.)
There was even a special lockable small drawer in the sacristy where they were stashed.

Has anyone else encountered this, or was it just the aberration of that one priest?

We had a terribly controlling rector who demanded that servers remove wristwatches, but there was no restriction on wedding rings. Only males were permitted to serve when that priest was in charge.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I have come across 1 CofE male priest who of his own choice would remove his wedding ring before celebrating.

One of our female priests has different earring for days she is celebrating, they are mych smaller and discreter than her usual preference

Chatting with the priest, she tells me when she did her training she was told that jewellery, if worn should be discrete. Wedding rings were acceptable - but even engagement rings could be problematic, and nothing should show on the wrist under the robes, which would include wrist watches.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I have nothing in principle against wedding rings for both spouses, but what if someone just doesn't care for the idea of having a rigid piece of metal wrapped around one's finger all the time? I've never wanted to wear a ring since childhood and expect that it would be annoying and uncomfortable as a practicality.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I hadn't come across the practice of removing wedding rings before celebrating mass, but I can see both why & why not. What about other rings/jewellery?

I suppose it depends why you're removing it. Based on the style issue that men should never wear decorative jewellery (signet rings/wedding rings are not for decoration), perhaps should take it all off before stepping up in alter Christus.

Posted by Rural Rev (# 17274) on :

I take off my engagement ring, another ring I wear on my right hand, and a bracelet I wear before I take any services - communion or other types. I would prefer there to be no distractions and somehow it seems respectful to do this.
However the watch has to stay on - otherwise I'd be late for the next service I was dashing to - I did four on the trot - last Sunday morning!

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

It's a faff, though, isn't it? More stuff to remember.

I seem to recall the former Bishop of Ebbsfleet removing his ring of office at the ablutions and resting it on the altar until after communion. I tried that for a bit, as it looked rather good, but sooner or later a server would have had it away, so I stopped.

I suppose I reckon that decorative stuff should be off, but items specifically personal to you alone should stay.

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :

What really vexes me is that my husband can still take his off if he chooses, but mine is only an indication of how slim I was forty years ago. It hasn't been off for twenty years and is embedded...

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Ah well, my mother removes hers, but my father's is embedded!

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Discussion of weddings rings, insofar as anything liturgical is concerned, seems to have dwindled as of several posts (and a fortnight) ago. Someone has helpfully opened a dedicated thread on the topic of clergy wearing personal jewelry, so if you're interested, that's where to find it.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0