|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Wedding rings
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
manfromcaerdeon
Apprentice
# 16672
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papouli
Apprentice
# 17209
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 28 | From: New England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Even though your father didn't have a ring at the time he married, Morgan, it sounds like the marriage was pretty golden.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
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....
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Princes Charles, Andrew and Edward do/did have wedding rings.
Prince Philip and Prince William do not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the gnome
Shipmate
# 14156
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 99 | From: New England, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mettabhavana
Apprentice
# 16217
|
Posted
quote:
A solid gold pocket watch is much more seemly, on the grounds that it is more discreet.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
And are we yet alive?
Posts: 39 | From: London, England | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
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!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
