# Wedding ring or not?



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

Gentlemen

I have recently become engaged to a young lady from continental Europe, where I am currently living. (I am English). 

We got to talking about rings and she started talking about when I would buy 'my' wedding ring. 

It had never occurred to me that I would be expected to wear one. I know many Englishmen do, but I always assumed this was a somewhat naff custom from America that people had picked up from television and films (like 'you may now kiss the bride' and hired wedding suits that look like something worn by a Mississippi riverboat gambler in 1870). To me, rings on men just makes me think of chubby-fingered salesmen with a flashy ring co-ordinating with their identity bracelet and neckchain. 

My father, grandfathers, uncles, and one or two friends have never worn them and I note that HRH Prince William doesn't, though the PofW does. The Book of Common Prayer (1662) marriage service, which we will be using, does not include an exchange of rings. However, Debrett's says it is a 'matter of individual choice' as to whether a man wears one or not. 

However...my fiancee is a little upset about all this, thinking that it is some sort of snub to her; I can't seem to explain it is more about observing tradition and what I assumed was correct form. Since I live in a country where it is normal for men to wear a wedding ring, I am wondering whether I ought to?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'd acquiesce, then get used to it!!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Your choice is simple: wear the ring or get a new old lady.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

First, you are living on the continent, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Second, there is no legitimate reason for starting a marriage with a power struggle over a trifle. In fact, it is in your interest not to have your wife resent your refusal to follow a custom followed by Prince Charles. The issue appears to be important to her, after all; she is a woman, and not that important to you. On a utilitarian basis of the greatest good for the greatest number wear a ring, at least whenever she is around.


----------



## CAG (Jun 27, 2010)

Wear the ring. A simple gold band is not flashy. I really like mine, and it is the only jewelry (other than cufflinks) that I wear. I look nothing like a "chubby-fingered salesmen with a flashy ring co-ordinating with their identity bracelet and neckchain." I look like a man who loves his wife enough to tell the world I'm off the market.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

I tend to agree, actually Roetzel's book has a picture of a plain gold wedding ring which looks quite good. It's written by a German though so one has to be careful. 

I disagree however about it being a symbol of 'off the market' as in my experience, some women are inclined to be more attracted to a man who is off the market than on...


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

My opinion is that rings are for girls.



LondonFogey said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> I have recently become engaged to a young lady from continental Europe, where I am currently living. (I am English).
> 
> ...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
London Fogey: Indeed, you are correct. There may be as many female "Tom cats/hound dogs" out there as there are male versions of the same, but wear the ring anyway! Your conduct is what will or will not establish the ring as a symbol of fidelity!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Wear the ring. Fighting over this is no way to start a marriage. I keep mine on all the time, and only on occasion wear my signet ring (which moved to my left ring finger when I got married). Funny, though...when we got married, I merely suggested that I didn't want a ring. That went over like lead balloon. I never brought it up again with She Who Must Be Obeyed.

BTW...if I recall correctly, the tradition of men wearing a wedding ring is actually fairly recent; it was more of an American invention during WWII as a way for men to remember their brides "back home."


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

I'm just a naff American, but I think even having this debate with your bride to be was poor form. She made it clear that she wanted you to wear a wedding band; hardly an unreasonable request. That should have been the end of it.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

I wouldn't say we were fighting over it - I was merely surprised that my fiancee, who likes all things English, was upset over what I would consider to be merely the observance of English and Anglican tradition. 

I suppose the question is; should observance of one's national and religious tradition be subservient to recent fashions and popular ideas of 'romance'? It certainly seems to be with the fairer sex (and many men as well...)


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I'm just a naff American, but I think even having this debate with your bride to be was poor form. She made it clear that she wanted you to wear a wedding band; hardly an unreasonable request. That should have been the end of it.


I think I now know how HM the Queen felt when she was attacked for not flying the Union Flag after Princess Diana's death...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Wedding rings predate the USA by about... 1 thousand years (my guess I'm no historian). A plan gold wedding ring (sound familiar?) has been a part of Jewish marriage for so long I can't even begin to guess at the date.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

Actually, men's wedding rings are not a longstanding American custom (our oldest customs are, after all, largely English imports). The practice, if my understanding is correct, has been observed far longer in continental Europe, from whence returning GI's brought it after the world wars (especially the second). Although even in continental Europe, men's rings were not ubiquitous: like the Book of Common Prayer, the Rite of Marriage in the Catholic _Rituale Romanum_ presumes the presence of only a single ring (but has been interpreted to permit the use of two).

I would say that there is certainly no harm in wearing a wedding ring: it's a simple piece of jewelry and it's understood that it doesn't need to match the rest of a man's accessories. Nor are rings just for women: signet and university rings are perfectly traditional as well. I'm not generally one for newer practices over older (in fact, I can't think of a single other instance), but, especially if you're going to be a European, wearing a wedding band would be a sound idea under the circumstances.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

LondonFogey said:


> I always assumed this was a somewhat naff custom from America that people had picked up from television and films (like 'you may now kiss the bride' and hired wedding suits that look like something worn by a Mississippi riverboat gambler in 1870).


You know what happens when you assume.
Wedding bands are not unique to America, the De Beers diamond engagement ring is relatively new and unique to the US. If you were in Germanic lands you might be wearing your respective bands on your left hands during the engagement and moving them to your right hand at the wedding.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

LondonFogey said:


> I suppose the question is; should observance of one's national and religious tradition be subservient to recent fashions and popular ideas of 'romance'? It certainly seems to be with the fairer sex (and many men as well...)


Aswer; When the Mrs. is happy, everybody is happy!!

Now go be a good man and do as you are told.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Aswer; When the Mrs. is happy, everybody is happy!!
> 
> Now go be a good man and do as you are told.


...yes dear! :icon_pale:


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

I know that some of them were said in jest, and that's all well and good, but I can't stand the idea of "you're married, now you just do as your wife tells you". I know the OP said it wasn't a fight, but even if it was, it takes two to fight. Her desire to have him wear it is no more valid than his desire not to. Sure, comprimise on things, but comprimise doesn't mean always doing what she wants. Talk it out and come to an agreement. 

Now, in this particular instance, I would probably wear the ring. Not because she says so, but because it seems like this is VERY important to her, and not that big of a deal to you.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I was under the impression that men of western culture have worn wedding bands for a very long time. I don't see what the big deal is... if it's not hurting you, just do it. If it's good enough for her to be marked "off limits" to other men, it's good enough for you to be the same to other women!


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Hanzo said:


> Now, in this particular instance, I would probably wear the ring. Not because she says so, but because it seems like this is VERY important to her, and not that big of a deal to you.


I think this is the more important issue, if it doesn't really matter to you and it does to her then do as she wishes. However if you would prefer not to wear it all the time let her know, but still have it handy to wear when you go out together or you want to. I don't wear mine to the gym or while playing baseball because I don't like to, and I also don't wear it to the park in the summer as my fingers swell. My wife has no issue with this but I know she likes that I wear it all other times.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Is it really that horrifying to you to wear a wedding band that you need to make this big deal out of it (and it seems to me you're making as big a deal about this, if not more, than your fiance)?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Some of these replies might seem a little over-the-top, but really, marriage is all about constant compromise. Here in the states, where the me-first, I-have-to-be-true-to-myself attitude rules, the divorce rate is 50%, if not more by now. If you want to have a successful marriage, you have to give in on matters of preference and fight on matters of principle. It doesn't make you "whipped" nor will you have to refer to your wife as SWMBO. It will, however, make you a happier man.


----------



## Bond St (Sep 28, 2011)

Time to start the long term manipulation.

Wear the ring at first.

Within about 6 months, stop wearing the ring one day a week. Gradually increase the number of days not wearing the ring over a long period.

Within two years, she'll get over it get used to you both wearing the ring (she is happy), and not wearing the ring (you are happy). Then you can choose to keep it on or off for the long run.

For the record should my wife read this, I like the ring, and will continue to wear it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bond St said:


> Time to start the long term manipulation.
> 
> Wear the ring at first.
> 
> Within about 6 months, stop wearing the ring one day a week. Gradually increase the number of days not wearing the ring over a long period.


BS.

The first time I took mine off to take a shower, my old lady accused me of not wanting to be married any more and cried for three days.

That was 11 years ago.

The ring stays!!


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

This thread makes me, once again, grateful for how easy-going my wife is.

I have a ring. I bought it, I chose it, and and I like it, but my finger just isn't physically comfortable with a ring on. Fortunately, my wife doesn't consider that one of the larger issues of her life, or one of the smaller issues.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ I think that "sweating the small stuff" is inversely proportional to how long you've been married. If you've been married 10 years, are raising a couple of kids and neck deep in a mortgage, I doubt that whether or not you're wearing a ring will rank too high on the priorities list.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Good to see you back again 'Fogey! Do you ever hear from Vettriano Man?

I think there might also be a north - south of England thing here as well. As a Northerner (married to a Londoner) it never occurred to me to wear a wedding ring (none of the men in my family ever have - so far as I know). But I do not think I have been to a wedding (and the ones I have been to were mostly Anglican) for years when there have not been two rings. My wife has never been bothered by my naked fingers (again so far as I know).

Trimmer


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Having a Cartesian mind what I ask is why marry at all? Just a convention that is inefficient if you want to split it and irrelevant if you don't. You can imagine how this rationale went down with the women I have dated and/or lived together...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Titus_A said:


> Actually, men's wedding rings are not a longstanding American custom (our oldest customs are, after all, largely English imports). The practice, if my understanding is correct, has been observed far longer in continental Europe, from whence returning GI's brought it after the world wars (especially the second). Although even in continental Europe, men's rings were not ubiquitous: like the Book of Common Prayer, the Rite of Marriage in the Catholic _Rituale Romanum_ presumes the presence of only a single ring (but has been interpreted to permit the use of two).


The history here is spot-on. I consider wedding rings for men to be a European custom and a comparatively recent import to the American scene. My American grandfather never wore a wedding ring, nor did my late father-in-law. Both were very devoted to their wives. I don't wear a wedding ring either. In my book, wedding rings on men are un-American, un-manly and un-Anglican!


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Buy the wedding ring. Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to wear it all the time.

I don't wear mine all the time; I just wear it when I don't want other to be confused about my marital status.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I am very troubled by all the stereotypical references in this thread to "the fairer sex" and to women's supposedly greater susceptibility to sentimentality. Like most stereotypes, I find that they are both offensive and mostly wrong.

I've worn a wedding ring ever since my wife put it on my finger thirty-five years ago. It's never been off once. To me, the wedding ring, worn by a man or a woman, is a visible symbol of your love. It tells the world that wherever you are, alone or together, you are connected, symbolized by that ring, to another person.

Wear the ring, and be worthy of wearing it.


----------



## Shawl Lapel (Jul 5, 2010)

Happy wife, happy life. Do you expect her to wear one?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I am very troubled by all the stereotypical references in this thread to "the fairer sex" and to women's supposedly greater susceptibility to sentimentality. Like most stereotypes, I find that they are both offensive and mostly wrong.
> 
> I've worn a wedding ring ever since my wife put it on my finger thirty-five years ago. It's never been off once. To me, the wedding ring, worn by a man or a woman, is a visible symbol of your love. It tells the world that wherever you are, alone or together, you are connected, symbolized by that ring, to another person.
> 
> Wear the ring, and be worthy of wearing it.


This.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

It is so good to hear from you LF; it's been a while. Congratulations, old boy!

No males in my family have worn a ring until my marriage. I agreed to a ring but it was a signet ring. That marriage didn't go so well. Next time around, should I be so fortunate, I will not wear a wedding band.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

LondonFogey said:


> I have recently become engaged to a young lady from continental Europe, where I am currently living. (I am English). We got to talking about rings and she started talking about when I would buy 'my' wedding ring.
> It had never occurred to me that I would be expected to wear one. I know many Englishmen do, but I always assumed this was a somewhat naff custom from America that people had picked up from television and films... Since I live in a country where it is normal for men to wear a wedding ring, I am wondering whether I ought to?


Firstly, welcome back to posting, and heartiest congratulations on your engagement!

I think the last sentence quoted is the answer to the origin of the custom of the exchanging of rings by couples at their wedding - it has come from the Continent. But in Britain the custom is comparatively recent - the earliest case of it I know was that of a couple who celebrate their golden wedding this year - and I would say that only about one-third of couples have adopted it. Whether a form of words is used when the bride gives her bridegroom a ring depends on the church.

One poster on this thread has mentioned the practice in Germany, and my experience of Norway is that it is quite usual for the wife to wear her ring on her left hand and the husband on his right; of southern Europe I have no knowledge.

This choice can surely only be settled by the two of you together in the context of where you will be living - it's difficult to advise on such a personal and sensitive matter.

All posters will surely be wishing you many years of happiness together.


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

Im 19 years into my sentence.., I mean marriage.. Let me tell you mate, the ring is the least of your problems! Wear the ring, or retain a good lawyer and/or get a pre-nup! I'm totally serious here! If you are ALREADY taking issue with a bloody ring, heaven help you after the hoymoon is over!


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

Thanks for the welcomes back all - it's nice to know I've been missed! I saw Vettriano Man about a year ago and keep in occasional contact. 

I think it's interesting that most of the 'wear the ring to show you love her' response are from Americans; I think the custom of the male ring is almost universal there hence the idea that not to wear one is somehow to be lacking in love or commitment; and with the ludicrous implication that a ring somehow protects against extramarital affairs. 

It seems that the custom of my fiancee's country is much the same; whereas in the UK it is more of an individual choice (though tending towards the US view; largely I suspect due to the influence of films and television and the jewellry industry). 

Points taken about it being a trivial matter compared to other things in marriage. But then if we can't debate trivial details of clothing endlessly, what is AA for?! :biggrin:


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

DougNZ said:


> It is so good to hear from you LF; it's been a while. Congratulations, old boy!
> 
> No males in my family have worn a ring until my marriage. I agreed to a ring but it was a signet ring. That marriage didn't go so well. Next time around, should I be so fortunate, I will not wear a wedding band.


Thanks very much. I wondered about a signet ring myself. Did you wear it on your little finger or ring finger? I thought perhaps a family crest ring (of the Scottish clan to which I 'belong' in the male line but am not sure if this is quite correct as a wedding ring (if such 'correctness' exists).


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

LondonFogey said:


> Thanks very much. I wondered about a signet ring myself. Did you wear it on your little finger or ring finger? I thought perhaps a family crest ring (of the Scottish clan to which I 'belong' in the male line but am not sure if this is quite correct as a wedding ring (if such 'correctness' exists).


Being quite American, maybe I'm wrong here, but I wouldn't think a ring displaying your clan to be appropriate. IF you're going to wear a wedding ring, I would think it should have to do with your wife, rather than a representation of your family prior to her. Now, I don't know much about British heraldry, but I know that when Prince William and Kate got married, they had their coats of arms combined. If you were going to do a signet ring, maybe something along those lines? Some sort of melding of you and your wife?


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> The history here is spot-on. I consider wedding rings for men to be a European custom and a comparatively recent import to the American scene. My American grandfather never wore a wedding ring, nor did my late father-in-law. Both were very devoted to their wives. I don't wear a wedding ring either. In my book, wedding rings on men are un-American, un-manly and un-Anglican!


Considering that many of the men from WWII who brought back this tradition were in fact veterans who risked their lives for this country and chose to wear a wedding band as a reminder to themselves of what they were fighting for, I'd say your summation that it's un-American, un-manly and un-Anglican is completely off base.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

LondonFogey said:


> Thanks for the welcomes back all - it's nice to know I've been missed! I saw Vettriano Man about a year ago and keep in occasional contact.
> 
> I think it's interesting that most of the 'wear the ring to show you love her' response are from Americans; I think the custom of the male ring is almost universal there hence the idea that not to wear one is somehow to be lacking in love or commitment; and with the ludicrous implication that a ring somehow protects against extramarital affairs.
> 
> ...


... so why did you even ask our advice if you're going to denounce it all?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Mute said:


> Considering that many of the men from WWII who brought back this tradition were in fact veterans who risked their lives for this country and chose to wear a wedding band as a reminder to themselves of what they were fighting for, I'd say your summation that it's un-American, un-manly and un-Anglican is completely off base.


My understanding is that it wasn't so much veterans who imported the custom (from their European war brides, perchance?), as something pushed by the jewelry industry, starting in the post-WWI era and going into high gear after WWII. Moreover, if said veterans "chose to wear a wedding band as a reminder to themselves of what they were fighting for," it would imply that they were married prior to the conflict (when by all accounts, male wedding bands were much less common). I might mention that my father-in-law was a veteran of the European theater in WWII.

Sad to say, but I doubt if wartime military service, even combat service, immunizes a man from being "pussy whipped" in later life.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

There's nothing "pussy whipped" about a man wearing a wedding band.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> There's nothing "pussy whipped" about a man wearing a wedding band.


There's a surprising amount of vitriol around this subject - it's "not manly to wear a wedding ring"! I wear a ring mostly because it tells women I'm not available. Otherwise I would have to beat them off with a heavy stick. I find my stick to distort whatever briefcase I choose to carry on that particular day.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

joenobody0 said:


> There's a surprising amount of vitriol around this subject - it's "not manly to wear a wedding ring"! I wear a ring mostly because it tells women I'm not available. Otherwise I would have to beat them off with a heavy stick. I find my stick to distort whatever briefcase I choose to carry on that particular day.


Same here. It's a curse.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Jovan said:


> There's nothing "pussy whipped" about a man wearing a wedding band.


I believe any man who tries to maintain a harmonious marriage with one of the foul-tempered creatures that comprise the opposite sex is to a considerable degree "pussy whipped" whether he admits it or not!


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

The "custom of the male ring" is nowhere near "universal".
Less than 50% of married American men wear a ring.



LondonFogey said:


> I think it's interesting that most of the 'wear the ring to show you love her' response are from Americans; I think the custom of the male ring is almost universal there hence the idea that not to wear one is somehow to be lacking in love or commitment; :biggrin:


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

I'm pretty young, so my experience is relatively limited, but before reading this thread, I had never heard of a man _not_ wearing a wedding ring. Is this regional within the U.S.? A custom that varies by religious background?


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

Always remember the three rings of marriage:

1 - The engagement ring.
2 - The wedding ring.
3 - The Suffer-Ring!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I believe any man who tries to maintain a harmonious marriage with one of the foul-tempered creatures that comprise the opposite sex is to a considerable degree "pussy whipped" whether he admits it or not!


You seem to have some strong feelings about marriage and women. All I can say at this point is that we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Indeed, member thoughts on this issue do seem to be of a stark black or white character. Alas, it seems that perhaps a bitter perspective on domestic harmony may be tempered in the fires of failed relationships! Could the old adage be true..."Hell hath no fury like a woman (or man, as the case may be) scorned?"  :icon_scratch:


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

DG123 said:


> The "custom of the male ring" is nowhere near "universal".
> Less than 50% of married American men wear a ring.


Where did you get this information? Is it made up?...

In my experience, men wearing a wedding ring in the US is near universal.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> I am very troubled by all the stereotypical references in this thread to "the fairer sex" and to women's supposedly greater susceptibility to sentimentality. Like most stereotypes, I find that they are both offensive and mostly wrong.


Where there is smoke there is usually fire, not always, but why risk it??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JLibourel said:


> I believe any man who tries to maintain a harmonious marriage with one of the foul-tempered creatures that comprise the opposite sex is to a considerable degree "pussy whipped" whether he admits it or not!


You said it, Brother!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Honestly, I am somewhat suprised at the extreme feelings about wearing or not wearing a wedding ring that we have seen expressed in this thread. At my core, perhaps I am a romantic (there are those who would argue against that supposition!), but I designed my future (at the time) wife's engagement and wedding rings and had them made by a jeweler. My wife, putting a lot of thought into the effort, designed my wedding ring and had it crafted by a custom jeweler. I was touched by the thoughtfullness, effort and yes, love that went into that ring. Indeed, I am still touched and perhaps that is why those nice men in the white coats from the institution keep trying to take me home with them!


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

DG123 said:


> The "custom of the male ring" is nowhere near "universal".
> Less than 50% of married American men wear a ring.


I'll wait a moment or two before raising the BS flag on this one, but only a moment or two. Where did you get this information? I've travelled all over this country and have found it VERY rare to find men not wearing their wedding rings.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

I came across this article on the subject:*

Howard, Vicki.*
_A "Real Man's Ring": Gender and the Invention of Tradition_
Journal of Social History - Volume 36, Number 4, Summer 2003, pp. 837-856

Here's a bit of it:


While wedding bands for men were not a completely new phenomenon in the United States around 1940, neither were they "tradition." In fact, no one tradition existed changeless throughout the Western world or descended in a linear fashion from a single national origin.

Wedding bands for men had a complex liturgical history that changed over time and varied in different cultures. From late nineteenth-century German Jewish brides who lobbied their rabbis to adopt the groom's ring in order to bring a sense of equality to the ritual, to brides in World War I-era England who debated the question of whether men should have to wear rings as was custom in many "continental countries," male wedding bands made brief appearances in the Western world at different times.

In the United States during World War Two, the Jewelry Industry Publicity Board campaigned widely to promote "the story of the double ring service." Using radio, trade publications, movies and newsreels, the publicity reached schools, clubs, factories, home economics departments and country newspapers. The campaign and other efforts were successful.

According to a 1947 Fortune magazine article titled "Ring Twice," from the end of the Depression to the late 1940s, the percentage of double ring as opposed to single ring marriages increased from 15 to approximately 80 percent. The article noted that there was "a time when it was considered odd in the United States for males to wear wedding rings. But those who indulge in the practice now can be assured of being perfectly acceptable."

In the 1940s and 1950s, the ceremony crossed denominational lines, appearing in Catholic, Unitarian, Baptist, and Methodist churches, among others. Although it is difficult to say for certain, it seems that civil ceremonies followed the trend as well.

The drift of the argument (from the Abstract) is that "the American double ring ceremony and the groom's wedding band can be traced to advertising and promotional campaigns by the jewelry industry in the 1940s. . . . The success of this invented tradition during the World War Two and early postwar context provides a window into a time when a new cult of marriage was working its way into the national discourse. [A comparison is made with] the story of the 1920s male engagement ring -an invented tradition that failed- arguing that jewelers were only able to change custom when such practices resonated with their potential audience".


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Trimmer said:


> The drift of the argument (from the Abstract) is that "the American double ring ceremony and the groom's wedding band can be traced to advertising and promotional campaigns by the jewelry industry in the 1940s. . . .


OK.

And since Anniversary cards are a construct of the greeting card industry, I won't get one of those either and see how far that gets me!!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

+1

Trimmer, thank you for the article.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

LondonFogey said:


> Thanks very much. I wondered about a signet ring myself. Did you wear it on your little finger or ring finger? I thought perhaps a family crest ring (of the Scottish clan to which I 'belong' in the male line but am not sure if this is quite correct as a wedding ring (if such 'correctness' exists).


As the signet was something of a concession I wore it on my left ring finger rather than little finger. That said, it was an onyx signet in white gold so it wasn't really bound to follow seal ring convention.

Next time (?) I will probably have my seal ring sized to wear on my ring finger. To me it's a pledge of loyalty to my family, which is even bigger than the pledge to my bride. A clan ring, in my mind, is much the same; the ring represents your family and lineage, and - not to demean your wedding at all - you and your bride are but a chapter in that story.

In my case, I couldn't give two hoots that I would be wearing a seal ring on the 'wrong' finger; I would be entitled to it, be wearing it as a married man, and anyone with half an ounce of intelligence and decency would respect my choice.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

LondonFogey said:


> I suppose the question is; should observance of one's national and religious tradition be subservient to recent fashions and popular ideas of 'romance'? It certainly seems to be with the fairer sex (and many men as well...)


Actually the question is, "should observance of one's national and religious tradition be subservient to the wishes of the woman I'm about to swear my life to serve," and in that case, if the answer isn't self-evident, you shouldn't get married.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

jackmccullough said:


> I am very troubled by all the stereotypical references in this thread to "the fairer sex" and to women's supposedly greater susceptibility to sentimentality. Like most stereotypes, I find that they are both offensive and mostly wrong.
> 
> I've worn a wedding ring ever since my wife put it on my finger thirty-five years ago. It's never been off once. To me, the wedding ring, worn by a man or a woman, is a visible symbol of your love. It tells the world that wherever you are, alone or together, you are connected, symbolized by that ring, to another person.
> 
> Wear the ring, and be worthy of wearing it.


AMEN!


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

The ring?? Who does not want to wear the ring?!?!?!?


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

PTB in San Diego said:


> This thread makes me, once again, grateful for how easy-going my wife is.
> 
> I have a ring. I bought it, I chose it, and and I like it, but my finger just isn't physically comfortable with a ring on. Fortunately, my wife doesn't consider that one of the larger issues of her life, or one of the smaller issues.


Same here. I wear mine in the winter, but when it gets warm outside, my hands swell enough that the ring is uncomfortable, so I leave it at home during the summer. If my wife insisted, I suppose I'd tough it out and wear it more, but I appreciate that she is understanding enough not to make a big deal out of this.


----------



## LeonS (Apr 23, 2008)

I don't wear my ring and my old lady is absolutely fine with it. There are two reasons I don't: it causes me discomfort when I have it on (the size is fine) and I don't believe men should wear rings, my wife actually agrees.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I didn't think I would want to wear a ring because I thought it would be uncomfortable. I gave it a shot and I was surprised how easy it was to get used to it and how how much I like it. It nice to advertise that I'm married - it actually helps me avoid a lot of uncomfortable situations. I occasionally take it off at my office while working and I take it off while I'm at the gym, but I often find myself missing it even when in those situations.

If it would make your wife happy, I would suggest giving it a shot. Be honest with your wife how you feel about it, and leave open the possibility that you may want to stop wearing it at some point (and that such decision will not be a sign of your diminished commitment/love).

My father stopped wearing a wedding ring about a year into his marriage with my mother. It was just too uncomfortable for him. They've been married for about 40 years.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I've never heard anyone getting up in arms about this "issue" before, much less demonising it as a symbol of feminine control over manly rights or something. Why is it only okay when she wears it?


----------



## augustin (Jan 19, 2007)

I put my ring on 31 years ago, and have not noticed it since. My wife's fingers swell with weather changes to the point where rings are uncomfortable. So I wear a ring, but she doesn't.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

My wife and I are in our 39th year of marriage. We have a wonderful relationship and love each other deeply. She would be fine whether I wore a ring or not. I choose to wear one to honor the love of my live and celebrate our life together. May sound sappy to some, but as for me I don't look at my wedding band as a fashion item or accessory. It is a symbol of devotion I take pride in wearing. I can't remember the last time I took it off. Frankly, I don't understand the problem.

Our original rings were very wide. I felt uncomfortable with mine. I often did not wear it. My wife had no problem with that. However, I wanted to wear one for the sentiments stated above and picked one out that was thin and suited me better. It was my choice.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

After a mere 27 years of marriage, my perspective is limited. But I wear a gold band as a symbol of our commitment. If you don't believe symbols have any value, then don't empower a piece of jewelry. I personally would find that life loses some of its meaning without symbols. I furthermore, without caring what anybody else thinks about me or my happy marriage, have learned that we all contain a great deal of selfishness that we (at times painfully) allow to be extracted for the sake of loving relationships, be they spouses or children. Here ends today's sermon.


----------



## PhilipJames (Jul 31, 2011)

I find this thread hilarious as a married American man who does not wear a wedding ring. Neither does my wife for that matter. I could care less if other men know she is married. She knows she is married, and I know I am married. That is enough to avoid "awkward situations". Initially, we eloped and thought we would find some rings that we really liked, but we never did and now, years later, we are perfectly happy without them.
I think the idea that a man should just do whatever his wife says regardless of his own opinions to make her happy is ridiculous. A lifetime of acquiescing to her wants and pushing his aside his own will end with him full of resentment towards her. 
I would argue that a man who does not wear a ring because he simply does not want to wear one is much less likely to stray or do something untoward than a man who wears one against his will because his wife "makes" him to do so. I have no problem with men who wear rings because they like them or because to them they symbolize something important. I have a problem with people who do things they do not believe in because they are just doing as they are told.
Are men who do whatever their wives want simply to avoid conflict and drama really happy in the long run?
Do you what you want. If she is adamant that you wear the ring, maybe she is not the right woman for you.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I wonder if you guys (I stop short of using the term "gentlemen") would say half the things you do in the presence of ladies.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

I'd probably not have paid any attention to it were it not for this thread but did anyone notice that in the wedding scene in Downton Abbey last night only the lady wore a ring? 

Chris.


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd acquiesce, then get used to it!!


Amen!!



JLibourel said:


> I believe any man who tries to maintain a harmonious marriage with one of the foul-tempered creatures that comprise the opposite sex is to a considerable degree "pussy whipped" whether he admits it or not!


I could not agree more, it's almost axiomatic; harsh, but true!


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

Jovan said:


> I wonder if you guys (I stop short of using the term "gentlemen") would say half the things you do in the presence of ladies.


Come back to this thread after say 10 - 15 years of 'married life' - talk about an eye-opener!

Here in Australia a mans wife is quite often refered to as his 'Trouble and Strife' (ryming slang for Wife).. Seriously! When I first moved here I wondered why? THEN I FOUND OUT! The Aussies tell it like it is! :biggrin2:


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

PhilipJames said:


> I think the idea that a man should just do whatever his wife says regardless of his own opinions to make her happy is ridiculous. A lifetime of acquiescing to her wants and pushing his aside his own will end with him full of resentment towards her.


No kidding!? Boy that sure explains allot! :crazy:

"Wanted to Trade: Wife for Pig Dog -- Send picture of Pig Dog!" 
(quote from Australian classified ad) :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Reading through this thread, I am developing a better understanding of at least one of the forces that seem to be driving the ever increasing rates of divorce, we see being reported, seemingly throughout the world! Perhaps the reality is that we seem to invest more energy in the selection of Alden's, AE's or other fine footwear, than we do in the selection of our significant others (how's that for politically correct?).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps the reality is that we seem to invest more energy in the selection of Alden's,


Aldens can be re-shod and last forever.

They don't talk or nag while the TV is on.


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Aldens can be re-shod and last forever.
> 
> They don't talk or nag while the TV is on.


...and they look great, even first thing in the morning!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Well that's assuming that you have used the MAC method and buffed them properly the night before!


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I wonder if you guys (I stop short of using the term "gentlemen") would say half the things you do in the presence of ladies.


I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would absolutely say the same things in front of her. A significant other should add to your life, not hamper it. If I felt that I couldn't be myself or speak my mind, then it is an unhealthy relationship to begin with.


----------



## absent_prof (Apr 20, 2011)

Trimmer said:


> I came across this article on the subject:*
> 
> Howard, Vicki.*
> _A "Real Man's Ring": Gender and the Invention of Tradition_
> ...


I found this article really interesting and did some research. It appears that rather than being a European vs American thing, the fact that wedding rings for men were once rare in America is more of a Protestant vs Catholic/ Orthodox thing.

Apparently the custom of exchanging rings (ie for both spouses) dates from the Roman empire and was definitely a very early part of the Roman and Orthodox betrothal service. It appears in the more "Catholic" flavoured Books of Common Prayer (such as the 1662), which replaced the Catholic liturgy in England. Apparently, the Congregationalist and Presbyterian reformers objected, and it was one of the customs they thought was "Popery" and demanded be removed from the Book of Common Prayer. A lot of these people ended up in America, as we know, and brought their beliefs with them, and the rest as they say is history.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Notes:

- In the US, male wearing of wedding rings isn't quite universal, but it is certainly predominant. It may not have been for those married prior to 1940, but we're talking about people who, by now, are over 90.

- I'm rather stunned by the people who say something along the lines of "Don't let your wife tell you what to do or you're in for trouble." If that's your way of thinking, you probably should not get married at all. It's absolutely fundamental to being married that you have to make common decisions that affect both of you, of considerably more significance than what's on your finger, including where to live, whether to have children, what to do with them, etc. If - say - my sister were to tell me that her fiance couldn't bear the enormous burden of wearing a wedding ring in order to accommodate her, I'd suggest she look for another fiance.

- While the wearing of wedding rings by men may be relatively recent, the wearing of rings by women goes back quite a ways. Just my opinion, but I suppose the reason is that the ring on the woman once indicated that she was, so to speak, "bought and paid for," and the ring (including its apparent value) not only demonstrated that but gave a clue at the price paid. This being in the days of dowries and "wife sales," which did actually exist. Those days are, of course, long past. I suppose it should follow that nobody should wear a ring, but recognizing at least a vaguely 20th-Century view of women's role (since it is, after all, the 21st already) by both wearing rings accommodates tradition while acknowledging something like legal equality.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

absent_prof said:


> ...the custom of exchanging rings (ie for both spouses)...appears in the more "Catholic" flavoured Books of Common Prayer (such as the 1662), which replaced the Catholic liturgy in England. Apparently, the Congregationalist and Presbyterian reformers objected, and it was one of the customs they thought was "Popery" and demanded be removed from the Book of Common Prayer. A lot of these people ended up in America, as we know, and brought their beliefs with them, and the rest as they say is history.


It is true that the English Puritans objected to the inclusion of giving the ring in the marriage service, but the 1662 BCP text does NOT include exchanging rings, only the giving of a ring by the man to the woman. So far as I know, continental Lutherans and Calvinists did not object to the ring (though the Church of Scotland abandoned it), and plenty of their descendants ended up in America as well.


----------



## sleats (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't wear one but then again not many of my peer group of family do either but I can understand that its a "new" concept for some and that is where the stumbling block can lie. Do what feels right but take time to ease her concerns if you decide to stand your ground and not wear one.....


----------



## absent_prof (Apr 20, 2011)

williamson said:


> It is true that the English Puritans objected to the inclusion of giving the ring in the marriage service, but the 1662 BCP text does NOT include exchanging rings, only the giving of a ring by the man to the woman. So far as I know, continental Lutherans and Calvinists did not object to the ring (though the Church of Scotland abandoned it), and plenty of their descendants ended up in America as well.


https://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html

You're correct. I looked at it again, only the woman gets a ring. Apologies.


----------



## ncdobson (Aug 25, 2011)

CAG said:


> A simple gold band is not flashy. I really like mine, and it is the only jewelry (other than cufflinks) that I wear. I look nothing like a "chubby-fingered salesmen with a flashy ring co-ordinating with their identity bracelet and neckchain."


I second this sentiment. I briefly wore a college ring just after graduation but gave it up quickly and was unbejeweled until marriage. I liked my gold band so much that I bought a 2nd two-tone white-yellow gold band for my 5th anniversary and now wear 1 on each hand. I just had my 10th anniversary and am considering a 3rd band, maybe hammered pink gold, to add in rotation.


----------



## MrSmith (Oct 18, 2011)

If you don't want to wear a wedding ring, don't. It's your wedding too. If your fiance goes off on one over this, you're probably marrying the wrong person unless you want a life of high drama. How can Jewelery be an issue? Just state your reasoning and why you don't want one, and it will filter to her family if that's what's she's really worried about. Another of the "little differences" between her culture and yours.


----------



## augustin (Jan 19, 2007)

Starch said:


> Notes:
> 
> - While the wearing of wedding rings by men may be relatively recent, the wearing of rings by women goes back quite a ways. Just my opinion, but I suppose the reason is that the ring on the woman once indicated that she was, so to speak, "bought and paid for," and the ring (including its apparent value) not only demonstrated that but gave a clue at the price paid. This being in the days of dowries and "wife sales," which did actually exist. Those days are, of course, long past. I suppose it should follow that nobody should wear a ring, but recognizing at least a vaguely 20th-Century view of women's role (since it is, after all, the 21st already) by both wearing rings accommodates tradition while acknowledging something like legal equality.


Dowries are still common in many cultures today. But so are "bride prices", where the resource flow is in the opposite direction. Rather than being full of ourselves, we should perhaps consider ourselves lucky --- requiring women to buy into the marriage is not necessarily the "natural order of things". The human sex ratio is 50:50, so historical variability has had a great effect on the variety of social institutions surrounding marriage.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

MrSmith said:


> How can Jewelery be an issue?


In other words: "I've decided it's not important, so you have to do it my way."

Loser of an argument. If a guy insists on telling his wife what she should consider important, and then goes on to insist that all decisions that are unimportant to him must nonetheless be resolved how he thinks fit, it's _she_ who's marrying the wrong person.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ Excellent post. I don't understand how the one who refuses to wear a small piece of metal is any better than the one who insists it should be worn.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

PhilipJames said:


> Are men who do whatever their wives want simply to avoid conflict and drama really happy in the long run?
> Do you what you want. If she is adamant that you wear the ring, maybe she is not the right woman for you.


"Conflict and drama" are as natural to the female sex as breathing! As one good friend of mine, who has been married for about 52 or 53 years, aptly summed it up, "They hate peace!"


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Painful to read the "feminist" perspective here, since this site is frequented by those who regret the abdication of male dress standards to the feminine world of fashion. It seems to me that no reasonable man would insist on having his wife wear anything (including jewelry) that she didn't want to wear. Intimate, personal decisions should be respected- including a man's decision not to wear a wedding band, regardless of current western convention.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

No idea how the link to a jewelry seller was inserted in my post above- I hope they are an AAAC advertiser!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

One of the things that come with being married is wearing the ring. Clearly demonstrating that your spoken for. If you don't wanna marry, don't. If you do marry, wear the ring. 

Married guys without rings sends the wrong message to their surroundings. 

The social equivalent of buttoning up your shirt three buttons. 

Also, if it's important to your girl, you wear the ring out of consideration. IMO


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

jeffdeist said:


> No idea how the link to a jewelry seller was inserted in my post above- I hope they are an AAAC advertiser!


holding my mouse up to the link it says: "Link added by VigLink". Anyone know what this is?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Anyone know what this is?


"The easiest way to monetize your content," apparently.

It's a service that attempts to create meaningful links so as to generate income for the site owner (in this case, Andy) based on click-through payments or commissions on sales or some other means.


----------



## JoshESQ (Sep 20, 2010)

Every married man I know with a happy wife wears a wedding ring. Comfort band in PT or in titanium and you are good to go.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

JoshESQ said:


> Every married man I know with a happy wife wears a wedding ring.


I deduce that you move in very limited circles.



Bjorn said:


> One of the things that come with being married is wearing the ring. Clearly demonstrating that your spoken for. If you don't wanna marry, don't. If you do marry, wear the ring.


This may be true for you. It may not be true for another. That's my polite way of saying "bollocks!".

Once again, I give thanks for my accomplished and interesting wife who does not care whether or not I wear a ring, but who cares what I bring home at night (and I'm not talking about a paycheck -- I'm talking about my own sweet self).

The attempts in this thread to lay down the law, to make statements about The Way Things Are, are laughable. The OP has promised to spend his life with his intended. From where I'm sitting, virtually everything else is a petty detail in comparison. IMO, if his bride never realizes that, then she is poorer for it. IMO.

LondonFogey, do what you need to do to make things work for you and for your relationship. No one else knows what is important or what is petty in your specific relationship.

Now... who's going to move this thread to the "everything else" forum, or to the etiquette forum?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

jeffdeist said:


> No idea how the link to a jewelry seller was inserted in my post above- I hope they are an AAAC advertiser!


You can always try spelling it "jewellery" if you take offence to this.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

PTB in San Diego said:


> I deduce that you move in very limited circles.
> 
> This may be true for you. It may not be true for another. That's my polite way of saying "bollocks!".
> 
> ...


Well, bollocks right back at you mate.

I think it's true for everybody, namely that being married and not wearing a ring is a tad fishy. I understand it's different in the US.

However, not wearing a wedding ring when your wife to be wants you to also seems like an awkward start.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn, I don't think it's as widespread a custom here in the US, but it's common enough in my experience to be considered "the norm." I agree with you that, if it's important to your wife-to-be, it should be important to you too. 

It reminds me of a scene I witnessed at a park once where a young girl, freshly-picked-dandelion in hand, ran to her mom and attempted to put the flower behind her mother's ear as an innocent token of thoughtfulness and the mom promptly slapped it out of her hand and said "Are you crazy? I am NOT wearing that!" If that had been my daughter, I would've gladly worn that weed in my lapel 'til it disintegrated.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I think it's true for everybody, namely that being married and not wearing a ring is a tad fishy. I understand it's different in the US.


Unfortunately, California is the US!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Bjorn, I don't think it's as widespread a custom here in the US, but it's common enough in my experience to be considered "the norm." I agree with you that, if it's important to your wife-to-be, it should be important to you too.
> 
> It reminds me of a scene I witnessed at a park once where a young girl, freshly-picked-dandelion in hand, ran to her mom and attempted to put the flower behind her mother's ear as an innocent token of thoughtfulness and the mom promptly slapped it out of her hand and said "Are you crazy? I am NOT wearing that!" If that had been my daughter, I would've gladly worn that weed in my lapel 'til it disintegrated.


Yes.

Maybe I'm old fashioned in this sense (not neccessarily in a good way), but I take a certain pride in truncating my own wishes when it comes to things that I realise are important for my gf.

Of course, I then know that if I want to spend 1000 SEK on a bottle of whisky or a tie, or grab a beer with the guys it's probably ok, since she reciprocates. A little giving and taking.

Generally, suppressing your own desires to a certain extent out of care for the people you do care about is what makes you a 'man'. IMO. Not that the OP is not a man, thats not the point. He may very well be ten times the man I am. This is just one tiny issue. But I think: wear the ring.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I think it's true for everybody, namely that being married and not wearing a ring is a tad fishy.


Oh, well, now that you clarify that "it's true for everybody", I am of course forced to agree. Your reasoning is perfect, and your position unimpeachable. "It's true for everybody." End of discussion.

I'll have to remember that. Excellent. Brilliant. "It's true for everybody." Fantastic.






(voice from offstage: "Honey, where did you put my ring?")


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

PTB in San Diego said:


> Oh, well, now that you clarify that "it's true for everybody", I am of course forced to agree. Your reasoning is perfect, and your position unimpeachable. "It's true for everybody." End of discussion.
> 
> I'll have to remember that. Excellent. Brilliant. "It's true for everybody." Fantastic.


A. Tad. Fishy.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Bjorn, I don't think it's as widespread a custom here in the US, but it's common enough in my experience to be considered "the norm." I agree with you that, if it's important to your wife-to-be, it should be important to you too.
> 
> It reminds me of a scene I witnessed at a park once where a young girl, freshly-picked-dandelion in hand, ran to her mom and attempted to put the flower behind her mother's ear as an innocent token of thoughtfulness and the mom promptly slapped it out of her hand and said "Are you crazy? I am NOT wearing that!" If that had been my daughter, I would've gladly worn that weed in my lapel 'til it disintegrated.


Great way to boost your child's self esteem right there. :icon_scratch: I bet she never hangs up her pictures on the refrigerator either!



Bjorn said:


> Yes.
> 
> Maybe I'm old fashioned in this sense (not neccessarily in a good way), but I take a certain pride in truncating my own wishes when it comes to things that I realise are important for my gf.
> 
> ...


That's what makes a woman, too. Both sides give and take a little in a good relationship.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> That's what makes a woman, too. Both sides give and take a little in a good relationship.


The reason that has worked over the years is because men and women are fundamentally "different." The things that are "typically" important to women are less-so to men and vice versa, so it's no big deal to give in to the desires of your partner under those circumstances. However, the more "equal" men and women become, the harder it is to find a middle ground. I hope that the copious amount of quotation marks in my post makes it clear that I'm not for reversing the effects of the women's lib movement or anything. It's just that "traditional" societal roles have become "traditional" for a reason and marriage seems (at least, in my experience) to work best when those roles are assumed. This all IMHO, IANAL, YMMV etc.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I dare you to tell my s/o that.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Have her read this and we'll call it even. I bet you she'll agree.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Nope, she wouldn't. She's the one who asked me out.


----------



## prospero1b (Mar 10, 2008)

It never occurred to either my wife or me that I should have a wedding ring; perhaps it's because we're Protestants. However, I do wear a signet ring on the little finger of my left hand and enjoy doing so.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I think it's true for everybody, namely that being married and not wearing a ring is a tad fishy. I understand it's different in the US.


So, it's true for everybody, except for the people it's different for?


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

williamson said:


> It is true that the English Puritans objected to the inclusion of giving the ring in the marriage service, but the 1662 BCP text does NOT include exchanging rings, only the giving of a ring by the man to the woman. So far as I know, continental Lutherans and Calvinists did not object to the ring (though the Church of Scotland abandoned it), and plenty of their descendants ended up in America as well.





absent_prof said:


> https://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html
> 
> You're correct. I looked at it again, only the woman gets a ring. Apologies.



The Church of England made no liturgical provision for two rings until the _Alternative Service Book_ of 1980.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> So, it's true for everybody, except for the people it's different for?


I think that to the people who take it for granted that the man also wears a ring, who will inevitably think it strange that a married man goes around without one, it will always seem strange. Which means that it's true for everybody, that not to wear one will give a lot of people the wrong idea.

It will often get that reaction, thus, true for everybody. You can't make a 'personal choice' on how other people view this.


----------

