What the the convention for engagement and wedding rings?
Written by Admin on August 30, 2009
For women AND men: What does an occurrence anulus warrant like; what does a start band/ring warrant like; and connector do some women coiffe both, it seems? Or at diminutive they coiffe member rings… Or add more… What is the traditional convention? What most individual rings? Thanks for the information!
Related posts:
- Wedding Rings, Promises And New Beginnings Promise rings are often seen as a separate gift from...
- Making A Fashion Statement With Wedding Rings Making a fashion statement with your wedding rings is really...
- How Does The Tradition Of Engagement & Wedding Rings Work? I participate there’s the occurrence anulus on the mitt hand....
- What Are The Rules For Engagement Rings Vs. Wedding Bands? I don’t wager the mixed purposes or meanings behindhand the...
- How Are You Supposed To Wear Your Wedding Rings? When you are at the establishment try married, are you...
3 Comments to “What the the convention for engagement and wedding rings?”
Leave a Comment
Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.
12:21 pm on September 2nd, 2009
An engagement ring nowdays usually is a band with as many big stones as possible costing as much as possible, the shallow girls look for this because they want their men to be able to get them anything they want. But in no way does the engagement ring have to cost a fortune, a girl who will happily take a cheaper one is a girl who is too in love with the guy to care about robbing him blind. Also the engagement ring stones are usually only clear, not sure why, it’s rather boring.
Wedding rings are usually a solid band with no breaks or anything added to it. The solid band with no breaks is intended to symbolis that your love is never ending just like your ring.
Many women wear both rings because the engagement ring cost thousands of dollars and they see that as a sign of financial status so to continue showing it off says ‘my guy is righ and I get whatever I want’.
More information on your question that I didn’t cover can be found here; extreamly interesting site about the origin of engagement and wedding rings.
9:19 pm on September 4th, 2009
History and symbolism of the rings date back centuries to signify unity through the Earth Mother through a laurel reef. This was subsequently dropped in favour of rings that were used to denote property.
“The ring is a circle, symbolic of eternity, unity, reincarnation and the universe. In earlier times the ring was associated with the Sun and Moon. It was an object of protection, a magical guard that warded off negativity through its continuity….
Ancient civilisations regarded the circle as magical or sacred. Goddesses and gods, such as Babylonian mythology is replete with stories of the rings of Shamash and Marduk. Rings have also been linked to the zodiac, the yin/yang and the ‘magic circle’ of magicians and Wiccaus.
The ring finger was associated with magical significance. The index or ‘ring’ finger was thought to be the powerful and contain a nerve that went directly to the heart. Betrothal rings are still traditionally worn on this finger. Then, herbal medicines were applied to the body with the ring finger to strengthen the effectiveness of the cure.
Romans used the ring as indicative of betrothal, nuptials, ownership and wealth. Where nuptials were concerned, the custom of giving Pronumbum to a wedded person meant that sufficient trust was placed with a woman such that wealth was to be shared by both. (Reference 1, para 3.)
The practice of wearing rings may have derived from Greek practice where the right hand denoted power, authority and independence; the left denoted subjection and dependence. The English Book of Common Prayer administered that the ring be placed on the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand. (Reference 1, para 11)
Present day practices by those who are not fully aware of the history and significance would mean the ring bearer wearing the rings out of personal preference of fashion and impressions of half truths & half-facts; to each his/her own, my preciousss.
10:45 am on September 7th, 2009
Whether or not a couple go the engagement ring route is a decision that they should make together. Sometimes they don’t do it to save the money. While the traditional engagement ring is a diamond, I know several people who didn’t do that, including one of my sisters. Basically, the engagement ring and wedding ring should work together.
When women have both, the wedding ring goes on first and then the engagement ring. The tradition behind this is that the first ring on is closer to the heart. I don’t know of anybody who has both who doesn’t wear both of them. My mom wears both of her wedding rings. She and my dad had been married 50 yrs when he died. When she remarried a few years ago, my step-dad suggested that she wear both rings. They look nice together and I think that it was very thoughtful of him (he was married to his first wife for 52 yrs before she died, so he understands…).
Promise rings are not as old a tradition. Like engagement rings, they’re not required. I would assume that if you end up marrying the person who gave you the promise ring you’d move that ring to another finger.
I agree with the person who said that people spend way too much money on rings. I think that a lot of people (yes, mostly women) are more concerned about the ring (and then the wedding) than the marriage. I’ve seen some young couples who definitely couldn’t afford it spend a lot of money on engagement rings.