Wedding Favors

History Of The Engagement Ring

Posted on November 3rd, 2007 by Amber in Wedding Rings 2 Comments

You’d never stoop to this, but we’ve all met someone who would – a coworker who lectures her date on the five C’s (color, cut, carat, clarity, and…cost). A distant cousin who refuses to marry her boyfriend unless he coughs up a $25,000 ring. Before the advent of the ever-magnanimous DeBeers Corporation, blushing brides weren’t glued to the idea of a ring that could equal someone’s annual salary.

Truly’s Eric & Melissa, Engaged In 2005If your prospective fiancé chased lions through the Coliseum in sandals and a toga on Friday nights, your engagement ring was an iron hoop. If you were a hearty lass in 18th century Scotland, the advent of your marriage might have yielded you a bedraggled sheep. Sure, if you were Mary of Burgundy and the date on your newspaper reads 1477, you would have gotten the first diamond engagement ring in recorded history. But jewels used to require a royal pedigree. And everyone knows the closest your cousin ever got to royal was smooching a picture of Prince Harry torn from People magazine. For all their legendary luster, diamond engagement rings didn’t really hit circulation until the reign of Queen Victoria, when England’s Industrial Revolution offered common folk more disposable income. And, with it, the irrepressible urge to shop.

Your relationship can be strengthened if you and your fiancé make the decision of where that money goes together. Which becomes easier when you know that real commitment sealed with a Cracker Jacks ring is worth more than any rock – and especially if the money you didn’t spend on a stone gets you the down payment on a house. And if you can afford both house and diamond, pat yourself on the back and head for DeBeers.

Either way, be glad you didn’t get the sheep.

Related Posts Stumble Permalink

25% Off All Items at Truly Wedding Favors!

Comments (2)

  1. 1Melissa

    I am very glad I didn’t get the sheep! I know it’s hard for some to spend a lot of money on their wedding rings, but as long as you and your fiancé are on the same page, it should be fine. If you really want an expensive ring and he doesn’t think you should spend that much, then you should really spout your feelings on the subject. Otherwise it isn’t going to good when you are 5 years in and you are wishing you had a bigger diamond! Tell him what you want, but of course be reasonable :)

  2. 2Tania

    A ring is immaterial. It is only a physical reminder of the moment or memory. When he (or she) is away from you, all you have is that reminder – but it’s just that – a reminder. A ring should not replace you’re loved one so to put pressure on someone over the size and dollar value of a ring makes a mockery of what it is supposed to remind you of. The ring does not keep you warm at night, make you feel loved and protected, etc. – it is an inanimate object and given what I’ve been reading about this subject – I’m starting to think that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I truly hope that most women feel this way and sincerely wish that those who are demanding of their partners would stop and think about how they’re making their partner feel. If you truly love and care for the one you want to spend the rest of your life with, a ring shouldn’t get in the way. Seems to me that those who are intent on showing off their rings are missing the point – and maybe they’re missing something in their relationship as well. Just voicing my opinion – take it for what it is:)

Leave a comment