Prince William: No wedding ring

[General Jinjur]

My dad is very attached to his ring, so I grew up thinking that was the norm. In the 46 years my parents have been married, he's never been without it. And that's even though he's a mechanic and really should go ringless to work. (And the fact that my mom finds that idiotic instead of sweet says tons about their relationship, I think!)

DH always wears his ring, which I like. I haven't had mine on in a year - my hands swelled too much while I was pregnant, and they have yet to shrink. I kind of like the feeling of finger freedom, though.

[Ceiling Fan]

My father doesn't wear his wedding ring. He's a contractor who also likes having a full set of fingers on each hand. He and Mom just celebrated their 43rd anniversary.

My ex wore his every single day, even while he was cheating on me.

The ring is a physical symbol, nothing more. If both parties are fine with the prince not wearing his ring, that's all that matters (to them, the rest of us can still wonder ).

I don't think its fair to dismiss it though, its really important to some people. 

But if it's not important to the person wearing (or not wearing) the ring, how is that anyone's concern?

I think one reasonable "middle ground" is the compromise I reached with my husband (who has never been much of a jewelry wearer, and isn't all that enthused at the idea of wearing a ring).  He has a wedding ring.  He has agreed, because it matters to me, to try wearing it for a little while.  I have agreed, because I love him, that if he finds it too uncomfortable he is more than free to stop wearing it and just keep it somewhere safe.

In the end, it's his finger, and I really ought not to try to make him wear a ring.  But having the ring (even if he doesn't wear it) satisfies a pretty significant chunk of what I find important surrounding wedding rings (i.e. symbol of our committments to each other -- specifically, for his ring, mine to him).

I think 'the middle ground' would be to have the ring, but only wear it on formal occasions. So I don't really expect Kate to wear that big honking ring when she's doing dishes or grocery shopping, but as she accepted it, she should wear it to state or wedding-related events.

I don't know what CofE marriage ceremonies are like, but if rings are part of the ceremony, then he has 'formally' accepted the ring, and should wear it while attending other ceremonies or events of similar formality.

If he never wants to wear a ring, ever, then it shouldn't be part of the mariage ceremony, IMO.

[Everlee]

My parents never wore their wedding rings so it was never a big deal for me.  I wore mine for a few years until I had DD2 and lost so much weight that it slid around.  I took it off and never put it back on.  Husband wore his until it got lost at work and was broke.  He found it a while later cut in half and in a straight line!

I think it's no big deal if you don't wear a ring and it's really nobody's business but theirs.

[Dindrane]

I imagine the Church of England wedding ceremony is similar to the Episcopalian one in the US.  The language my husband and I used when we got married was, "[Name], I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you, in the Name of God."

It is entirely possible, and not at all inconsistent (in my opinion) for my husband's ring to be a symbol of my vows to him, even if he chooses not to wear it.

I don't really understand why an occasion of formality means that someone must wear any wedding-related jewelry, or why an unwillingness to wear a wedding ring at such an event means he/she shouldn't have said ring at all.

[TeamBhakta]

I imagine the Church of England wedding ceremony is similar to the Episcopalian one in the US.  The language my husband and I used when we got married was, "[Name], I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you, in the Name of God."

It is entirely possible, and not at all inconsistent (in my opinion) for my husband's ring to be a symbol of my vows to him, even if he chooses not to wear it.

I don't really understand why an occasion of formality means that someone must wear any wedding-related jewelry, or why an unwillingness to wear a wedding ring at such an event means he/she shouldn't have said ring at all.

I don't get it either. Unless there's some sort of Let's Make A Deal game at these formal occasions I'm not aware of. ("I'll give $100 to the first person with a Jane Seymour designed wedding ring in the audience.")

My parents haven't worn wedding rings for several decades. They're just tucked away in a safe place. Mom's fingers swelled up after her pregnancies and Dad does work where jewelry is a safety hazard.

[TamJamB]

I don't think anybody should be vetoing anything, if that was aimed at me then I'm not sure where the word veto came from!

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.  This is a topic that has come up a number of times, with comments such as 'dealkiller' and 'he'll just need to suck it up,' frequently arising.

I believe these are things that need to be discussed and agreed upon before a marriage takes place.

Agreed.  But I also realize that compromise isn’t always possible.  A compromise mentioned here (having a double-ring ceremony, with the groom only wearing his ring for special occasions) still wouldn’t have worked for my father.  My parents were married 53 years ago in a single-ring ceremony.  My dad was a welder and chose not to wear a ring for safety reasons.  And he didn’t want to have a double-ring ceremony because – to him – accepting a ring he had no intention of ever wearing would have felt like an empty gesture – not quite a lie, but still not something he wanted to do during his wedding vows.  As it happened, my mother didn’t care either way (and in 1957, single-ring ceremonies were as common as double-ring); but if she had cared, no real compromise would have been possible – one of them would have had to prevail and the other would have had to give in… This happens sometimes.  And, in my opinion, when compromise is not possible, then the person most affected should be the one to prevail.  And, in the case of jewelry, the person who has to wear the jewelry is the one most affected.

A man who isn't completely onboard with my decision to keep my name after marriage and agrees with my reasoning as to why isn't one I'd be marrying.

  Perhaps.  People are complicated, though.  Suppose you did fall in love with a man who was otherwise completely perfect for you but who had strong feelings about your taking his name.  Let’s say that, despite his being a 100% modern man otherwise, he just felt strongly about the symbolism of giving his name to his wife.  Theoretically, a compromise might be possible here -- you might be willing to take his name during the ceremony, say, but only use it socially thereafter.  Legally and for work-purposes, you would keep your maiden name…  But if this wouldn’t work for you, then there you’d be – with no compromise possible.  One of you would have to ‘win;’ and one of you would have to ‘lose.’ 

[Larrabee]

A man who isn't completely onboard with my decision to keep my name after marriage and agrees with my reasoning as to why isn't one I'd be marrying.

  Perhaps.  People are complicated, though.  Suppose you did fall in love with a man who was otherwise completely perfect for you but who had strong feelings about your taking his name.  Let’s say that, despite his being a 100% modern man otherwise, he just felt strongly about the symbolism of giving his name to his wife.  Theoretically, a compromise might be possible here -- you might be willing to take his name during the ceremony, say, but only use it socially thereafter.  Legally and for work-purposes, you would keep your maiden name…  But if this wouldn’t work for you, then there you’d be – with no compromise possible.  One of you would have to ‘win;’ and one of you would have to ‘lose.’ 

Nope, sorry!  For me, that one is an absolute must.  Its an indicator of shared values.  Keeping my name would be so so very important to me that any man I might marry would have to be the kind to fully understand my reasons and agree with them or we'd never have got as far as an engagement!

I'm not sure I agree with "in my opinion, when compromise is not possible, then the person most affected should be the one to prevail."  I think if compromise is definitely not possible but the issue is not a relationship-ender then the person who feels the most strongly and has the deepest held beliefs and values about the issue should be able to expect that their loving partner respect this and put that above their less strongly held beliefs.

[TamJamB]

I agree when it's a situation where one party feels stronger about an issue than the other.  In that case, the person with the stroner feelings should prevail 

But what if both parties feel equally strongly?  I'll use my parent's as an example again: as I mentioned, my dad fels strongly that a double-ring ceremony when he had no intention of wearing a ring would dilute the veracity of his wedding vows.  Let's say that my mother had felt equally strongly, as some here do, that a single-ring ceremony was not as symbolically valid as a double-ring... It isn't a deal-breaker, they still want to marry, but one of them is going to have to bend. 

[Larrabee]

I agree when it's a situation where one party feels stronger about an issue than the other.  In that case, the person with the stroner feelings should prevail 

But what if both parties feel equally strongly?  I'll use my parent's as an example again: as I mentioned, my dad fels strongly that a double-ring ceremony when he had no intention of wearing a ring would dilute the veracity of his wedding vows.  Let's say that my mother had felt equally strongly, as some here do, that a single-ring ceremony was not as symbolically valid as a double-ring... It isn't a deal-breaker, they still want to marry, but one of them is going to have to bend. 

I'm on your mum's side there,  could they have juggled the words a bit so that his vows didn't seem so dependent on the ring?  Couldn't he look at it that ownership of the ring counts? 

[afbluebelle]

I am all for military pilots not wearing rings.... I hate FOD walks for when those punks lose it when they put it in their flight suit.

[TamJamB]

I'm on your mum's side there,  could they have juggled the words a bit so that his vows didn't seem so dependent on the ring?  Couldn't he look at it that ownership of the ring counts? 

I'm afraid I'm not making my point well enough. It isn't a question of one of them being right and the other wrong -- there is no 'right' side here.  Just equally strongly felt opinions. 

[Larrabee]

I'm on your mum's side there,  could they have juggled the words a bit so that his vows didn't seem so dependent on the ring?  Couldn't he look at it that ownership of the ring counts? 

I'm afraid I'm not making my point well enough. It isn't a question of one of them being right and the other wrong -- there is no 'right' side here.  Just equally strongly felt opinions. 

What are you asking me then?  What I'd do in this position?

[Dindrane]

I agree when it's a situation where one party feels stronger about an issue than the other.  In that case, the person with the stroner feelings should prevail 

But what if both parties feel equally strongly?  I'll use my parent's as an example again: as I mentioned, my dad fels strongly that a double-ring ceremony when he had no intention of wearing a ring would dilute the veracity of his wedding vows.  Let's say that my mother had felt equally strongly, as some here do, that a single-ring ceremony was not as symbolically valid as a double-ring... It isn't a deal-breaker, they still want to marry, but one of them is going to have to bend. 

I'm on your mum's side there,  could they have juggled the words a bit so that his vows didn't seem so dependent on the ring?  Couldn't he look at it that ownership of the ring counts? 

Larrabee, I think what TamJamB is saying is that it doesn't matter whose side you (or anyone else) is on.

What matters is that when two people have directly opposing, strongly-held beliefs, there are times when a compromise actually is impossible.  There is no compromise -- there is only one person (or both people) deciding to give in and "lose" something that is important to them.  Compromise implies that both parties can be happy with the solution.  Sometimes, that actually is not possible, even if both parties accept the ultimate solution.

To give a related but slightly different example: My husband was raised Catholic, I was raised Episcopalian.  He has no more desire to be Episcopalian (or practice it) than I have a desire to be Catholic.  On top of that, neither of us saw any utility or benefit in having a wedding ceremony that attempted to combine the two religious traditions -- for me, at least, it wouldn't have been any different than just getting married in a Catholic Church (and I think for my husband, having a Catholic priest participate in some way would not have changed anything unless the ceremony had been, essentially, a Catholic one).  So ultimately, there was no compromise possible, at all.  We either got married in my church or his, and there was no way to get married in both.

So as it happened, we got married in my church, because I am the only one of us who is actually really invested in religion.  It mattered far more to me than to him, so he gave in.  It wasn't a compromise, because I gave up nothing.  But neither of us is unhappy with the outcome, so it's not a dealbreaker issue, either.  It's just a point upon which we could not compromise, even though we were able to find a solution.

[TamJamB]

Larrabee, I think what TamJamB is saying is that it doesn't matter whose side you (or anyone else) is on.

What matters is that when two people have directly opposing, strongly-held beliefs, there are times when a compromise actually is impossible.  There is no compromise -- there is only one person (or both people) deciding to give in and "lose" something that is important to them.  Compromise implies that both parties can be happy with the solution.  Sometimes, that actually is not possible, even if both parties accept the ultimate solution.

LOL  This is exactly what I meant.  Dindrane said in one paragraph what I wasn't able to get across in three lo-ong posts!  Good job!

[Larrabee]

Larrabee, I think what TamJamB is saying is that it doesn't matter whose side you (or anyone else) is on.

What matters is that when two people have directly opposing, strongly-held beliefs, there are times when a compromise actually is impossible.  There is no compromise -- there is only one person (or both people) deciding to give in and "lose" something that is important to them.  Compromise implies that both parties can be happy with the solution.  Sometimes, that actually is not possible, even if both parties accept the ultimate solution.

LOL  This is exactly what I meant.  Dindrane said in one paragraph what I wasn't able to get across in three lo-ong posts!  Good job!

Ok, well, then its not something I feel the need to get into, I've never mentioned compromise and I'm not quite sure how we've got here!