Wedding band not required.

26 Apr

Glenn Stanton is back at Boundless, now demanding that Kate Middleton demand that Prince William wear a wedding band.  Apparently the prince has decided not to wear one as a “personal choice.”  He also does not like jewelry.

My opinion about wedding bands is whatever.  I don’t think they are necessary, and the absence of one doesn’t necessarily signify anything.  My dad stopped wearing his early on in his marriage to my mom on account of work safety issues, and as far as I can tell, his not wearing it has never been an issue.  My mom wore her wedding ring, but then it got stolen when my parents moved, so now neither of my parents wear the rings they gave each other on their wedding day.

For me, the main thing that would matter is the reason for not wearing a ring.  If it’s because my future husband doesn’t want to advertise his marriage, that’s obviously going to be a problem.  If there are other considerations, then fine.  The second main consideration would be whether he would demand that I wear a ring.  A man who feels his ring is optional should also feel that his wife’s ring is optional.  I can’t imagine any other attitude not resulting in a screaming match.

As for Stanton, he goes off on how Prince Charles never wore his when he was married to Diana, and DUN DUN DUN LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE.  And now Charles wears a ring for Camilla, so clearly the absence of a ring is an ominous portent of the future for William and Kate.  Stanton also thinks that William’s refusal to wear a ring is William’s refusal of Kate’s commitment to him because that is what the ring is a symbol of.  Stanton ends the post with a quote from Tina Fey’s Liz Lemon character from 30 Rock.  Why do they let this guy write?  At least Ted Slater and Motte Brown didn’t come across like chiding church ladies.

Advertisements

31 Responses to “Wedding band not required.”

  1. Simon Grey April 26, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    He quoted Liz Lemon. Your argument is invalid.

  2. Paige April 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Wedding rings are to communicate to outsiders that you are married.

    NOBODY IN THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD IS GOING TO NOT KNOW PRINCE WILLY ISNT MARRIED.

  3. Paige April 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    *isn’t = is

  4. jz April 26, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    So, Charles did not wear a ring for Diana, but does wear one for Camilla? I’m generally agnostic wrt. rings, but I find that significant.

  5. Dan in Philly April 27, 2011 at 6:02 am #

    I’m with Paige here, everyone in the entire english speak world knows he’s married.

    To average schmoes like me, I see a man’s unwillingness to weat a ring (unless for safety reasons as you mention) is akin to a woman’s unwillingness to take her husband’s name. It’s not a real good way to start off the marriage. When a man wears a ring, even if he removes it there is still a mark. Though in today’s world that does not stop all women, it still means something. If a man will not wear a ring for no good reason, I would always assume it’s to make it easier for him to run around on his wife.

  6. Lily April 27, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    Upper class men, even upper middle class men in England traditionally didn’t wear wedding rings, though often a signet ring on their little finger, but they’d have worn it before marriage too.

    It’s changed in recent generations. Perhaps traditionally in England no man wore a wedding ring and it just took the upper/upper middle classes longer to also wear them, I’m not sure.

    I don’t think it’s true that Prince Charles didn’t have a wedding ring with Princess Diana as I remembered a story about this. I just did a quick google and got the following
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-17091531-charles-casts-off-wedding-ring.do

  7. jack April 27, 2011 at 7:37 am #

    I liked his desperate plea for her to make him wear a ring.

    Is this guy for real?

  8. Lover of Wisdom April 27, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    My parents only wear their wedding rings when they go out to special events, dinners, or functions. They don’t for everyday stuff. I think that is fine.

  9. y81 April 27, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    What’s really boundless is the capacity of American evangelicals to take their particular local customs and exalt them into the word of God. Total Pharisaism. The Puritans didn’t wear wedding rings (either sex) and they had much higher marriage rates, lower divorce rates, lower illegitimacy rates, and (from all that appears) lower adultery rates than American evangelicals today.

  10. Silas Reinagel April 27, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    I fail to see the intrinsic significance of putting a piece of metal around one’s finger.

    What matters is the attitudes and actions of both parties, not the wearing of a little piece of jewelry.

  11. Aunt Haley April 27, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Lily–
    Upper class men, even upper middle class men in England traditionally didn’t wear wedding rings, though often a signet ring on their little finger, but they’d have worn it before marriage too.

    Interesting, I didn’t know that. Thanks. I just checked the thread, and someone else mentioned this there as well.

  12. jack April 28, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    I also heard that Kate does not want to promise to “obey” in the vows.

    Is Glenn gonna go ape over that one?

    The complete and total pussification of male Christians is nearly complete.

  13. Lily April 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    @haley
    You’re welcome!

    I just saw this article and thought you might be interested
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8474440/David-Starkey-William-and-Kate-are-like-any-middle-class-couple.html

    “They’ve lived together, separated, got together again – they’ve done what any sensible middle-class couple does. You’ll notice that there’s not much conversation on whether she’s a virgin.”

  14. Hermes April 28, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    I also heard that Kate does not want to promise to “obey” in the vows.

    Is Glenn gonna go ape over that one?

    I thought of that and posted the following comment on the Boundless thread:

    Ah, Boundless roots out another case of an innocent girl being defrauded by one of those evil, selfish men. It’s also been reported that Kate will not be speaking the word “obey” that is part of the traditional wedding vows. Where’s the Boundless post excoriating her for that? Something tells me that if it ever appears, it will somehow find a way to blame the whole thing on William.

    It wasn’t approved.

  15. Lily April 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    Diana, Princess of Wales did not say it either, over 30 years ago.
    But this is probably likely nothing to do with KM.
    It is most likely the Palace.
    The *Archbishop of Canterbury* (who is also marrying them) has also said it is archaic.

    Prince William is also not saying he will worship her or that he will give her all his worldly goods, per the C of E Common Book of Prayer.

    FWIW I have never heard the word obey in many years of going to weddings.

    According to some quick research from this evening, the Catholics have never had the word obey so it’s not a big deal in the bigger scheme of things. Seems
    the Episcolians got rid of it in 1922, the Methodists and Lutherans dont have it in current bth I dont know history. Presumably the Jews dont have it either.

  16. lifeinlonglegs April 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    “I see a man’s unwillingness to weat a ring (unless for safety reasons as you mention) is akin to a woman’s unwillingness to take her husband’s name.” — yes, it is a rejection. Not of the person perhaps, but of the ‘being owned’ element of marriage.

    Agreed – but what man is working so constantly that any ring-wearing would put his fingers at risk? It’s all about as person not wanting a visible reminder of their responsibility and commitment to the other. What if a man bought a woman an engagement ring and she refused to wear it…? strange stuff!

    There is something about authority underlying it all – not obeying; not wearing a ring = not accepting authority: yours and the other person’s. Authority = responsibility.

  17. jack April 29, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    I thought of that and posted the following comment on the Boundless thread:

    Ah, Boundless roots out another case of an innocent girl being defrauded by one of those evil, selfish men. It’s also been reported that Kate will not be speaking the word “obey” that is part of the traditional wedding vows. Where’s the Boundless post excoriating her for that? Something tells me that if it ever appears, it will somehow find a way to blame the whole thing on William.

    It wasn’t approved.

    Church Lady don’t like criticism.

    Modern Christian Church = Evango-feminists.

  18. Kathy April 29, 2011 at 6:18 am #

    “My mom wore her wedding ring, but then it got stolen when my parents moved, so now neither of my parents wear the rings they gave each other on their wedding day.”

    There is no reason whatsoever for a woman to remove her wedding ring, unless she works in construction, as does my hubby. Hence he does not wear his wedding ring at work..
    Me, I have never removed it from my finger since the day hubby placed it on my finger fifteen years ago.

    Ain’t nothing more sexy than lying there naked in bed (alongside hubby) with only that there wedding ring on your finger.. a symbol of your love and fidelity to him..

  19. Lily April 29, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    I’ve just noticed whilst having a look at the Royal Wedding stuff that David Cameron doesn’t wear on either. (wouldn’t have even noticed if this hadn’t come up as a topic!) DC’s background is a mixture of upper middle/upper class
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1381963/SamCams-fashion-faux-pas-First-Ladys-etiquette-fail-refuses-wear-hat-Royal-Wedding-ceremony.html

    @Kathy
    “There is no reason whatsoever for a woman to remove her wedding ring, unless she works in construction”
    That’s rather prescriptive for all women except ones who live like you ;-)

    My paternal grandma didn’t wear hers much as she couldn’t allowed it at work (doctor) and she got fed up of risk of losing it so just stopped wearing it, then got out of the habit. By the time she retired, it didn’t fit anymore but by that stage it didn’t seem important to her.

    My mother (who is the ideal ‘feminine, 10 years younger wife’.. but sadly not very useful in other ways) lost both her rings when she took them off to wash her hands somewhere. My pa certainly wasn’t going to buy her new ones so that was that lol.

    Otoh some women seem very attached to their rings. I have friends who are divorced and still wear them even when divorced (I have to say they do serve a purpose in keeping men at bay but I think there’s more to it), and I noticed that about the now Duchess of Cornwall in the link I posted above about Prince Charles and his ring from his marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales.

  20. Hana April 29, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    I think one of the purposes of a wedding ring is to show strangers that a person is married. With Prince William, that’s irrelevant – the world knows he’s taken now.

    Kate isn’t the first royal bride who didn’t vow to “obey” – Diana didn’t either. Sarah Ferguson, on the other hand, did.

  21. Badger April 30, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    “What’s really boundless is the capacity of American evangelicals to take their particular local customs and exalt them into the word of God. Total Pharisaism.”

    This is possibly the top common complaint among those who are cynical about “organized religion.”

  22. Badger April 30, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Just read some of the boundless comments. Whoo hoo. Sadly most of them are of the typical pedestalizing trope that men are intrinsic commitmentphobes, and so if a man might not want to wear a wedding ring, the clucksters will be all over psychoanalyzing it: “he must be afraid of commitment! He’s running from his commitment! He wants to cheat on her! blah blah blah”

    STFU, people. Have a hot toddy and relax. If the guy was truly uncomfortable with marriage, wouldn’t a wedding ring be a silly thing to stake his claim on? I mean, he just went through a fulsomely elaborate ceremony, flirted with her father at the altar, smooched her in public and drove his babe home in a sports car with planes flying overheard. Now the most visible man in Britain is going to subvert the marriage by picking nits about a wedding ring?

    That would be a level of passive aggressive of which I don’t think most men are capable.

  23. Chris May 1, 2011 at 3:05 am #

    William is an old Etonian. He would see wearing a wedding ring as naff. Kate would be familiar with this: she went to the appropriate schools.

    And the wedding ring thing is US culture. The US is not the world. Certain Southern Baptists need to grow up.

  24. lifeinlonglegs May 1, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Chris has a point – it may seem foolish to wear a wedding ring to some, as they were originally just for the ladies… – but googling The Economist doesn’t make you expert on wedding rings. ;) [ rings symbolizing love – hmmm — I believe are Roman in origin. But that could just be too many diamond purveyors whispering in my ears. Someone correct me please!!]

  25. tspoon May 1, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Given that females (I almost said unattached) are markedly more likely to flirt with a man who IS wearing a ring, you’d think the average female would insist her man doesn’t wear one. I suppose that would make sense though …

  26. Lily May 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    I think being royalty counts a bit more than being an old Etonian :-) He was sent to Eton partly to be more like the regular folk than previous generations.

    lifeinlonglegs, that is a funny article in the Economist generally but ‘She was dazzlingly famous more than she was posh’. lol, She was a Spencer. They most likely consider themselves posher than the Royal Family, they were nearly the royals themselves.

  27. Aunt Haley May 1, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

    tspoon–
    Given that females (I almost said unattached) are markedly more likely to flirt with a man who IS wearing a ring, you’d think the average female would insist her man doesn’t wear one.

    I think the reason for this in many cases is that a taken man is “safe.” A woman can have some harmless excitement and not have to worry that the man is going to come after her and try to get sex. Obviously, this is a plan that can backfire stupendously, but that doesn’t stop people from trying.

    Lily–
    Thanks for all of the cultural lessons!

  28. Badger May 1, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    “I think the reason for this in many cases is that a taken man is “safe.” A woman can have some harmless excitement and not have to worry that the man is going to come after her and try to get sex. Obviously, this is a plan that can backfire stupendously, but that doesn’t stop people from trying.”

    I’ve often thought this. A woman can initiate and approach a married man, and if she gets rejected she can blame it on his married status instead of something about her. If he takes her up on her offer she can have a forbidden affair which heightens the sexual hotness.

  29. Kathy May 2, 2011 at 4:58 am #

    “I’ve often thought this. A woman can initiate and approach a married man, and if she gets rejected she can blame it on his married status instead of something about her. If he takes her up on her offer she can have a forbidden affair which heightens the sexual hotness.”

    Same goes if the situation is reversed..

    I had a man try and chat me up in the market some months ago.. At first I didn’t realize it, because I was in such a hurry to shop and get out.. I hate shopping.. When he kept turning up in the same aisle, and engaging me in conversation the penny dropped..

    I had my wedding ring on but this was not a deterent.. He complimented me on my fit body in such a very nice way (not sleazy) and told me that he too worked out…I mentioned that I had a husband.. Still he persisted.. Finally I said that I had to meet someone for lunch and dashed off toward the checkout..

    I phoned my husband shortly afterwards to tell him what had happened and he said.. “Well, you missed your chance didn’t you?”
    LOL!!

  30. y81 May 2, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    I would guess that a lot of married people (including myself) enjoy flirting, with no particular thought that it will lead to actual sex. It’s sort of like a well-fed house cat, which, when it gets a mouse, usually plays with it, because the cat isn’t hungry. In contrast, barn cats, which aren’t fed, kill mice swiftly and efficiently and eat them, because they’re hungry.

  31. Lily May 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    @Haley
    You’re welcome, lol.

    “I think the reason for this in many cases is that a taken man is “safe.” A woman can have some harmless excitement and not have to worry that the man is going to come after her and try to get sex.”
    If I’m in a mixed group of people, or even a group of men (which happens often on work-related things), I’m most likely to chat to and be the most open with the married men. As I ‘feel’ that they are safer. I don’t want someone thinking I’m giving IOIs so it’s easier to stick to the married men.

    One of my male friends was saying to another male friend that he couldn’t believe all these hot women who are friends with him on Facebook. It was immediately obvious to me why, the guy is question is a lovely guy who is married, he gives very safe vibes. In fact I’m friends with him on Facebok as well, though not as hot as the women they were talking about lol. I wouldn’t think he’d hit on me, if I did, I’d be really upset. Similar to the way if you find out one of your ‘nice guy’ friends comes out and says they’ve secretly fancied you and that’s why they became your friend in the first place, 5 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s