Should the man always pay for the engagement ring?!

Ada_Doom

B*llocks to convention! I didn't have an engagement ring from my husband, as we do not have the money spare and there were always more important things to spend the money on. I also am not that into spangly rings, althought have my mothers vintage garnet ring which i love. for me, an engagement ring being bought for me is really old fashioned but that is just my personal circumstances. It feels a bit princessey...however if you like sparkels and have the money i say go for it, buy the ring of your dreams and have a happy future of making decisions that suit the two of you and sod what everyone else does

SavingPennies_2

JodyBPM wrote: »

I must say, I find the idea of discussing and picking out an engagement ring a year before he'd even popped the question a bit odd, though!

I took it to mean he bought the ring on credit a year ago and now cant affford the repayements perhaps?

OP if its a matter of principle how about you take over one of the bills he is paying, which will free up some money for him to pay for the ring. Then you are helping him to afford it indirectly without actually paying, just until he gets a new job.

MoneySavingMouse

Wow, lots of interesting comments. I'm not one for tradition, I'd rather discuss it and agree to get married, than have a proposal out of the blue, otherwise the guy has ages to think about it, and the girl has a few seconds to say yes or no! That's why we looked at rings together first, after we'd discussed it, unfortunately his work situation changed. We share all our other costs so it feels a bit old fashioned for him to save for a ring when we are both working!

**Patty**

Mmmm.

First husband took out a credit agreement to buy my engagement ring (some 20 odd years ago). I ended up paying it as he couldn't afford it then.

Second husband (current one!) bought me a single zircon ring as it was what he could afford at the time. Last year on our 10th anniversary he gave me a solitare diamond set in 18ct gold.

I still wear the zircon

downshifted

I was 18 when we married and he was 22. We never got engaged, he just sent a Valentines card "To my Fiancee". We just didn't have the money for an engagement ring as well as getting married. On our first wedding anniversary we bought me a diamond ring (second hand, £50) from our joint money. It's always been joint money. That was almost 37 years ago :-)

It's not the ring that counts, whether or not you have one or how it's paid for - it's the strength of the relationship :-)

ska_lover

I'm sorry OP but my opinion is it smacks of desperation to get married to buy your own engagement ring. You say you earn a 'tiny' bit more than your OH - is there a reason he cannot save up a bit each month? Or do you think he is stalling?

If my partner couldn't be bothered to put the effort into saving up, then I couldn't be bothered in marrying him. As you can't be 100% happy with the idea of buying your own - or you wouldn't be posting your question above.

Person_one

downshifted wrote: »

I was 18 when we married and he was 22. We never got engaged, he just sent a Valentines card "To my Fiancee". We just didn't have the money for an engagement ring as well as getting married. On our first wedding anniversary we bought me a diamond ring (second hand, £50) from our joint money. It's always been joint money. That was almost 37 years ago :-)

It's not the ring that counts, whether or not you have one or how it's paid for - it's the strength of the relationship :-)

Of course you got engaged! From the day you both agreed to get married to the day you actually got married you were engaged! That's what it means, the ring has nothing to do with your actual status.

mountainofdebt

Oh yes and the bit where 'convention' says that the engagement ring should cost at least a month's wages is nothing more than an advertisement ploy on the part of de beers.

The other way to look at it is if the man buys the ring for the girl then what does the girl buy for the man, in these days of sexual equality?

Person_one

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Oh yes and the bit where 'convention' says that the engagement ring should cost at least a month's wages is nothing more than an advertisement ploy on the part of de beers.

The other way to look at it is if the man buys the ring for the girl then what does the girl buy for the man, in these days of sexual equality?

In these days of sexual equality, why is the man not expected to show any external sign of being 'taken'?

ska_lover

Person_one wrote: »

In these days of sexual equality, why is the man not expected to show any external sign of being 'taken'?

Hmmm, how very true!