Should the man always pay for the engagement ring?!

euronorris

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

Yes, I *might* compromise on quality. While I would have liked a 1 carat ring, I compromised on that. But I wouldn't personally be happy to compromise down to Argos (and I would expect my fiancee to save up to get me a ring I'd like)

I also don't mind the traditions behind engagement rings either.

'
What would happen if he could still only afford one from Argos, even after 6 months of saving? Would you insist he save longer? Isn't the marriage more important than the ring?

Fly_Baby

euronorris wrote: »

They do reek of it. And to be honest, 'presenting' someone with a ring like that says 'I'm buying your hand in marriage' and 'you now belong to me'.

I know that isn't the intention for most people now, but in that case, why isn't it more equal (with either a ring for both, or none at all)?

In that case, doesn't exchanging rings in marriage "reek" of the same thing? If it is so bad why get married at all?

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

I am with you about not being happy with the situation when the man doesn't wear the ring. What the hell?

My father didn't wear one until my parents 40th wedding anniversary. And that was only after my Mum pestered him, because she was receiving so many derogatory comments from my Grandma about it.

Until then, they had been perfectly happy without him wearing a ring. He can't stand wearing rings, full stop, so the one he has now bugs him like crazy (I'm the same).

Plans_all_plans

Indeed the marriage is more important than the ring. I am very much pro-marriage.

If after 6 months of saving, Argos was all he could afford, I would think he was bad with money/had debts or whatever and this would put me off him. I would also expect that if he was proposing to me, he would know me well enough to know my expectations of things. If he hadn't got himself together enough to be in a decent financial position before the proposal, I'd think he didn't know me well enough to marry me as I would not marry someone in debt or who was bad with money.

My best friend's engagement and wedding ring are from Argos and she loves them. All I am saying is that it would not be for me.

euronorris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

In that case, doesn't exchanging rings in marriage "reek" of the same thing? If it is so bad why get married at all?

Yep, one of the reasons I am not getting married.

We will do a 'partnership' here, which carries the same legal rights. IF we ever return to the UK, then we will get married for the sake of the (future) kids (and each other in case anything should happen to one or both of us)

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

Interestingly, Kate will be wearing a wedding band and William won't. While he can't exactly get away with pretending to be single, I still wouldn't be too happy about that if I were her.

I might be a bit weird, but I HATE any form of jewellery on men and I won't let my husband wear a wedding ring (much as he would like to).

euronorris

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

Indeed the marriage is more important than the ring. I am very much pro-marriage.

If after 6 months of saving, Argos was all he could afford, I would think he was bad with money/had debts or whatever and this would put me off him. I would also expect that if he was proposing to me, he would know me well enough to know my expectations of things. If he hadn't got himself together enough to be in a decent financial position before the proposal, I'd think he didn't know me well enough to marry me as I would not marry someone in debt or who was bad with money.

My best friend's engagement and wedding ring are from Argos and she loves them. All I am saying is that it would not be for me.

But, what if he just doesn't earn enough to meet your ring expectations? Or, does he have to earn a certain amount too?

I'm not criticising, just trying to understand your viewpoint.

Tropez

euronorris wrote: »

Yep, one of the reasons I am not getting married.

We will do a 'partnership' here, which carries the same legal rights. IF we ever return to the UK, then we will get married for the sake of the (future) kids (and each other in case anything should happen to one or both of us)

It doesn't sound necessary to get married for those reasons if you were to return to the UK.

My partner has no intention of marrying thanks to her brainless excuse for parents - so she's named as the main beneficiary in my will and she's named as the beneficiary of my life insurance. If we were to have kids, which is very unlikely, if anything were to happen to either of us then the children would remain with the surviving parent.

euronorris

Tropez wrote: »

It doesn't sound necessary to get married for those reasons if you were to return to the UK.

My partner has no intention of marrying thanks to her brainless excuse for parents - so she's named as the main beneficiary in my will and she's named as the beneficiary of my life insurance. If we were to have kids, which is very unlikely, if anything were to happen to either of us then the children would remain with the surviving parent.

From what we understand, without that little bit of paper, we couldn't guarantee things without a multitude of other paperwork, some of which could still be contested.

So it's a) easier to just get one piece of paper and b) provides extra peice of mind as we absolutely would not want our children to be brought up by OH's family (and they are the ones most likely to contest stuff too).

Plans_all_plans

To be honest, there are no jobs that I know of in this country where after 6 months of saving, a single man with average outgoings could not afford a ring from anywhere other than Argos. A couple might decide they don't want to spend more than £90 on a ring, but that is different to actually not being able to afford it.

If a man's circumstances dictated that he could not afford other than Argos i.e he was in debt, he had other children etc, I would not have spent long enough with him to be marrying him.

As long as my husband is happy, I don't care if he's earning 12k or 60k.