Who Gets The Ring?

fluffnutter

The only time I've ever thought a woman has a moral duty to return the ring is if it's a family heirloom on the groom's side. A new ring bought specifically for the marriage is a personal gift and can be kept with impunity IMO (although offering to return it is the decent thing to do).

esmerelda98

Person_one wrote: »

But that's what it is.

Just because its traditionally given along with a proposal doesn't mean anything. Its not compulsory, it has no legal standing.

I only give people wedding presents because they're getting married, if they divorce should they give them all back?

You're not comparing like with like. If you sent a wedding gift in advance of the nuptials and the wedding was later called off, then yes, I would expect the couple to send the gift back. That would be the proper/polite thing to do, though if I had sent the gift I wouldn't ask for it to be sent back, I would expect to receive it back though.

I think many people aspire to do what is morally/ethically right in most situations, not just what the law will hold them to. The law often takes a pragmatic position, it does not not claim to always take the morally superior position.

euronorris

Person_one wrote: »

But that's what it is.

Just because its traditionally given along with a proposal doesn't mean anything. Its not compulsory, it has no legal standing.

I only give people wedding presents because they're getting married, if they divorce should they give them all back?

Legally, it is. Morally, I agree with Gavin.

No, it's not compulsory and has no legal standing. But that doesn't mean that I, or others, agree with that.

About wedding gifts: No, you give them on the basis they are about to get married. They got married, they should keep it. If, however, you gave it to them and the wedding was called off last minute, I think it's only right that they return the presents.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to hold onto an engagement ring once the relationship ended. I'd be giving it back straightaway, as it would hold too many bad memories.

Just_Plain_Jane

I personally would flog it. Use the money to take your little boy out on a nice day trip to wherever he'd like to go. Might take his mind off Mummy and Daddy bickering over stuff that really doesn't matter.

Person_one

Mara69 wrote: »

To my mind, it is more the fact that they are bickering over it. God, if it were me, I'd be glad to be shot of it and him. She is making herself look cheap by arguing over it. All this crap about putting the money aside for the child is a smokescreen.

Why is she making herself look 'cheap' and not him?

If its petty, why is the answer 'give it back', not 'its so petty, he should just drop it'?

Taadaa

Well said Person_one.

Personally, I wouldn't want the ring. But I wonder if he is falsely claiming to want it back to sell it and buy things for their son. Would he not just politely request that she sell it and put the money aside for things the LO will need, assuming the OP currently has residency? If he was reasonable before but has since decided it is all her fault...well that sounds to me like someone has been winding him up.

OP I would suggest that you will sell the ring ( I am assuming it is too late to try and take it back to the shop it came from), and will open a little account in the LO's name. You can both be trustees if it makes him happier, so that money can only be withdrawn if you both agree to it. If he is being honest, that should satisfy him. If he carries on being unreasonable, then I think I would take a hard line and refuse.

Lunar_Eclipse

I think legally it's yours to keep and you should keep it if you want to. However, I don't think it would be morally right to sell it and keep all the proceeds.

If you aren't emotionally attached to it, then my advice depends on who financed the ring. If it was purchased from joint funds (you already have a child and thus probably live together), then I think it should be sold and the proceeds split as part of your wider joint belongings. If he definitely bought it solely from his own money (ie you didn't pay a greater share of household bills for a while so he could buy the ring, thus effectively making it a purchase from joint funds), then he should keep the ring/money.

As an aside, since you are locked in a battle over the ring, I have assumed it was expensive. Although I fully agree that this is not important in the wider scheme of things, I also believe that for most people, there's a big difference between a £10k ring and a £250 one (financially speaking.)

tattycath

FWIW I kept mine. It's still in a drawer and I shall pass it down to one of my children.

Gavin83

londonsurrey wrote: »

So does this mean that following those rules, the ring then belongs to the woman when she does marry him or does it remain his?

How about this case, where there's been a child subsequent to the presentation of the ring? Is it still his ring, and remains his until he gets around to marrying her?

Come to think of it, if it's just a notification, it means that a engagement ring is just a fancy dog collar on a woman, and it means the woman is reserved for him. As it remains his, and she's now committed to him without a guarantee of the marriage and the ring becoming his, she really shouldn't thank him for the ring, either in words or a physical manner.

It's actually a bit silly for a woman to proudly show off a "tag" on her that doesn't belong to her. Why doesn't a man show his commitment to marry her by putting a tag on himself, not her?

If a woman wishes to buy me an engagement ring I'd be more than happy to wear the 'tag' as you so romantically put it.

I don't really like the idea of putting it in such regular legal terms but I will do to explain my opinion anyway. The ring is presented as a physical representation of the contract of marriage, ie: "I'm giving you this ring to symbolise that I wish to marry you, that you wish to marry me and we'll arrange that marriage". If this then doesn't happen the contract is broken and everything linked to this contract should be returned. Everyone presents an engagement ring because they eventually expect to get married, no one gives someone an engagement ring just as a regular gift. It is entirely different to presenting someone with a ring for their birthday, this is purely a gift for an event thats happened, it doesn't have any conditions attached to it.

Your coming across in your post that I'm trying to suggest that a man 'owns' a woman by presenting her with a ring that isn't even hers. Your missing my point entirely, I just don't see it as a regular gift. To be honest I'd rather not bother with a ring at all, it seems entirely pointless to me. However most women expect a ring when they are proposed to as that is tradition and therefore your point is slightly void as it is womens expectations that gives them this 'dog collar' anyway.

In response to the questions at the top of your post I consider the woman to be under no moral obligation to return the ring once they are married. The marriage has gone ahead and the engagement period ended, therefore the ring has fullfilled it purpose. As for the second question I don't see what difference a child makes to the situation. The wedding either happens or it doesn't. He doesn't need to 'get around to marrying her', it's an agreement they've both made and they should arrange a date together. I don't see why it needs to be delayed longer than necessary.

Person_one wrote: »

But that's what it is.

Just because its traditionally given along with a proposal doesn't mean anything. Its not compulsory, it has no legal standing.

I only give people wedding presents because they're getting married, if they divorce should they give them all back?

I fully agree that legally she can keep the ring if the wedding is called off. Morally I completely disagree though.

Others have already made this point but I will anyway, if you send the wedding presents in advance and then the wedding doesn't happen, would you be happy with them keeping whatever you'd bought them? You clearly bought the presents as they were getting married, it just doesn't sit right with me that they would keep them anyway.

If I was put in this situation I wouldn't actually ask for the presents back but I'd be a bit upset if it wasn't at least offered, I'd give them back if the situation was reversed. I think the same would apply to me in the ring situation but it's hard to tell until it happens, there are a lot more emotions involved.

I think a lot depends on the circumstances of why the wedding was called off as well. If she receives a ring worth a few thousand for example (not uncommon for engagement rings) and the marriage plans break down as she cheats on him for example, then I think shes a lot more unreasonable for keeping the ring than if the situation was reversed. It sounds like this breakdown was a mutual thing and in this situation I think he should still receive it.

Why bother to give a ring at all if it doesn't mean anything?

Gavin83

Sorry to do a second post but I have to know, what does happen if a man proposes and his girlfriend says no? I've never proposed so I wouldn't know but I'd presume that the woman doesn't keep the ring in this circumstance.