Let me try to address this from a traditional male perspective. Whether you agree or not really doesn't matter. He is as entitled to his feelings about this as she is, and for her to deny him this right says a whole lot about where this marriage may be headed. And perhaps what happened to the first one.

This is not her wedding ring she will be wearing, it is his wedding ring, given by him to her as a seal and symbol of his love for her, and his promise for their wedding. For her to wear as this wedding ring the diamonds from a previous husband makes this ring, the symbol of his love for her, not his ring but the ex's ring. Not a symbol of his love, but a continuation of the relationship with the ex. It is the symbolism, not the substance that matters.

She does not want to start out her new marriage by belittling the feelings of the man she is marrying this way. She is denying him the right to make this ring and this marriage his. I for one am so tired of hearing the wedding constantly referred to as "her big day". Well guess what? It is a pretty big damn day for him as well. And he needs to have a say in it. And this is part of his say, for her to wear his ring, provided by him, as a symbol of their marriage. That ring had better have more meaning to her than just a piece of jewelry she wears. If it doesn't, then there is already trouble.

"It is the symbolism, not the substance that matters."

If that's really what you believe, then I think I know the answer to why so many marriages go so horribly wrong.

Look, letters are often highly edited due to the small amount of space available. We don't know why LW's fiance is asking to do this. Maybe LW is a starving artist who wants to give his girl a ring but can't afford a nice one. Maybe they're thinking about starting a family together and want to buy a bigger home.

All I can see in that letter is a niggling insecurity that "she thinks her old life is better than this one," and that's something LW really HAS to get over if this relationship is going to work. She's divorced, she's willing to change the setting of the ring...she's making a compromise here. If he gets this worked up over a piece of metal and stone, what's next? He freaks out because she still sends Christmas cards to her former mother-in-law? She uses the blender she was given for her first marriage in THEIR kitchen? LW's fiance isn't tabula rasa, and it seems like she's being very practical about an expensive, extravagant expenditure.

I especially agree with your last paragraph; there is already trouble if they can't begin to see the other's side of things.

You're correct that "it's the symbolism, not the substance that matters" but it isn't so much a "continuation of the relationship with the ex", since the diamonds were not "from her previous husband", but were purchased by herself (which to me is even worse), as it is a symbolic continuation of a time when she was independent and thoughtless of a previous husband's feelings and wishes. Of course, we have no way of really knowing how her previous husband felt about her purchasing her own diamonds but maybe the fact that he's now her previous husband is an indication. For someone with a traditional male perspective, I imagine this would be difficult to accept.

I like her practicality regarding reusing the diamonds but I can see how the guy might feel funny about it. Actually, it sounds like an idea a guy would come up with and the woman would be upset about. A bit of a role reversal in this one.

I am a little bit surprised the guy is open to the idea of keeping it in a drawer forever, but dead set against reusing the stones. Seems to me having it around as a keepsake would in some ways be worse to him than reusing the diamonds. That way it'd still the original ring and still a reminder of the first husband.

"...but were purchased by herself (which to me is even worse), as it is a symbolic continuation of a time when she was independent and thoughtless of a previous husband's feelings and wishes..."

Okay, now I'm confused. Would you rather see them go dutch on a ring? Forgo it altogether? Or is it that for this marriage to be remotely valid, he has to go out and cough up four or five thousand dollars to prove his love for her, and she just has to shut up and like it. We have no proof from the letter that she was thoughtless of her previous husband's feelings...heck, maybe she's a doctor and 1st Hubby was an elementary school teacher. Maybe 2nd Hubby is a social worker. Who knows?!

Yeah, "Shut up and like your five thousand dollar ring!"

I'm not saying that this is the way I personally feel, but the tradition around an engagement (or wedding ring, if the engagement ring is foregone) is that the prospective husband purchases for his prospective bride a ring that is within his means and the prospective bride either accepts gracefully or declines regretfully. Of course, subconsciously, this ring is to all an indication of how he will be able to financially care for her and she is anxious for everyone to believe he is reasonably well off. Thus, the desire for *diamonds* in her ring, no matter where they came from or how they hurt his feelings.

I said, of course, that I had no proof about how her first husband felt about her purchasing her own diamonds, but I ask you how you would feel if, you were an elementary school teacher or a social worker who had presented his doctor wife with a plain gold band and had her go out and buy her own diamonds instead. If you were a traditional type of man, you might feel emasculated by this.

This is a not-terribly old, very interesting article from Slate on the history and subtext of engagement rings, and engagement rings are what we're talking about here. (Wedding bands are another story, and I really do think they should have all new bands for that.) Unfortunately, diamond rings are still seen as status symbols by both men and women, and the commonly accepted practice is that men wear their (generally plain gold) wedding band, while women continue to wear their engagement rings throughout the marriage. The hidden message behind engagement rings is, "This woman is bought and paid for." What LW's fiance is saying, symbolically, if you will, is that she "paid" for herself. She is independant and secure and is STILL willing to partner herself to this wimp. I'll agree that recycling diamonds is odd, but clearly, it means something to her. If LW is a traditional type of man, well, he needs to know that she's a very clearly non-traditional type of woman. "Traditional" in this case meaning that he likes the idea of a woman with either no past or the ability to utterly reject her past. "Non-traditional" meaning that she accepts that there is both good and bad in her past, that she chooses not to forget it and instead to learn from and adapt her past to her future. If the diamond has any real symbolism here, it symbolises HER. The new setting should, quite literally, symbolize her transition into a new life. Not entirely unchanged, but definitely not exactly what she was before.

I agree with the first poster. If the ring had no symbolism, why buy or wear a wedding ring at all, much less one with diamonds? (It was a wedding ring, not an engagement ring). What the LW's fiance is saying is that she's unwilling to accept a symbol of love from the man with whom she wants to spend the rest of her life, and she has to have things her way because she's SOOOO independent (but not secure). If she were secure, she could accept a gift of a new ring graciously, and if she felt she had to prove herself, she could get him a special wedding ring in return.

Wow, this is really sad. He is entitled to his feelings, but she isn't? That doesn't sound like an equal relationship. She can't deny him his rights, eh? Exactly what does that mean? How far does it go? Does he have a right to sex if she doesn't want it?

"This is not her wedding ring, it is his ring." WHAT? Who is it given to? Who wears it day in and day out? His love for her and his promise to her? Not his ring but the ex's ring? Sounds dangerously close to considering one's spouse a possession. NO thank you.

She was not belittling him at all, merely offering a compromise. Compromise does not mean, "ok, you can have your way." Compromise is where two or more people find a solution to a problem that keeps all parties as happy and healthy as possible. This is a necessary element of any long term relationship.

I do agree that the wedding is a big day for both of them, and that both of them have a say in it. Also well stated was "That ring had better have more meaning to her than just a piece of jewelry she wears." However, think about it from her perspective. SHE bought the diamonds. Speaking symbolically, rings can be metaphors for cycles. Maybe to her, resetting them into the new ring is a symbol that her life, while still hers, is changing and being set into a new cycle. That's a refreshing, strong, and optimistic idea.

Well, a relationship as serious as a marriage is something that affects you forever--even if it's over. Seems silly to ask her to rid herself of keepsakes like pictures and rings from the previous marriage--it's not as if the memories will fade.

" Of course, subconsciously, this ring is to all an indication of how he will be able to financially care for her and she is anxious for everyone to believe he is reasonably well off. Thus, the desire for *diamonds* in her ring, no matter where they came from or how they hurt his feelings."

That is a very good possibility--and another is that with women now expected to contribute to the family's financial well-being, it's perfectly reasonable to change it to a statement of "look what we can achieve together."

I also liked what Rainbirds said about the disparity between male and female ring sets. "Bought and paid for." This is very true (I would refer interested/disagreeing readers to a book called A History Of The Wife). The idea of having to wear more jewelry than my husband has always bothered me--it feels as if I have to do more to prove I'm taken.

My husband and I bucked tradition in a way--we both wear a lot of jewelry anyway... When I asked him to marry me (with a claddagh pin--long story) We decided our engagement rings would simply be rings of our own we gave to each other :).

We have purchased our wedding rings, too--identical 4-piece "puzzle" rings. The 4 layers (one for him, one for me, one for our daughter, one for the deepened bond between the three of us) form a claddagh.

Rainbirds:

The hidden message behind engagement rings is, "This woman is bought and paid for." What LW's fiance is saying, symbolically, if you will, is that she "paid" for herself. She is independant and secure and is STILL willing to partner herself to this wimp.

Jeez, what a ballbreaker! Maybe she should just take her diamonds and go home. You find it "unfortunate" that people regard diamonds as a status symbols, but you don't have a problem with purchasing women as long as it's the wife-to-be who pays?

I don't have a superstitious bone in my body, and I'm not particularly sentimental, but I do appreciate the value of symbolism. One would hope that a couple in a healthy relationship would regard the ring(s) as symbols of their union, rather than as receipts for who bought who (or is it "who bought whom"?).

Rainbirds:

If the diamond has any real symbolism here, it symbolises HER. The new setting should, quite literally, symbolize her transition into a new life. Not entirely unchanged, but definitely not exactly what she was before.

Of course it's all about her. Never mind whats-his-face and that whole marriage thing - the ring is all about the individual. So I'm sure she won't mind when he starts leaving his ring at home when he travels for business; after all it's his ring and he doesn't have to wear it if he doesn't feel like it.

The bottom line is that the old ring is hers, and she can do anything she likes with the diamonds - except put them in her new wedding ring. He should do his best to get her a ring that she'll enjoy, but if his best is not good enough, then she (and he) should treat it like the deal-breaker it apparently is.

I can't believe that Prudie didn't insist on the Mordor option. Mordor is so nice this time of year (or pretty much any time of year)! Think of how romantic it would be for a honeymoon. The husband gives her a new wedding ring and after the reception the two walk hand in hand on a long journey by foot to Mordor to destroy the evil ring. This is so obvious I can't believe no one hasn't already expressed this point of view.

I apparently failed to make clear my meaning of "symbolism, not the substance that matters". The symbolism I speak of is the ring he gives to her as the start and continuation of their married life together. It is given by him, from him. The substance of the ring, the actual materiels, be it gold, diamonds, platium, whatever, do not matter. It is the fact that it comes from him. For her to intrude those diamonds from a previous marriage, regardless of who paid for them, into his gift takes from the ring the symbol of being from him.

It should not be about buying a huge rock (and who doesn't think it is a conspiracy by DeBeers on what an engagement ring should cost). And not about him buying her. There is no ownership in a marriage, it is a partnership. It is about him wanting this ring, the symbol of their marriage to be from him. It is about their future together and not with a piece of her past that she has put behind her.

He did not tell her to throw it away or sell it. He asked her to put it away and not make it part of the symbol of their marriage. He undoubtedly did not think about having it reset into a pendant, earings, other ring, etc. We don't know how he would react if that were proposed.

We all need to stop immediately going for the most base behavior, especially of men, and just look at what he is saying. He doesn't want his new wife wearing as part of the symbol of their new marriage a piece of her old failed marriage. Period.

If a ring is crucial to "proving" that a couple is together, then I would say that it's a shackle (on both sides), not a symbol of love.

The Boy has a wedding band, but doesn't wear it. He's just not a ring person. (I think it lives in the change tray of the little blue car, but I couldn't say for sure.) He does wear a West Coast silver bracelet that, to my knowlege, he has never removed since I gave it to him. No one "gets" that it takes the place of a wedding band.

I can't wear my rings when I'm working. Since I work in clay, I can't affford to have "ring prints" on things that I make, plus, have you ever tried to clean rings that have been in the clay? *shudder* Plus, if you've ever had "ring rash", you would take off your rings when you do anything involving water and let your hands and the rings dry thoroughly before putting them back on.

The fact that we don't wear rings all the time means nothing. What we have goes far beyond tie signs and concrete symbols. There is no reason for a ring to "signal" that we aren't available, because the question simply doesn't come up. I would have worn the ring off an aluminum can, if The Boy asked me to, I don't need anything more to "prove" he loves me. I know that.

I think it's sad that couples feel such an urgent need to "prove" that they are together. It bespeaks a sad outlook on the strength of any relationship when a couple feels the need to go into debt for the sake of a piece of jewelry.