That ring wasn't just "given back" to Mordor, Prudie! Had that been the case, the ring could have been surrendered to any of Saruman's subjects. The basis of the Tolkien trilogy was the quest to unmake the one ring that bound the characters of Mordor under Saruman's power.

The husband's business partner seems to understand the whole set of dynamics; throwing away the ring from his first marriage was probably cathartic . The wife's "I bought the diamonds!" comment is a big clue to her personality. Our LW needs to run away now while he still can.

What's wrong with her being proud that she bought the diamonds? Speaking from personal experience, it is very liberating when I can provide myself the luxuries I wanted.

I would be upset if somebody wanted to control me by insisting that I get rid of something I worked hard to get for myself.

These aren't just some diamonds that she bought at some random point in her life, they're incorporated into a symbol of a previous relationship that the new husband wants to bury in the past.

Not sure how you get "controlling" out of the husband's reluctance to regularly acknowlege a previous (and failed) relationship.

I kind of look at it this way -- a wedding ring isn't just another ordinary piece of jewelry, it's a symbol of the marriage. If she has no sentimental attachment to the old diamonds, then why wear them at all (particularly if they upset her sentimental fiance)? Is it just for the looks? If the old diamonds do have a sentimental meaning for her, then why not get some new diamonds with her new fiance?

On a more technical note, I don't think the husband wanted her to throw her old ring and old diamonds away (because he recognized its potential sentimental value), he just didn't want her wearing part of a symbol of her old marriage as a symbol of their new marriage. I think his idea of keeping the old ring "locked away" is a bit extreme, though.

I do think it is rude & thoughtless for her wanting to use them in the rings. Why doesn't she instead, have herself a nice pair of earrings made?

dumb_blonde:

Why doesn't she instead, have herself a nice pair of earrings made?

My daughter did that - she has a really nice ring made from gold given her by me and by her ex-father-in-law, set with stones from her first engagement ring and from a ring her grandmother gave her.

I agree that she shouldn't "be required" to get rid of the stones or hide them away forever. Rather, she could have them reset into a more practical piece of jewelry.

Taking them from her "old" wedding ring and putting them on her "new" wedding ring just doesn't feel right to me. Wedding rings don't "need" diamonds. Most of us don't think of our wedding ring in terms of its financial value or in terms of independence. It's a symbol of an exclusive and long-term relationship. I doubt she's so sentimental about those rocks that she would remarry the former husband as well.

dumb_blonde:

Why doesn't she instead, have herself a nice pair of earrings made?

I think that's the best compromise. I wouldn't have had a problem had my husband used/given me used stones from a previous wife, as long as it was a different setting. But some, perhaps even most, people would. Pretending they don't exist or getting rid of them is silly. Earrings, a necklace, a NON-wedding ring are all good options.

I don't think the woman is being "rude" at all. She clearly feels differently about the ring than her fiance does; all it is is a difference of opinion. She sees them as something she bought for herself (rather than something her ex gave her), something that no longer has the meaning it once did, and something she feels it would be practical to get some use out of. The man thinks having a new ring made from the old one would remind him too much of her past relationship, and that a new marriage needs a new ring. Like I said, difference of opinion. Neither is "right" per se, but what they need is to come to an agreement that will make them both happy.

I personally like the idea of having the diamonds made into something else, like earrings. Then she can still wear and enjoy them without them being used as a symbol of the new marriage. Once this has happened, the man can go buy her a new ring if he wants her to have one.

Society would have us believe that women as more emotional and needy then men. Then along comes a letter like this one to remind me that it isn't true. All this drama over some diamonds! They are valuable rocks, not mystic objects with mysterious powers. I am with the woman, she bought them, they were expensive, they are pretty, and she wants to keep them. They have no signifigance for her other than that. However, if her husband-to-be is going to go all obsessive over them, then she should just go to a jeweler and trade them in for something similar. Jewelers will do this. Then she still has the pretty stones, but the invisible aura around them that is so disturbing her fiance should be gone. I hope. Also, I am with the people who think just a wedding band is perfect. Wearing $10K on your hand has always seemed ridiculous to me.

Toy Story?

oooooh! .... The Chosen One!

Sauron was the Lord of the Rings. Saruman was a powerful wizard who turned evil, serving Sauron while secretly attempting to acquire the ring for himself.

To her, they are not incorporated into a symbol of the previous relationship. They are diamonds that she bought herself (her words). I understand her fiancee doesn't get that and I agree that setting them into earrings or something is a great compromise.

But at the end of the day, this guy is basically saying to her 'you will feel sentimental about those stones in connection to your failed marriage because I say that is the link that should be there'. Or the alternitive posted here, he feels sentimental about them himself. In which case I've gotta ask, why the heck does he have a sentimental connection to a relationship that he wasn't even involved in?

It just feels way to weird to me either way you want to slice it. They are pretty pretty stones that she bought herself, period.

I forgot - Sauron's name was intentionally not spoken by the Fellowship.

Diamonds are powerful talismans. Imagine how much they have absorbed; how much they hold. It's no coincidence that they have the power to be cursed.

The LW cursed and doomed her first marriage by purchasing her own diamonds. It set the wrong dynamic in motion and contributed to it's failure. If you doubt this, ask yourself how her first husband might have felt about his fiancee purchasing her own diamonds.

To now use those ill-fated diamonds in another ring, especially a wedding ring, would be to pass the curse of failure (and considering how prospective #2 feels about the situation, that curse is moving right along on schedule). If diamonds are cursed by divorce or, knock wood, death, they must not be owned or passed on in their existing state or run the risk of the recipient experiencing the same fate. They must be given new life by being reset into a pendant or pin and worn over a pure heart to cleanse them. Only then can they safely be reworn or passed on.

That's why a widow should be buried with her ring(s) unless she chooses otherwise. Diamonds must be given, they cannot be taken without becoming cursed.