(Closed) For fun: Royal Engagement Rings *pic heavy*

posted 5 years ago in Rings
Post # 16
Member
381 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

Rainstorm77:  You are right.  I would think it was a toy!!

Post # 17
Member
2960 posts
Sugar bee

Most (but not all) of the rings are remarkably unattractive.  

When it comes to beautiful rings that enhance the hand of the wearer, money is no substitute for good taste.

What were these people thinking?

 

 

 

Post # 18
Hostess
2633 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: June 2013

Rainstorm77:  actually I posted it! lol. After my last comment on this thread I decided to do a google search to see if that type of ring actually exsisted….to my surprise it came up and it looks “fun”..lol

Post # 20
Member
155 posts
Blushing bee

a_day_at_the_fair:  Love this post! I really like how a lot of the rings are non diamond and perhaps less ”glamorous” than what most people expect. They’re all probably quite sentimental and chosen with some thought (as with most engagement rings – “royals – they’re just like us!” :P).  I also suspect that if you grow up with lots of precious jewels, having a giant engagement ring probably doesn’t have that much significance in showing off ones wealth/status. I also expect that after a while the tiaras etc start feeling like a bit of a uniform and if it’s a particularly historical piece there’d be days where you might even feel like you wish you had something more to your own personal taste. 

Post # 21
Member
7977 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2013 - UK

I would wear Diana/Kate’s, Tatiana Blatnik’s, and Crown Princess Victoria’s.

My favourite is Tatiana Blantik’s, although I have no idea who she actually is. With that said, most of them just aren’t practical for everyday wear… I suppose I might wear Princess Victoria’s as an e-ring, but I wouldn’t want the others as e-rings. I guess this is why most royals don’t wear their e-rings every day.

I wouldn’t wear any of the others, apart from those three. I actually think that most of them are quite ugly.

Post # 22
Member
722 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: January 2014

Rainstorm77:  Now that is crazy.  I would totally rock that ring out!

Post # 23
Member
722 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: January 2014

Its interesting that a lot of the rings are not large diamonds and more cluster styles.  I like them though.  

Post # 24
Member
9595 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2015

Queen Elizabeth! I want that ring and a fleet of corgis too. I love her in general and that ring is definitely my fave.

Super interesting thanks for posting! 

a_day_at_the_fair:  

Post # 25
Member
2960 posts
Sugar bee

I’m absolutely fine with sentimental rings.  One thinks of William giving Kate his mother’s engagement ring.  However, in many circumstances it would be better if the giver, rather than plundering the royal jewels, simply got themselves a job and earned the money for an engagement ring for their beloved.

 

Post # 26
Member
9595 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2015

Supersleuth:  waste not, want not! If you have amazing gems at your disposal it’s much more prudent (and sentimental) to give a family ring than to drop 10..20…40k just to prove you can.

 

 

 

Post # 27
Member
2847 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

I’ll take Princess Grace’s.  She’s my style icon anyway!

Post # 28
Member
2960 posts
Sugar bee

 

MrsBuesleBee:  But in reusing gems the wealth is kept in the family and no one else benefits.  And let’s face it, there is little sentimentality about gems that have been bought hundreds of years ago on the proceeds of European slave labour.  There would be much more sentimentality to putting the money to good use, perhaps even giving the proceeds of such gems to worthwhile causes. 

If earned the giver would have a greater sense of achievement and the recipient would know just how much effort had gone into her ring.  An added advantage would be that the wheels of the economy would be oiled. 

When spent, that 40K would make a jeweller quite a bit richer and perhaps would benefit a young talented jewellery designer.  The jeweller would then use the money to build a house.  To build a house a number of builders would be employed.  Maybe this would stop a builder being unemployed.  Maybe he (or she) could afford a better standard of education and perhaps good healthcare for their family.  The money would then pass to not only insurers but also teachers, nurses and doctors.

The extra money that the hospital gains is the small amount needed for new radiology department.

The jeweller designer makes her reputation, becomes famous and goes on to further her reputation by designing spectacularly beautiful rings that our children can all afford.

One of the builder’s children shows an aptitude for science and can now be sent to a better quality school where her gifts are acknowledged and developed.  Twenty years down the line she ends up working as a scientist and finds a cure for a life-threatening disease.  In doing so she saves countless people’s lives and saves the World economy 40 trillion dollars per year.

How wonderful would that be? 

Waste not want not? 

No, better to let the money be put to better use.

  • This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by  .
Post # 29
Member
155 posts
Blushing bee

….I feel like you just proved why trickle down economics doesn’t work. Human emotions, sentimentality and common sense efficiency trumps theorhetical constructs which require everyone to have the same attitude towards a ‘common good’. 

Post # 30
Member
314 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: April 2016

The only one I like is Princess Nathalie’s cute ring. I can appreciate all rings but the one I could see myself wearing is hers.

The topic ‘For fun: Royal Engagement Rings *pic heavy*’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors