Wedding Rings: Essential symbols or outdated tradition?

 /08
by Jennifer Cram - Brisbane Marriage Celebrant © 03/02/2024
Categories: | Wedding Ceremony |  Wedding Rings  |  Wedding Rituals  |
previous    |    contents    |    next   >

two
                        gold wedding rings on a pink backgroundTradition expects a wedding ceremony to include an exchange of rings, or at least, a ring being put on the bride's finger. Exchanging rings during the ceremony is, for most couples, a must.  However,  being ringless on the day will not create a problem with the legality of your marriage. Despite lingering folklore, "With this ring I thee wed" is not a legally required statement. And exchanging rings is not a legal requirement.  In fact, the Marriage Act doesn't mention wedding rings at all.

So why do we still regard the exchange of ring to be a central moment in both civil and religious (Christian) wedding ceremonies? And why is it generally expected that, by the time a heterosexual couple is declared married, the bride will have a ring on her finger, but the groom may or may not? 

History has a lot to do with it. And so has the human habit of attributing new ideas to an origin long ago and far away in order to convey an impression of rock-solid provenance!

The Egyptians had nothing to do with it


Ancient Egyptians did make and wear rings. And they may well have given their lovers and spouses rings made of precious metals or other materials. But no evidence survives of any ceremony or ritual, involving rings related to marriage in ancient Egypt. It would seem that wedding rings were not an ancient Egyptian custom.

Nonetheless, I've lost count of the number of times I've read that wearing a ring as a visible sign of the wearer's married status is a tradition that dates back to ancient Egypt,  an uncritically repeated but unsubstantiated 'factoid' that's often embellished by the suggestion that wedding rings at that time were made of plaited grass, leather, or other materials unlikely to survive.

There is also no evidence to suggest that ancient Egyptians believed that a vein (supposedly subsequently named vena amoris - literally vein of love - by the Romans) ran from the left ring finger directly to the heart.  Does such a vein even exist? No, The blood vessels in both hands are pretty much all the same, and there isn't one vein in them that is linked directly to the heart. In fact, the whole story probably originated in medieval times, demonstrates the fairly common desire to credit an ancient origin fo custom, despite the fact that in many countries the wedding ring is worn on the right hand.

Rings in Ancient Greece and Rome


In Ancient Greece and Rome,  the giving of a ring to the bride seems to have been a pledge as the earnest of the future fulfilment of the groom's side of the marriage contract. It wasn't part of any ceremony of marriage.

The Catholic Church


It was the early Christian church that first approved rings as a sign of commitment to marriage. In the 12th century, Pope Innocent III decreed that that a groom was required to give his bride a ring as part of a formal proceeding during which a bride was required to promise to obey the groom and to thereafter, as a wife, submit to her husband.

The ceremony, however, was not originally a marriage ceremony as we understand it today. When we look at liturgical books used throughout Europe in the early middle Ages, the ceremonies that involved exchanges of wedding rings were betrothals, regarded to be legally binding although they marked the period of engagement.
It was the Council of Trent (1545-1563), called to affirm basic Catholic doctrines against statements made by members of the Protestant faith, that made the giving of a wedding ring during the marriage ceremony, compulsory.

The Council codified the rite of marriage. In doing so it made clear the Church's view that the betrothal was a private, family agreement, while marriage was a sacrament. What had been the betrothal ceremony was incorporated in the rite of marriage in the form of the consent questions asked of the couple before they take their vows. The "I do/I will" questions.

The Council also decreed a specific ritual for the placing of a ring on the bride's finger, thereby making the giving of a ring, compulsory. What had earlier been a symbol of earnest, became a symbol of the marriage, and specifically a symbol of the role and commitment of the bride as a wife. In modern terms, the bride was tagged as a married woman!

The Church of England


In 1559 the Book of Common Prayer mentioned a ring as part of the marriage rite. The ring was consecrated (as the essence of the marriage bond), and linked by the words spoken by the groom to the bestowal of ‘earnest money’. This was a nod to Anglo-Saxon custom, where a ring was originally a pledge given to the bride, along with gifts, before the marriage took place.

The 1559 service required the groom to say 'With this rynge I thee wed' as he placed the ring on the bride's finger, followed by 'this gold and silver I thee give’ as he handed her a purse filled with gold and silver coins, before he continuing, ’with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly chatels I thee endow.’

The Puritans cancelled wedding rings


When James I was on the way to his coronation, he was petitioned by Puritans to remove the giving of a marriage ring from the marriage service on the grounds that it was "popish" and not mentioned in the Bible. Their petition failed in England, but in Colonial America marriage ceremonies were pared down to the consent question. Instead of a wedding ring, it became the custom for a man to present his intended with a thimble, being an object of practical use.

The Groom finally gets a ring


The double-ring ceremony, where both the bride and groom receive a ring, is a recent innovation. The jewellery industry started marketing wedding rings for men in the 19th century,but it didn't really start to catch on until World War II. And it did not become virtually universally accepted until quite late in the 20th century, largely due to the global marketing efforts of the manufacturers of rings.

Wedding rings in the modern civil ceremony


The exchange of rings, with or without ring vows, remains a much-loved and central part of both religious and civil ceremonies. It is so engrained that, perpetuating the idea that you can't get married without rings, celebrants often carry a set of cheap rings to substitute when and if the couple forgets to bring their rings.

In religious ceremonies the rings are blessed. In civil ceremonies the rings may be passed around the guests in a secular blessing ritual, warming of the rings. The celebrant will often share some thoughts about the symbolism of the rings, mentioning endless circles, precious metals, fidelity, love, and a symbolic representation of the vows made by the couple.

It's your choice


Go with the tradition or forge your own tradition. It's your choice in a civil ceremony.Rings or no rings. Ring vows or a silent exchange or exchange of rings during your legal vows. Substitute something else that's meaningful to you both. Be pragmatic, as several of my couples have been, and forgo exchanging rings in the ceremony because you plan purchase your rings duty free as you leave for your overseas honeymoon, or buy them overseas where they are cheaper.

Whatever you decide, it's fine!

Thanks for reading!

Click to contact
                        Jennifer Cram
< previous    |    contents     |      next      | get in touch >
pullin0  Things