Who’s Ring is it Anyway? The Rules of Engagement

What an adulterous year it has been. First Tiger Woods, then Ashley Cole, and now John Gunther. John who? Not to worry, unless you’re a religious reader of our news section, you’re not expected to know who that is—but you’ll soon find out. Of our infidels, Tiger managed to walk off with some bad press (if there is such a thing), a slight slump in his golf performance and a hefty divorce settlement of $150m; Cole lost his captaincy and is reported to have walked away £22m poorer; while Gunther, John Friggin’ Gunther, walked away with a diamond ring! To be fair, Gunther is neither rich, nor a celebrity, nor was he technically married, so no million dollar settlements to be expected here...but a $19,000 reward? What’s wrong with this picture?

To read the full article, please click here, but the story goes a little something like this. Danielle Cavalieri and John Gunther got engaged, Gunther cheated, they broke up, and he asked her to return the ring. When Cavalieri filed suit to keep the engagement ring, a US-court magistrate ruled against her claim citing the state law that an engagement ring is a “conditional” gift given “in contemplation of marriage,” adding that “fault in the cause of a break-up is irrelevant.” That is, if an engagement is broken for whatever reason, the ring that symbolised it should be returned. But my question is this: if fault in the cause of break-up is irrelevant, why does it so matter who paid for the ring? Surely, the only thing that entitles the man to the ring is a receipt for it, so are we saying that the little piece of paper detailing an economic exchange is more important than the love or “things” that a couple has gone through and shared?

Is an engagement ring merely a symbol of a promise to marry? Or is it a symbol of a relationship, of a commitment, and dare I say, fidelity to each other? Does the picture of a man on bended knee say “I’m contemplating marrying you,” or does it say, “you are the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with, the one and only woman...and will you do me the honour?” I think it’s more a case of the latter. If the engagement ring wasn’t so wrapped up in volumes of sentiment and was merely a promise to be legally wedded, trust me, it wouldn’t be wrapped up in volumes of cash either. Blame the cost of engagement rings on clever marketing, or DeBeers, or whoever you wish, but there’s something in their price that is meant to prove to a woman how much she is worth, not merely serve as a contemplation to marry. It should at least serve as collateral too, no?