Where did the idea of giving a woman a diamond ring?

Where did the idea of giving a woman a diamond ring for marriage come from? I know some women out there say theyre happy to get the ring but seriously every woman wants the diamond ring cuz it makes them feel like a princess, but where did the idea come from?|||i dont think we'll ever know the truth where it comes from.... but thats a good question....|||The tradition of giving a diamond engagement ring as a promise for marriage began in 1477 with Archduke Maximilian of Austria presenting a gold ring set with a diamond as a token of his love to Mary of Burgundy.





During that era, diamonds were viewed as charms that could enhance the love of a husband for his wife. Even Cupid's arrows were said to be tipped with diamonds and thus an unequaled magical power.





Widespread wealth, initiated by the 19th century's Industrial Revolution and the rich supply of newly discovered African diamond mines, made diamonds available to a greater public. Diamond experts at GIA also note that this period was marked by revolutionary developments in cutting and polishing, resulting in diamonds revealing a brilliance greater than any other gem. The diamond now could stand alone, and thus, the solitaire engagement ring became fashionable.|||In Western tradition, an engagement ring is a ring worn by a woman indicating her engagement to be married. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, it is worn on the left-hand ring finger, while in other countries, such as Poland and Ukraine, it is customary for the ring to be worn on the right-hand. By modern convention in countries such as the United States, the ring is usually presented as a betrothal gift by a man to his prospective bride while or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal. It represents a formal agreement to future marriage.





Similar traditions purportedly date to classical times, dating back from an early usage reportedly referring to the fourth finger of the left hand as containing the vena amoris or "vein of love".





In the United States and Canada today it is becoming more common, but still quite rare, that a woman will also buy an engagement or promise ring for her partner at the time of the engagement.





In Egypt, Brazil and many European countries, both the man and the woman usually wear engagement rings, most often in the form of matching plain bands of white, yellow, or rose gold.[citation needed] In these countries the man's engagement ring often also eventually serves as the wedding ring. Some men wear two rings, but this is rarer. The woman's wedding ring can sometimes have a precious stone. In Spain, the woman sometimes buys a wristwatch for the man as an engagement present.





In some countries the tradition has been for the future groom to privately select and purchase a ring, to be presented to his desired bride when he proposes.





With more and more couples living together prior to marriage, however, it is becoming more common for a couple to select the engagement ring while purchasing a wedding band together. In countries where both partners wear engagement rings, the matching rings tend to be purchased together.[1] In the United States the ring is to be worn on the left ring finger (4th finger) for both men and women.





The price for an engagement ring can vary considerably depending on the materials used, the value of the gemstone, and the retailer. A conventional buying price ranging from two to three months wages for a ring guideline originated from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[2][3]





When shopping for a diamond ring, the price can depend significantly on the carat weight, color, clarity and cut of the diamond, otherwise known as gemological characteristics of the diamond. While less frequent, the practice of using other gemstones such as sapphires, rubies, moissanite, emeralds, occurs to honor tradition, reduce the price of the ring, or to make it unique.





Women traditionally refuse offers of marriage by refusing to take the offered engagement ring. In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."





One case in New South Wales, Australia ended in the man suing his former fianc茅e because she threw the ring in the trash after telling her she could keep it despite the marriage proposal failing. The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that despite what the man said, the ring remained a conditional gift (partly because his saying that she could keep it was partly due to his desire to salvage the relationship) and she was ordered to pay him its AUD$15,250 cost.[4]





Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. Legally, this condition can be subject to either a modified or a strict fault rule. Under the former, the fianc茅 can demand the return of the ring unless he breaks the engagement. Under the latter, the fianc茅 is entitled to the return unless his actions caused the breakup of the relationship, the same as the traditional approach. However, a no-fault rule is being advanced in some jurisdictions, under which the fianc茅 is always entitled to the return of the ring. The ring only becomes the property of the woman when marriage occurs. An unconditional gift approach is another possibility, wherein the ring is always treated as a gift, to be kept by the fianc茅e whether or not the relationship progresses to marriage. Recent court rulings have determined that the date in which the ring was offered can determine the condition of the gift. e.g. Valentine's Day and Chr|||The History of the Engagement Ring





The engagement ring that symbolizes the eternal love of two people who have pledged to join together in marriage actually dates back to the 15th century.





One of the first recorded accounts of an engagement ring was in 1477 when Archduke Maximilian of Austria presented Mary of Burgundy with a diamond ring. Maximilian wed Mary within 24 hours, thus beginning a tradition that has spanned centuries.





Although diamonds were reserved for royalty and the wealthy for the next 400 years, it wasn't until 1870, with the discovery of the diamond mines in South Africa, that these gems became more accessible and affordable to the public.





Since that first engagement, the betrothal ring has a rich history of change.





- The tradition of placing both the engagement ring and wedding band on the fourth finger of the left hand stems from a Greek belief that a certain vein in that finger, the vena amoris, runs directly to the heart.





- Posy rings, which were inscribed with love poems and messages, were popular betrothal rings from the Middle Ages until Victorian times.





- The smallest engagement ring on record was given to two-year-old Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, on the event of her betrothal to the infant Dauphin of France, son of King Francis I, in 1518. Mary's tiny gold ring was set with a diamond.





- Hearts were favorite motifs for engagement and wedding rings during the 17th and 18th centuries. These rings often used rubies (signifying love) and diamonds (signifying eternity).





- Colored stones were the gem of choice for engagement rings in the 18th and 19th centuries.





- The Tiffany, or solitaire, setting was introduced in the late 19th century.





- The "princess ring," sporting three to five large diamonds in a row across the top, was fashionable in the United States in the early 20th century. The three-stone style is extremely popular today.





- In the early part of the 20th century, platinum was the metal of choice for engagement rings because of its strength and durability in holding a diamond. However, platinum was declared a strategic metal during World War II, and its usage was restricted to military purposes. This led to the rise of both yellow and white gold in bridal jewelry. During the past 10 years, platinum has made a dramatic comeback.|||Not all women want diamonds, though. I never did and boy was my fiance relieved! He had already bought the ring when I mentioned that I would love a garnet (my birthstone) ring instead of a diamond ring if he proposed since I was dropping hints all over the place at that time.





But I've always wondered that myself and it seems that other people have a lot of good answers here. :)|||diamonds are rare to find. so as a love for ever.


diamonds last forever. so as a marriage should.


diamonds are expensive because rare. so the love for the loved one. is rare to find, so it has no price.|||Diamonds last forever


So should love





They are beautiful and expensive = represent your girl


But Chemistry actually tells us that sice diamonds are network covalently bonded they actually do degrade over a really, really, really long time : )|||It came from both Elizabeth Taylor, famous for her "White Diamonds" perfume; and also from Carol Channing, performer of the tune "Diamonds Are A Gal's Best Friend".|||I read an article about this recently in one of the history magazines my dentist has in his front room. The author wrote the article to refute the American idea that the big diamond engagement ring craze originated in the United States and was started by de Beers. But the craze for big rings began in England, not the US, and it began decades before de Beers even began to advertise to the public. Apparently it was meant as a way to stop English blackguards from making false proposals to women to get them into bed.





Modern views of the old days (that everyone was pure and virginal) are a bit naive. People had sex before marriage all the time, but "good girls" in middle-class England* waited until they were engaged, so that if they did fall pregnant a quick wedding could be easily arranged. Of course, there were always slick Petes out there who falsely promised marriage in order to get sex and who left a lot of unmarried pregnant women around.





The English courts therefore gave women the right to sue for breach of promise. In most cases the court would award the deceived woman money which she could then use to go away and have the child in secret - remember that at this time, a woman who was known to have had a child out of wedlock was permanently and ineradicably stained as basically a piece of slime who was lucky not to end up starving in the streets. (It also helped that court cases could be tried within weeks at the time.)





This threat of a lawsuit dissuaded most men from attempting to trick unmarried women into sex, but it also took up a lot of the court's time. Over time, both changes to the way courts ruled and the lengthening time it took for a suit to make it to court eventually made breach of promise suits worthless. Little by little, couples decided that instead of guaranteeing the bride's reputation with the threat of a court case, they'd guarantee it with some kind of surety. If a groom had to pony up for an expensive engagement ring before he got any, he wouldn't try to do so frivolously.