I just love the sentiment that is attached to a "tradition" that is reflective of nothing more than a brilliant ad campaign started by the diamond cartel in the late 1800's, and embellished, over decades, into a functional necessity for every young couple to be "properly" engaged. A gift from the groom to the bride solemnifying his enduring love for her by providing something for her personal use, possibly her adornment, and something that has an enduring quality to it. It has become a Diamond Ring due to marketing skills, not truly tradition.

So what does this ring now solemnify? A pissed-off husband-to-be, a catty family of potential in-laws and a woman who feels contrite well beyond the point where the damn ring is worth squat (loosing the ring was an accident, accidents happen). How rich is that? And what good is a new stone going to do, but simply be a funcitonal reminder of dysfunctional behavior?

While Cary's response was redolent with symbolic richness, almost a shamanistic quality to it, I doubt that hubby-to-be will play such an elegant role; he sounds far too much of the clod to engage in symbolic return-to-the-site games.

I would scrutinize the behavior of the hubby-to-be deeply, for it bodes poorly for an extended marriage. That form of obtuse passive-aggressive game playing is not appropriate. His loyalty pertaining the ring is not to his family of origin, but to his bride-to-be, his conversations about the ring should be restricted to her and her alone, and if there is this level of deep shame attached to its loss, his role ought to be to console his fiancee, not turn into a twerp or worse, a cad. He could have turned the loss of the ring into a completely private matter, he could have turned it into a completely public matter in a story where (rightly) his fiancee was the victim, and she could have been the recipient of sympathy, or he could have simply replaced the ring. Any number of alternatives, some with cost attached, but all with an emotional resonance attched. What he did was rude, demeaning and cold with a tinge of viciousness and underhandedness. Were I her, I'd take the Wal-Mart ring, fling it at his head, and run, don't walk, for the nearest exit. If she doesn't she enters upon a marriage where she will be "wrong" even if she is not at fault. That's a basis for decades of loving sharing, in the ups and downs of a relationship? I think not.

As for me, I gave my wife a strand of pearls, beautifully matched, with a simple clasp. It is spectacular, it fit my meagre budget, and when worn, which is on state occassions, it can't possibly fall off. When worn, it's austere beauty never ceases to elicit comment, although as "bling" goes, it is "anti-bling", to say the least. Neither she nor I felt a ring that represents the culmination of a marketing campaign was an appropriate way to celebrate our love. And, by the way, she gave me an engagement gift, a stunning, sleek watch, just recently overhauled and restored, good for the forseeable future..... The pearls, the watch and the marriage are about to celebrate twenty years.....