Dear Mary
Q. My dilemma is about male wedding rings. I (born 1927) was brought up to believe they were ‘non-U’, and now I see all sorts of males wearing them. I have to know whether I am right or wrong before I die! I am beginning to wonder whether this is a ‘politically correct’ subject, like so many things today. Please, dear Mary, can you put me straight?
F.B., Helston, Cornwall
A. Traditionally the English gent does not wear jewellery, and even signet rings are considered dodgy. Of course there are exceptions that prove the rule. Flamboyant Duke of Omnium types will wear something generally considered to be vulgar if they feel like i,t and top-of-the-range asylum-seeker Count Adam Zamoyski can be seen at the launch of his latest book, 1812, wearing a glittering diamond ring. But male wedding rings are still definitely non-U and what they are, above all, is American. Nevertheless, a generational blip has seen them being flaunted by the occasional English gent aged roughly between 30 and 43. Factors affecting this age group include the oestrogenisation of the water supply, which has made men more sentimental, an element of PC in showing solidarity with vulgarian practices, a desire to show that one is not gay, and in some cases a smug married triumphalism. Finally, it is a statement of identity which declares, ‘I have travelled globally and take a pick’n’mix attitude to personal style, especially when it might signal to American plutocrats who could be of professional use that I am just like them.’ But do not fret. The under-30s are much less keen on the erosion of this country’s cultural heritage, and in the fullness of time we are likely to see a resumption of traditional practices.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in