To think he should buy a new fucking engagement ring!?

[BlueSuedeStiletto]

I got a text from my ex fiance this morning saying:

"Hiya, this might sound a bit weird, but can I have the engagement ring back?? Think I may have found a new recipient!"

My face was like this .

I've not seen him for a while- since I picked the last of my stuff up- and have been distancing myself, but he didn't mention anything when I saw him. I asked him when we split if he wanted the ring back, and he said no.

Obviously I don't wear the ring, but it still means something. And what woman in their right mind would want a ring chosen by a man's ex and worn by her for nearly 3 years? I think that's pretty insulting for both of us. AIBU??

Get the xbox back.

Ok, ok! Two of you seem to think that I'm having a personal go at you, and really I'm not!

Blue Suede, I have already said that I think in your case, considering it was a more or less mutual decision, and that you did offer him the ring back at the time, that you should hang onto it if you that's what you want to do. He was given the opportunity to have it back and he declined. I see no reason why he should be given a second chance.

Confuddled, I have no personal axe to grind and if you paid for your ring and the wedding and he constantly took from the wedding fund and left you in debt, then of course you should keep it! That would most definitely come under the, "good reason for breaking it off" I mentioned.

I am talking generally inasmuch as, if the groom to be bought the ring, as is tradition, and spent a good month's worth or more of his annual salary on it, and the bride to be breaks the engagement for no other reason than she's, "gone off him/the idea of marriage", then she should, morally, I think, offer him the ring back.

As the law stands it is far more difficult for a man to get the ring back in the latter case than it would be for the woman to hang on to it if the law was changed. Possession is, after all, nine tenths of the law anyway and he would have to resort to a court case to get it back which would be costly and, in cases like Confuddled's, very difficult to win. As things are, a woman can walk off with a very expensive item that the man has invested a great deal of money in and he can't even fight legally to get it back and that, imo, is not right.

I hope my position is now clearer?

I don't think you're having a personal go. I was agreeing with BlueSuedeStiletto when she said that some gifts are that expensive. I've never thought your position was unclear from the first post, I have only ever objected to one person's morality being applied to another person.

But it's not a British tradition, British tradition and law has always been that the woman keeps the ring. It's an American tradition that's so much on our TV people don't know the difference. Like runny eggs and "I do"! Our culture goes back far enough that the woman would not have been able to (or struggled to) get another potential husband if an engagement broke off, compared to America being a much younger country where it didn't matter so much.

Maybe I'm mad but we've not split up! Actually, I think I need to keep him on at least until I have paid off the loan lol as it's not likely to get paid off otherwise. My ex certainly had more out of me than the cost of the ring, if it hadn't been for my mum having the foresight to keep a set of my clothes at her house (I stayed over on her birthday and she told me to put my clothes in the wash and never returned them) I'd have been left in the clothes I stood up in and nothing else to my name. He'd have definitely been sent back where he came from if he'd tried to ask for my ring!

Cheeky, but you need to give it him back.

Why does she need to?

legally its OPs. I don't know why people are debating this.

Plus does the ex fiance need the ring or is he being an arse?

My point is that, as the law stands, one person's morality is forced upon other people, not just applied to them. The law, as it stands, allows what amounts to theft if a girl wants do as my ex "friend" did by deliberately setting her cap at young men rather wealthier than herself, inveigling an expensive ring out of them and then, having, "gone through the motions" of excited bride to be for a couple of months, unceremoniously dumping them and, having sold the ring setting off after an even wealthier quarry and then repeating the process! Her victims don't even have recourse to the law to begin fighting for their property back should they so wish!

As to common or accepted practise, I remember my much older sister breaking off her first engagement when she came to the realisation that her intended was such a, "mummy's boy" that, as a MIL, she would, in all probability, become a thorn in her side for life. On reflection, she realised that she didn't love him enough to put up with his mother and had better call the whole thing off. My mother told her in no uncertain terms that she must give back the ring as he had done nothing himself to warrant her change of heart, that if he was a, "mummy's boy" he had certainly been thus since before the engagement and it was her mistake to accept his proposal and not his to make it. This was in the early 70's (1972 I think but I was very young at the time) and I don't think she could have been in any way influenced by American TV as there was very little of it about at the time. We only had three channels; BBC 1 and 2 and ITV!

Your friend was a gold digger, not really applicable here!

It might be what happened to your sister in the 70s, but it still doesn't mean that it's what was custom/ tradition here.

I wasn't talking about OP with reference to the gold digger, just saying why I think the law is morally wrong. Addressing your point that one person's morality shouldn't be applied to another by attempting to point out that the law , as it stands allows for one person's morality to be forced upon another and not a very good morality by all accounts. I think even you accept that she was a, "gold digger" and the law, as it stands, allows her to get away scot free with what amounts to theft but you would still defend that law as being a good one? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick on that one?

The reference to my sister's case in the 70s was simply in response to your assertion that returning the ring is a custom gleaned from American TV programmes, nothing more, nothing less.

by the way if he had married her he woudl have a right to half the value of the ring potentially, but he didn't so he doesn't.

Frantic51.

You appear to be forgetting that if you give a person a gift then it ceases to belong to you and as such a person keeping that gift, does not amount to theft.

Frantic surely what your friend is doing is no different from say, dating a richer man, getting lots of expensive presents - car, jewellery etc, then dumping him. Do you think that should be against the law?

Frantic .

It doesn't amount to theft .

'A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another , with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it '

Section1 theft Act 1968 .

If all the above points aren't proved , then there is NO theft. So , OP didn't appropriate anything. He gave it to her . It wasn't dishonest , because she accepted it in the spirit it was GIVEN in , at the time . And it could also be argued that it was no longer his property.

Your ex friend was a bit of a shit gold digger, frantic.

I mean if the men were so wealthy and she wanted nice stuff, surely the best thing to do would be marry them? Heck even divorcing them in a few years would be better.

Considering the months (usually years) of effort it would have taken her to get each proposal, I don't really think the payback could have been worth it, even for a seriously bling ring.

It doesn't seem a very smart business model, is what I'm getting at.

Certainly nobody is going to be encouraged to go into the fake-fiancé line of work purely because they get to keep the ring.

Aaargh! For the very last time. I am NOT equating anything that OP has done with the EXAMPLE I am bringing up in regard to my ex "friend" In the latter case I do think that it is tantamount to theft because she dishonestly appropriated the gift of a valuable engagement ring, knowing at the time that she had no intention of marrying the guy. Therefore she had the intention of permanently depriving him of a substantial amount of cash.

No, I don't think it is the same as a woman dating a rich man and accepting expensive gifts generally as, in that case, if the guy is fool enough to spend shed loads of money on gifts for a woman having no idea if she is going to stick around or not, it's his own lookout. Different to a guy saying, "Will you marry me, please? You will? Great! Here's a £10k ring for you!"

Holdme not quite the terminology I would have used but, yes, a "shit gold digger" if you will. That's why I haven't seen her for about thirty years!

Update: The ring is gone, I put it on Ebay. The money is all going on bills. It feels like such a relief to get rid of it. I will also be changing my number. My sister is still friends with him on FB and she said he put some stuff up slagging me off. It kind of makes me feel for him as that is just so sad and childish.

Anyway, thanks for all the advice and opinions. Much appreciated!

Hope you got a good price, and good for you for taking back some control.

I got £400! That's way more then I expected tbh. But on the Goldsmiths website, they're selling it for more then he paid for it, so I guess the price of Gold had gone up. The buyer got a bargain and I actually quite like the idea if another woman wearing and enjoying it. It's a beautiful ring!

Good work BSS.

I'm so glad you didn't send it back, he sounds so flaky that I bet he'd deny getting it anyway. I think he was just bugging you trying to make you jealous.

Don't read anything into what he said on those texts, they're just the rantings of a drunk idiot.

Definitely change your number and ask your sister to de-friend the a$$hole!

Well done BSS,
I'm so glad that you did not heed the advice to return the ring.
I see you are using the money to clear debts, that is sensible and forward looking, I hope it helps you as you move towards a new part of your life.
Best wishes and good luck.

Can you post a link for Goldsmiths OP? I've got some rings to sell and I'm liking the sound of £400 per ring (when mine were approx £1K 25 years ago and jewellers offer me £300)

sorry - glad you've got things sorted

Are you aware this thread is being discussed on the wright stuff tomorrow?

www.facebook.com/officialwrightstuff?ref=ts&fref=ts