aibu to suggest signet ring (dh's family) is a bit ...

[Stovetopespresso]

it needs resizing and he was just chatting about going to the jewelers when allowed. I said "or you could just not, maybe it's a sign of privilege and status which isn't very "now"? I meant I as a discussion but he got really hurt and said I'd upset him as it was a sentimental family tradition going back years and how much he is looking forward to giving one to dc when they turn 18. he said I was no better than those who want statues removed and history whitewashed. we are both quite left wing! i was thinking by this time maybe I do want statues chucked in the effing harbour but apologiesd for not taking in to account the sentimental value of his family, both sides of which are a tad colonial if relevant yabu= it's his decision yanabu = it's classist and outdated

@knocke

Far better than big rings with stones and sovereigns I would have thought.

Yep far classier to have a coat of arms despite your ancestors links to slavery then a tacky diamond or chavvy sovereign, ever so common 🥱

That's quite a leap: I had no idea that signet rings signified ancestral links to slavery. The things you learn on MN.

Correction: Coat of arms, not signet rings. The rest of the message stands.

That's quite a leap: I had no idea that signet rings signified ancestral links to slavery.

You think that not one historical aristocratic family (who had a coat of arms) had links to slavery? 😆

This is your post, which lumps all people whose families have coats of arms, for whatever reason:

Yep far classier to have a coat of arms despite your ancestors links to slavery then a tacky diamond or chavvy sovereign, ever so common

I think they’re hideous, but I remember them from the 80’s-90’s. In my humble, judgemental opinion, and old one would be ‘better’ but like everything, it’s how you wear it, not what you wear. And that is a level below no one should care what you wear.

As unpopular as my opinion will be I'm with you OP...distinct whiff of classism! Especially a signal to those who know, old boys club

[quote Stovetopespresso]@IHaveBrilloHair do you mean do I think so? yes I think inherited wealth and privilege are inhibiting social mobility and a ring could be a stealth boast, almost secret signal that a certain type (of man) gives off to another?
I think we need to change our view of history and what with blm, increased awareness of sexism etc so this ring might be passé[/quote]
and i think its not your business.

How is it any difference to jewellery bring pasted down in the female side. I have stuff that was my grandmother's that was my mums and now mine. YABU

@Leeds2

I loathe signet rings, not because I see them as a sign of privilege but because I think they look tacky, I would hate my 18 year old DC to be given one, for fear they would feel obliged to wear it.

No it's what the upper classes wear instead of a wedding ring. Have a look at Prince Charles. It's a bit dated now but it was ever thus.

Signet rings come from Argos round where I grew up! They had Mam written on them.

This is your post, which lumps all people whose families have coats of arms, for whatever reason:

No my post didn't say everyone who has a coat of arms was racist, it said if you did why would that be worse than big rings with stones and sovereigns which is what you said.

"No it's what the upper classes wear instead of a wedding ring. Have a look at Prince Charles. It's a bit dated now but it was ever thus."

Again not true. In England, men wearing wedding rings is a comparatively new thing. A signet is a family thing, not to do with being married. My late husband wore a signet and a wedding ring. The signet was given to him by his mother and had been his father's. My own father, who was as working class as you can get, wore a signet given to him by his mother in law which had been her husband's.

@AlfonsoTheTerrible

Correction: Coat of arms, not signet rings. The rest of the message stands.

Not all coats of arms have links to slavery.

It's just a ring - I don't like rings on men but it's no worse than a wedding ring.

Not all coats of arms have links to slavery.

Exactly some do, some don't. The OP didn't specify.

@Yellownotblue

This thread is ample evidence that signet rings still work as shibboleth.

If you spend any time at all with the kind of people in question you quickly realise that they have a hundred tiny shibboleths to identify each other. The point, which has been ignored over and over again, is that taking off the signet won't dismantle or redistribute the wealth and privilege that the DH (and probably the OP) have benefited from. It's totally shallow.

TBH I'd rather have a braying chap in red cords and a signet than the kind of upper-class tourist that was so effectively skewered in Common People, pretending to be ordinary but doing absolutely nothing to help others to benefit from their safety net of privilege. The look-at-my-fucking-red-trousers guy probably isn't helping anyone either but at least he is honest about who he is and where he has come from.

@godmum56

"No it's what the upper classes wear instead of a wedding ring. Have a look at Prince Charles. It's a bit dated now but it was ever thus."

Again not true. In England, men wearing wedding rings is a comparatively new thing. A signet is a family thing, not to do with being married. My late husband wore a signet and a wedding ring. The signet was given to him by his mother and had been his father's. My own father, who was as working class as you can get, wore a signet given to him by his mother in law which had been her husband's.

Partly. They do usually have a seal or coat of arms. They are not wedding rings but upper class men often start to wear them first when they get married. Or when they come of age. Previous generations of posh men would never have worn a wedding ring - looked upon as appallingly infra dig. Harry wears one. His father and brother don't. My first husband said only Italian men wore wedding rings - tosser. True though. In those days it was pretty much only a continental thing, and then only Catholic countries (I think).

I looked up Coat of Arms and this is from Britannica:

"Coat of arms, the principal part of a system of hereditary symbols dating back to early medieval Europe, used primarily to establish identity in battle. Arms evolved to denote family descent, adoption, alliance, property ownership, and, eventually, profession."

Seems harmless enough to me.

Wow 81% YABU at the moment. Your post states, correctly, that the signet ring is a signifier of old wealth and privilege for a family with colonial connections. Old wealth in this country - you mention going back 200 years in the case of your husband's family - is very often linked to histories of colonialism and the slave trade AND/OR the exploitation of rural poor by landowners or workers in the industrial revolution. While your husband may not feel responsible for his ancestors, wearing a signet ring actively celebrates his family's historical wealth, power and where it came from. I'm pretty appalled that 81% of mumsnet voters on this thread think that's absolutely fine. Conversely, I'm sure Jacob Rees-Moggins and co will be delighted.

"Partly. They do usually have a seal or coat of arms. They are not wedding rings but upper class men often start to wear them first when they get married. Or when they come of age. Previous generations of posh men would never have worn a wedding ring - looked upon as appallingly infra dig. Harry wears one. His father and brother don't. My first husband said only Italian men wore wedding rings - tosser. True though. In those days it was pretty much only a continental thing, and then only Catholic countries (I think)."

Or when they are given it, or when they inherit it. The signets my husband and father wore were monogrammed.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE these kind of family traditions, not that we have any in our family.
My ideal engagement would have been a family sentimental ugly ring over a £1million fancy ring any day!

I didn't know they were posh. I've noticed Prince Charles wearing one and always wondered why he was wearing something so tacky. They make me think of cockney market traders and Del Boys types

I currently wear my dead partner's signet ring on my thumb. He inherited it from his father. All his male cousins have one also. It has the family crest on it. It's very worn, but it will eventually go to our daughter. She has the family crest tattooed on the inside of her left wrist. Yes, he was posh. His cousin is a Marquess. He died from the drink, leaving very little for his only child. Me, I'm 100% working class. His mother referred to me as "the miner's daughter..." (My father did work in the mines, doing scientific research into pneumoconiosis). When my girl got the tattoo, I suggested her arse would be a better place for it...

I agree with you OP, they’re naff/elitist/outdated/patriarchal etcetc. I think the general consensus is skewed due to confusion between signet rings and sovereign rings (!) and seemingly a general lack of awareness 😬. I can’t imagine marrying someone who wore one anyway! But I guess it’s kind of cute at the same time 🤷‍♀️

@Lulu777

Wow 81% YABU at the moment. Your post states, correctly, that the signet ring is a signifier of old wealth and privilege for a family with colonial connections. Old wealth in this country - you mention going back 200 years in the case of your husband's family - is very often linked to histories of colonialism and the slave trade AND/OR the exploitation of rural poor by landowners or workers in the industrial revolution. While your husband may not feel responsible for his ancestors, wearing a signet ring actively celebrates his family's historical wealth, power and where it came from. I'm pretty appalled that 81% of mumsnet voters on this thread think that's absolutely fine. Conversely, I'm sure Jacob Rees-Moggins and co will be delighted.

So discreetly channelling that old, inherited money into a mortgage-free house, expensive education etc = fine, but wearing a piece of jewellery which hints at where the money has come from = unconscionable?

Where are all these signet-free descendants who are doing their bit to dismantle hereditary privilege?