6 ct diamond ring and 30,000,000 wedding

[thecat]

30 mil wedding and only 6cts?

Niel, that is exactly what I thought when I first saw this! Could have put a bit more towards the ring and made it at least 10 carats lol.

EXACTLY my thought as well...$30 million for one weekend and then a measly 6 ct diamond for the rest of her life e-ring? CWAZY!

Apparently the wedding was heavily sponsored, else it makes more sense to put a bit more into the ring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/angelababy-20-million-pound-wedding-dior-wedding-dress/

 

[iLander]

I found this wedding fascinating! I recently read Crazy Rich Asians and China Rich Girlfriend, and enjoyed both tremendously. The books (best read as a series) describe the super wealthy lifestyles of some Asians, lifestyles that boggle the imagination. An afternoon at JAR buying a million dollars worth of jewels just for fun, multi-million dollar weddings, private 757's with koi ponds, all couture wardrobes, gifting your servants with Hermes bags, etc., etc. It also described the odd cheapness on certain things; underwear from the corner shop, a billionairess flying coach. Interestingly, much of the money is owned and controlled by women, rather than the men. And for the colored stones fans, yes, the Asians are also concerned about treatments of their egg-sized Burmese rubies. Over and over, I ran to google to look up brand names I've never heard of. Wowsa! The books were written by Kevin Kwan, an insider into the world of the super rich, and it seems mostly true (based on my own research into a couple of the incidents in the book).

To see this super rich wedding, with 2,000 guests, is like watching the books come alive. Fascinating.

I do kinda like the tiara, gotta say. No question about it being real.

 

[lambskin]

The ring looks like an octopus. I agree with Neil- more bling rather than the $$ reception. Obviously Graff was not a sponsor.

 

[lambskin]

The ring looks like an octopus. I agree with Neil- more bling rather than the $$ reception. Obviously Graff was not a sponsor.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'm Chinese and have never heard of them but then I'm not into movies.

 

[mochiko42]

That's funny. She's a big celebrity here but I've never heard her being compared to Kim K before!

In response to previous posts:
Ring hand --> Yes, in China, it's "men on the left, women on the right" ("nan zhuo nu you") so it's not uncommon to see women wearing their rings on the right hand. (Although some follow the Western tradition these days and wear the ring on the left hand. So anything goes, really.)
Delayed wedding receptions --> This is very common in this part of the world as far as I know, at least based on my experience with friends and family. I've been to at least a dozen wedding receptions/dinner where the couple were already married (up to 1 year before) but perhaps live overseas, or have relatives living overseas. E.g. My sister and her husband; and my brother and his wife; were both married in the US in July, but they did not have the formal Chinese banquet in Hong Kong until the following December/January (when they flew back for the reception/dinner). It's not seen as strange (unless you're having the reception a very long time after getting married, perhaps 2 years after? Having the reception within 1 year if the couple lives overseas from their relatives, seems to be acceptable.) Also, popular venues are booked 1-2 years ahead of time, so some people may just get registered first in a civil ceremony, then plan a celebration later on a date when the venue is available and their family members can attend.

 

[arkieb1]

Beautiful cake, dress and who would say no to that diamond even if the ring isn't everyone's taste. Lets hope the marriage lasts a bit longer than some of Kim K's....

 

[chrono]

DH and I were married at the courthouse, but had our reception several months later to include his side of the family who aren't in the US, so this isn't anything new to those who have 2 residences. I like the ring very much. She's so wealthy that I doubt she does anything more strenuous than to hold her microphone. In addition, I believe the main pear to be supported not only at the base (tip), but if you looks closely, it looks like there are also several additional attachment points on both the left and right by the accent stones.

 

[aviastar]

I've had 2 other friends do that, both because they were from one country, the other person from another. It doesn't take away from the wedding, if the couple considers the marriage license a formality.

A WEDDING is when two people get MARRIED. To get married, a marriage license is required. A party does not make someone married. Even a 30M party. A marriage license makes someone married. A marriage license is what legally gives a couple the benefits of being married. If you want to throw a party and wear a pretty dress and eat cake that's cool, but that isn't what makes you married.

I could argue the opposite- the piece of paper is how my marriage is noted, tracked, taxed/not taxed, it crosses the t's and dots the i's for the government ( here in this country anyway ), but my vows are what made me married. The promises I spoke before my diety of choice/the universe/friends and family are the sacred binding words that hold me accountable to my partner. Without the vows a marriage license is just a contract; add the vows and now you have a marriage. You can say vows at the courthouse, but you don't have to, you can just sign.

It's up to each individual couple how they personally want to break this down, what their opinions about it are, what their circumstances limit for them, etc. No right or wrong way to look at it- just individual couples making choices.

 

[telephone89]

I've had 2 other friends do that, both because they were from one country, the other person from another. It doesn't take away from the wedding, if the couple considers the marriage license a formality.

A WEDDING is when two people get MARRIED. To get married, a marriage license is required. A party does not make someone married. Even a 30M party. A marriage license makes someone married. A marriage license is what legally gives a couple the benefits of being married. If you want to throw a party and wear a pretty dress and eat cake that's cool, but that isn't what makes you married.

I could argue the opposite- the piece of paper is how my marriage is noted, tracked, taxed/not taxed, it crosses the t's and dots the i's for the government ( here in this country anyway ), but my vows are what made me married. The promises I spoke before my diety of choice/the universe/friends and family are the sacred binding words that hold me accountable to my partner. Without the vows a marriage license is just a contract; add the vows and now you have a marriage. You can say vows at the courthouse, but you don't have to, you can just sign.

It's up to each individual couple how they personally want to break this down, what their opinions about it are, what their circumstances limit for them, etc. No right or wrong way to look at it- just individual couples making choices.

Well the government doesn't care what you say, so long as you sign the papers. So I would still say that no, your vows are not that important. You can say the vows without signing a paper, but you are not legally married. So, good luck with getting death benefits after playing dress up and saying some words w/o a 'piece of paper'. Btw - that piece of paper is what is being denied to many people across the world. Not their ability to wear a dress and eat cake. So maybe it shouldn't be taken for granted as it is not something that everyone has access to.

 

[Jambalaya]

Good call Jambalaya!
Sparkling: Angelababy's wedding ring, an enormous six-carat diamond from Chaumet, is said to have cost a whopping £1million.

Niel, I agree! I would have rather had a bigger jewelry budget!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...holographic-castle-2-000-closest-friends.html

Thanks! I went on the Chaumet website and saw it, but didn't have time to post it yesterday. They have a whole range of tiara rings, and I would buy a small one to wear as an occasional dress ring if a generic jeweler did a less expensive version. But I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a tiara ring because although I think they're pretty, I also think it's a very specific design that you could tire of.

Having such an incredibly extravagant wedding, if the marriage doesn't work out they're going to feel more than a little silly.

I think her dress is wonderful - very understated and elegant in the bodice and sleeves.

 

[aviastar]

I've had 2 other friends do that, both because they were from one country, the other person from another. It doesn't take away from the wedding, if the couple considers the marriage license a formality.

A WEDDING is when two people get MARRIED. To get married, a marriage license is required. A party does not make someone married. Even a 30M party. A marriage license makes someone married. A marriage license is what legally gives a couple the benefits of being married. If you want to throw a party and wear a pretty dress and eat cake that's cool, but that isn't what makes you married.

I could argue the opposite- the piece of paper is how my marriage is noted, tracked, taxed/not taxed, it crosses the t's and dots the i's for the government ( here in this country anyway ), but my vows are what made me married. The promises I spoke before my diety of choice/the universe/friends and family are the sacred binding words that hold me accountable to my partner. Without the vows a marriage license is just a contract; add the vows and now you have a marriage. You can say vows at the courthouse, but you don't have to, you can just sign.

It's up to each individual couple how they personally want to break this down, what their opinions about it are, what their circumstances limit for them, etc. No right or wrong way to look at it- just individual couples making choices.

Well the government doesn't care what you say, so long as you sign the papers. So I would still say that no, your vows are not that important. You can say the vows without signing a paper, but you are not legally married. So, good luck with getting death benefits after playing dress up and saying some words w/o a 'piece of paper'. Btw - that piece of paper is what is being denied to many people across the world. Not their ability to wear a dress and eat cake. So maybe it shouldn't be taken for granted as it is not something that everyone has access to.

No need to be sarcastic, just a different viewpoint. I want all people everyone to have the legal right to marry, should they choose to, but the liscence still means less to me personally than my vows. I would include death benefits in things that have been included or rolled into the liscence but do not a marriage make. My marriage stands a part from how I file taxes or who inherits my nonexistent fortune when I die; take it all away, the title, the legal stuff and I am still committed to my husband because I spoke a sacred promise to him. I'm simply suggesting that without knowing a couple and their views and having a conversation with them about how they thought this through, it's hard to judge their motives.

Sorry for derailing the thread, I'll bow out. No minds are being changed or discussion being had here today.

 

[telephone89]

No need to be sarcastic, just a different viewpoint. I want all people everyone to have the legal right to marry, should they choose to, but the liscence still means less to me personally than my vows. I would include death benefits in things that have been included or rolled into the liscence but do not a marriage make. My marriage stands a part from how I file taxes or who inherits my nonexistent fortune when I die; take it all away, the title, the legal stuff and I am still committed to my husband because I spoke a sacred promise to him. I'm simply suggesting that without knowing a couple and their views and having a conversation with them about how they thought this through, it's hard to judge their motives.

Sorry for derailing the thread, I'll bow out. No minds are being changed or discussion being had here today.

Ok. Well, you aren't married without the license, you are married without vows. If one is more important to you, that's fine, but it's not correct according to law and government, at least in north america. And I wasn't being sarcastic in any of my posts. I honestly believe that anyone married in a courthouse w/o vows is just as married as someone who has a multi million dollar wedding. I don't believe someone is married just because they throw a party. (btw, I love parties, I just prefer calling them their proper names...)

 

[partgypsy]

We are just trying to point out, when, a couple where 1 person is from 1 country, and the other is from another country, or where they live overseas from where their family is located, oftentimes the couple will get the marriage lisence months before the actual wedding. Doesn't mean the wedding is a sham or just a party. Has to do with logistical and planning reasons. Sorry if you don't approve.

I guess I'm not that traditional. To me when my partner decided to move down to another state with me and we moved in together, that was a more significant sign of commitment than when we "legally" got married 5 years later. for me, the commitment is more important than the paper. The wedding is a way to socially, family-wise celebrate the union of two people.

 

[telephone89]

When people put a party above their marriage, then yes, I don't approve. Marriage is a very important thing IMO. If you don't want to be legally married, or want to scam the govt for benefits, I will never agree with it. I'm also not a religious person, so I don't look at it from a place of faith.

I guess another reason I feel this way is that it looks like you (general you getting married) is only looking for gifts to do this. These people weren't important enough to actually be invited to watch you get married (even if in a courthouse), so why bother having a fake wedding with them there? Oh right, because they bring you gifts. I mean, obviously in this case (OP) I doubt she got $30M worth of gifts, but who knows. To me, living in a different place than your family is just an excuse - many people plan weddings in their hometown or have it half way between both families to allow for travel.

Anyways, it's generally considered rude and against etiquette to have a 'wedding' after you are already married. You cannot get married if you are already married is the point. Just because it is popular now does not mean it is not rude to guests.
I'm pretty strict on etiquette and the more modern notion of a couple's vision > treating guests well is disgusting IMO. Etiquette =/= tradition, they are two different things.
OK enough derailing.

 

[Jambalaya]

I agree with telephone, because I've experienced "almost" feeling caught out when a wedding turned out not to be a wedding. When we were young, my family and I were invited to a friend's wedding in her home country outside the US. We couldn't easily afford to go, so we declined. We saw the photos - it was a big white wedding. Imagine our surprise, then, when many months later the couple invited us to a small outdoor ceremony near a bridge with a minister - and THAT was the real wedding. That was when they actually got married. My family and I all turned to each other when we found out that this one was going to be the real thing and said, "Thank goodness we didn't pay all that money to go to Holland!" We were honored to be at their wedding after all.

For the first wedding, apparently they hadn't bothered to fill out the paperwork at all, so they couldn't get married - the ceremony was fake, and it wasn't made clear to the guests. A long time after the real wedding, we were socializing with one of the guests who had spent a lot of money to travel to the fake wedding, and she was very surprised to learn that they had not gotten married that day.

So they had a party and a dress and a cake and a minister, but they didn't get married - it was just a party, and the guests were fooled. They have two kids now, and when they grow up and want to see photos of Mommy and Daddy's wedding day, which photos will they show them? It's weird to have two weddings to show and to explain that the big white wedding wasn't when Mommy and Daddy got married. I don't know what's wrong with the usual format where you get married and then celebrate afterward, all on the same day.

I agree with whoever said that a party doesn't make you married, and my experience above is a good example of why it's considered rude not to invite your circle to your actual wedding but only to a party. The guests are being denied the real pleasure of experiencing the moment when you become a married couple, but are still expected to act as if they are at the real thing when they are not, and to buy the requisite gift. I think this idea of separating the wedding and the celebration is a modern thing. One of my cousins did this, got married in a destination wedding then held a party when they got home, where my cousin wore her wedding dress. However, they only did this because the groom had some serious family problems and marrying away from home was a way of avoiding dealing with them during their real wedding.

ETA: Remember all the excitement about seeing Kate Middleton and Prince William actually get married? I don't think there would have been the same enthusiasm if it had been revealed that the couple had already got married at some point previously. There is something magical about watching the moment of marriage, the magical moment when two become one, and that is the moment that people are celebrating. Without that, the gathering just isn't as much fun.

 

[partgypsy]

I agree with telephone, because I've experienced "almost" feeling caught out when a wedding turned out not to be a wedding. When we were young, my family and I were invited to a friend's wedding in her home country outside the US. We couldn't easily afford to go, so we declined. We saw the photos - it was a big white wedding. Imagine our surprise, then, when many months later the couple invited us to a small outdoor ceremony near a bridge with a minister - and THAT was the real wedding. That was when they actually got married. My family and I all turned to each other when we found out that this one was going to be the real thing and said, "Thank goodness we didn't pay all that money to go to Holland!" We were honored to be at their wedding after all.

For the first wedding, apparently they hadn't bothered to fill out the paperwork at all, so they couldn't get married - the ceremony was fake, and it wasn't made clear to the guests. A long time after the real wedding, we were socializing with one of the guests who had spent a lot of money to travel to the fake wedding, and she was very surprised to learn that they had not gotten married that day.

So they had a party and a dress and a cake and a minister, but they didn't get married - it was just a party, and the guests were fooled. They have two kids now, and when they grow up and want to see photos of Mommy and Daddy's wedding day, which photos will they show them? It's weird to have two weddings to show and to explain that the big white wedding wasn't when Mommy and Daddy got married. I don't know what's wrong with the usual format where you get married and then celebrate afterward, all on the same day.

I agree with whoever said that a party doesn't make you married, and my experience above is a good example of why it's considered rude not to invite your circle to your actual wedding but only to a party. The guests are being denied the real pleasure of experiencing the moment when you become a married couple, but are still expected to act as if they are at the real thing when they are not, and to buy the requisite gift. I think this idea of separating the wedding and the celebration is a modern thing. One of my cousins did this, got married in a destination wedding then held a party when they got home, where my cousin wore her wedding dress. However, they only did this because the groom had some serious family problems and marrying away from home was a way of avoiding dealing with them during their real wedding.

ETA: Remember all the excitement about seeing Kate Middleton and Prince William actually get married? I don't think there would have been the same enthusiasm if it had been revealed that the couple had already got married at some point previously. There is something magical about watching the moment of marriage, the magical moment when two become one, and that is the moment that people are celebrating. Without that, the gathering just isn't as much fun.

I have to say in the examples that Jambalaya gave above, I would be put off, because it is confusing and there seemed to be no good reason to have it that way, other than to have a bigger, fancier party. In both cases I knew of, the reason was that the couple were from different countries; they got their marriage license in the US before traveling to another country (one case Mexico, one case Canada) to have the wedding in the country of the bride. They couldn't literally have the marriage license and marriage on the same day, because the legal marriage was in 1 country and the wedding ceremony was in another.

 

[telephone89]

Thanks for your input Jambalaya, I'm sorry your family had to go through that. It is very hurtful when being lied to about it - it is somewhat less hurtful if the couple is upfront about it. But there is no reason that a couple cannot get a marriage license in mexico or Canada, even if they live in the states. People do it every day.

 

[packrat]

I remember finding out a cousin and his fiance had gotten married. My uncle let it slip well after the fact and we were all like wait, what, when?? And then months and months later she decided she missed out and wanted the whole shebang, and then it was like ummmmmyeah *now* you want us there? Big fancy white wedding in a church, minister, the whole 9 yards, and it was put on exactly as a wedding, united in holy matrimony, who gives this bride, witnessing the wedding of, etc etc..and I remember a lot of confused people "they were united in holy matrimony last year" "nobody gives this bride, she gave herself a year ago" "nobody objects to them being united in marriage, they're already married!" hahaha. eh well.

 

[partgypsy]

Thanks for your input Jambalaya, I'm sorry your family had to go through that. It is very hurtful when being lied to about it - it is somewhat less hurtful if the couple is upfront about it. But there is no reason that a couple cannot get a marriage license in mexico or Canada, even if they live in the states. People do it every day.

I didn't know that. I do know there was some reason they did it the way they did, maybe assisting with citizenship or something. Both cases they intended to live full time in US afterwards.

 

[AGBF]

A WEDDING is when two people get MARRIED. To get married, a marriage license is required. A party does not make someone married. Even a 30M party. A marriage license makes someone married. A marriage license is what legally gives a couple the benefits of being married. If you want to throw a party and wear a pretty dress and eat cake that's cool, but that isn't what makes you married.

telephone's comment made me think. I have been put off by this wedding; it is really not at all to my taste. Therefore her comment elicits an emotionally positive response from me. But it elicits a different intellectual response.

First, I have seen a friend celebrate a wedding in Vietnam that was not a "legal" wedding. He got married to a young woman in an elaborate day-long ceremony that involved many changes of costumes for both of them and allowed them no time to eat. I saw the video of it when he returned to the United States. I had never seen a spectacle like it in my life, although I am perfectly ready to believe that Chinese and Indian weddings for wealthier (i.e. upper middle class British and US based) families are even more elaborate.

My friend came to the United States legally unmarried because it was easier for his wife to enter the United States on a fiancée's visa. So what he did was legal. She did become pregnant after their wedding ceremony, however, and he now has a baby girl in Vietnam. He is of Vietnamese origin but has been here nearly all his life. My godson brought him home to his family when they they were both in high school and he lived with their family for many years. Now he (and my godson) are in their early 30's. I consider him married morally if not legally, because he is committed to the woman with whom he has a child.

Second, I agree with the other poster that sometimes people have a wedding ceremony abroad then a reception at home. My best friend did that. I was one of three people from the US who flew to France for her actual wedding. She was not marrying a Frenchman. Her fiancé was a fellow American in medical school there. Her reception was held here when she returned home.

Thirdly, and finally, it is not true that there has always been a license for a marriage. I remembered in studying the History of the Family that Philippe Ariès had written about medieval wedding customs. For centuries in Europe couples married each other simply by consummating their relationship; no priest needed to be present.

I found the information in this link fascinating...http://celyn.drizzlehosting.com/mrwp/mrwed.html

AGBF

 

[telephone89]

I didn't know that. I do know there was some reason they did it the way they did, maybe assisting with citizenship or something. Both cases they intended to live full time in US afterwards.

Where you get a marriage certificate has nothing to do with citizenship. The only issues with marriage certificates abroad are requirements by the host country - ie if you search tuffyluvrs (sp?) thread about her SIL getting married in Ireland - Ireland requires you to live in the country for a certain period (I believe a month) before you can get a marriage certificate there. Mexico requires you there 3 days before and to have a blood test. Couples who want the pretty pictures (usually) or other reasons get the certificate in their host country to avoid this because it is more difficult. But IMO they are then lying to their guests because they have already gotten married, they just didn't have the nice party because it would be too much work.

AGBF - You are correct that marriage didn't always have a certificate/legal consequence. In many countries across the world, this is still true. In a few countries (I know specifically the middle east/muslim countries) you can be married with only a religious ceremony. I did state that in one of my further posts to specify in North America to clarify.

Technically, a wedding reception is to be held directly after the wedding. Thus, people are now having 'At home receptions'. This is not a real wedding reception, though many couples still do a pretend wedding at this point. You were very lucky to be included in this couples ceremony - the people they invited after may have felt like props for photos and the event, and of course pictures. I cannot speak for everyone, though I do come from a large and vocal community about things like this. Many people would never dream of saying something the couple (as that is also a faux pas), but will speak negatively about it to others, and I know from experience being treated so poorly does impact relationships.

 

[Jambalaya]

I didn't know that. I do know there was some reason they did it the way they did, maybe assisting with citizenship or something. Both cases they intended to live full time in US afterwards.

Where you get a marriage certificate has nothing to do with citizenship. The only issues with marriage certificates abroad are requirements by the host country - ie if you search tuffyluvrs (sp?) thread about her SIL getting married in Ireland - Ireland requires you to live in the country for a certain period (I believe a month) before you can get a marriage certificate there. Mexico requires you there 3 days before and to have a blood test. Couples who want the pretty pictures (usually) or other reasons get the certificate in their host country to avoid this because it is more difficult. But IMO they are then lying to their guests because they have already gotten married, they just didn't have the nice party because it would be too much work.

AGBF - You are correct that marriage didn't always have a certificate/legal consequence. In many countries across the world, this is still true. In a few countries (I know specifically the middle east/muslim countries) you can be married with only a religious ceremony. I did state that in one of my further posts to specify in North America to clarify.

Technically, a wedding reception is to be held directly after the wedding. Thus, people are now having 'At home receptions'. This is not a real wedding reception, though many couples still do a pretend wedding at this point. You were very lucky to be included in this couples ceremony - the people they invited after may have felt like props for photos and the event, and of course pictures. I cannot speak for everyone, though I do come from a large and vocal community about things like this. Many people would never dream of saying something the couple (as that is also a faux pas), but will speak negatively about it to others, and I know from experience being treated so poorly does impact relationships.

It does. We've had a few family members and lifelong family friends not invited to weddings that they should have been, and in one case a family member - a cousin - picked and chose from the family who to invite and who not to invite! Excuse was small wedding, restaurant reception, etc etc - but they had more than enough money to host the rest of the family, too. I'm the kind of person who would rather have a buffet in a church hall prepared by us all the night before with food bought from Walmart, than not invite all my family, but that's just me. It doesn't seem to matter so much at the time, not being invited, but as the years go on, and people are born and people die off, you realize what significant occasions weddings really are, and you mind more. Man, if I'm going to your funeral I wanna be at your wedding too!

In a more general sense, why do so many people not realize the truth of the bolded words above? I've had friends treat me poorly and then react with genuine surprise when I react poorly!

 

[Jambalaya]

JWS - I think Angelababy was quite restrained in not wearing a necklace or earrings. I know she had a tiara and a big ring, but her dress was beautifully simple and she didn't overdo the jewels. i think she looked very nice.

 

[jaysonsmom]

If I married someone who could afford that kind of wedding, I'd want a bigger diamond too

I think they are a gorgeous couple, but have to admit I immediately did a image search online to see why she is compared to Kim Kardashian, my eyes immediately looked for a BIG Badonkadonk but this girl is a rail.

I guess the similarity is that she has apparently gone through lots of changes which she attributes to maturing into her looks and denies plastic surgery, even though she has a completely different chin and eyes.

 

[OreoRosies86]

It's just... SO much. I would be stressed and probably wouldn't enjoy any of it. Like, my dreams don't even go that big.