Angelina e-ring pics? Anyone seen these pics?

[jaysonsmom]

That ring on her "right" hand sure looks like an e-ring......ya think?

my theories are:

a) the picture is a transposed (flipped around) pic, I''ve seen magazine pics like that where people look like they are wearing their wedding sets on the wrong hand, but it was the graphic''s people''s mistake.

b) she is wearing her e-ring on the other hand to prevent gossip.

 

[Layne]

b) she is wearing her e-ring on the other hand to prevent gossip.

very possible but I can''t help but wonder how she could avoid gossip/tabs/etc at this point.

 

[hopefulheidi]

Well, I''m pretty sure the photo hasn''t been "flipped". When I took it into my image editing software and flipped it; I realized that the text on the tire behind her was no longer readable as it is now backwards. Guess that rules that out

 

[Momoftwo]

She and Brad may have a lot of money but she's been telling people for several years that her priorities are different now. Last night, I saw a clip from an interview on ET and she said (I can't remember the exact wording) she feels giulty for dressing up and presenting awards when there is so much poverty, etc in the world. So, my guess is no engagement ring because now to her, at least for the publics' view, it would be too much and inappropriate. My bet is, when they finally get married, if they ever do, it will be with a simple band. A ring on the right hand may be just a ring.

Also, as for the gossip issue, she had an affair with a married man (which she once said she'd never do), is pregnant and not married, so I think that gossip surrounding an engagement ring would be a nonevent in the grand scheme of her life.

 

[Caribou]

Are they offically engaged??

I guess since they''ve never actually admitted to being a couple but yet are pregnant, we may never know.

 

[laney]

Date: 2/2/2006 7:56:05 PM
Author:jaysonsmom
That ring on her ''right'' hand sure looks like an e-ring......ya think?


my theories are:


a) the picture is a transposed (flipped around) pic, I''ve seen magazine pics like that where people look like they are wearing their wedding sets on the wrong hand, but it was the graphic''s people''s mistake.


b) she is wearing her e-ring on the other hand to prevent gossip.

Uhm. I don''t think she is going to, can, is able to.. prevent any gossip.

I think she is on the cover of say 10+ US and probably more World wide magazines a week. Plus a mention in the "inside edition" and E! Shows weekly.

No prevention at this point possible.

 

[pearcrazy]

Date: 2/3/2006 8:29:19 AM
Author: Momoftwo
She and Brad may have a lot of money but she''s been telling people for several years that her priorities are different now. Last night, I saw a clip from an interview on ET and she said (I can''t remember the exact wording) she feels giulty for dressing up and presenting awards when there is so much poverty, etc in the world. So, my guess is no engagement ring because now to her, at least for the publics'' view, it would be too much and inappropriate. My bet is, when they finally get married, if they ever do, it will be with a simple band. A ring on the right hand may be just a ring.

Also, as for the gossip issue, she had an affair with a married man (which she once said she''d never do), is pregnant and not married, so I think that gossip surrounding an engagement ring would be a nonevent in the grand scheme of her life.

She also had an affair with an engaged man. When she met Billy Bob Thornton he was engaged to Laura Dern. Laura was out of the country on location shooting a movie. When she returned to the states she found out that Billy Bob and Angelina were married. Nice huh? I sincerely hope that whatever goes around comes around for Angelina.

 

[Morticia]

That little Zahara is sooooooooooooo adroable! She''s just precious.

 

[mrssalvo]

This weeks InTouch said they married Jan. 19th..

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/3/2006 10:01:10 AM
Author: pearcrazy

Date: 2/3/2006 8:29:19 AM

Author: Momoftwo
she had an affair with a married man

She also had an affair with an engaged man.

...​

I sincerely hope that whatever goes around comes around for Angelina.

It is clear to me that we live in parallel universes. In my universe the Puritans no longer make the laws. What you both wrote above could have come right out of The Scarlet Letter. The woman wears the scarlet A although it was the two men who were violating their commitments (if, indeed, they had committed not to have sexual relations with others), not this woman.

I would be stunned if I hadn't seen the woman blamed again and again and again when a man has an extra-marital affair with one.

Deborah

 

[FireGoddess]

Date: 2/3/2006 11:41:10 AM
Author: mrssalvo
This weeks InTouch said they married Jan. 19th..

I stopped getting In Touch (hated that my home delivered issue was 3 weeks behind the newsstands) and now I get US Weekly. That pic of the ring looks just like the one in US, but I hadn't heard the wedding had happened yet!!!

ETA: AGBF makes a good point - while I too don't condone relations with a married man...the men are if anything more at fault than she was...since they were the ones who took vows, or had asked someone to marry them.

 

[pearcrazy]

Date: 2/3/2006 11:52:33 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/3/2006 10:01:10 AM
Author: pearcrazy

Date: 2/3/2006 8:29:19 AM

Author: Momoftwo
she had an affair with a married man

She also had an affair with an engaged man.

...​

I sincerely hope that whatever goes around comes around for Angelina.

It is clear to me that we live in parallel universes. In my universe the Puritans no longer make the laws. What you both wrote above could have come right out of The Scarlet Letter. The woman wears the scarlet A although it was the two men who were violating their commitments (if, indeed, they had committed not to have sexual relations with others), not this woman.

I would be stunned if I hadn't seen the woman blamed again and again and again when a man has an extra-marital affair with one.

Deborah

Oh Pulleeze!!!

No one said that the men were not to blame equally. Let them slap a big ole letter A on their chests too! Sorry, I don't agree with you that she bears no blame in the matter. She certainly has a moral obligation (we do still have societal morals don't we?) to wait until those men were not committed to make her move. I thought marriage and engagement were commitments on the part of the men (and their partners) to not have sexual relations with others? Fidelity was a part of my marriage vows. What's the point of getting married then? Sorry if I don't share your indignation at Angelina being branded a homewrecker. She's beautiful, talented and a humanitarian but-- also a homewrecker as equally as the men she fooled around with. Thank goodness that the rest of the country doesn't practice Hollywood morals. We'd all have a 90% divorce rate.

Yup, I'm a PURITAN all right because in MY universe women keep their hands off of married men and married men keep their hands off of women who aren't their wives. In MY universe single men and single women respect the vows that married people and taken and don't interfere in the relationship.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Sometimes the "other person" in a new relationship isn't given all of the correct details by the offending party. Simply because Billy Bob was famous, doesn't necessarily mean Angelina had any idea he was engaged to Laura Dern - he could have told her it was just casual.

Brad could have also told Angelina that he and Jennifer were separated and completely over, when in fact they may not have been. And of course, we all know both men and women can be deceptive when it comes to "cheating".

Either way, I don't think anyone here knows any of these people personally, so I guess we'll just never really know.

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 2/3/2006 12:17:07 PM
Author: pearcrazy

Date: 2/3/2006 11:52:33 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/3/2006 10:01:10 AM
Author: pearcrazy

Date: 2/3/2006 8:29:19 AM

Author: Momoftwo
she had an affair with a married man

She also had an affair with an engaged man.

...​

I sincerely hope that whatever goes around comes around for Angelina.

It is clear to me that we live in parallel universes. In my universe the Puritans no longer make the laws. What you both wrote above could have come right out of The Scarlet Letter. The woman wears the scarlet A although it was the two men who were violating their commitments (if, indeed, they had committed not to have sexual relations with others), not this woman.

I would be stunned if I hadn't seen the woman blamed again and again and again when a man has an extra-marital affair with one.

Deborah

Oh Pulleeze!!!

No one said that the men were not to blame equally. Let them slap a big ole letter A on their chests too! Sorry, I don't agree with you that she bears no blame in the matter. She certainly has a moral obligation (we do still have societal morals don't we?) to wait until those men were not committed to make her move. I thought marriage and engagement were commitments on the part of the men (and their partners) to not have sexual relations with others? Fidelity was a part of my marriage vows. What's the point of getting married then? Sorry if I don't share your indignation at Angelina being branded a homewrecker. She's beautiful, talented and a humanitarian but-- also a homewrecker as equally as the men she fooled around with. Thank goodness that the rest of the country doesn't practice Hollywood morals. We'd all have a 90% divorce rate.

Yup, I'm a PURITAN all right because in MY universe women keep their hands off of married men and married men keep their hands off of women who aren't their wives. In MY universe single men and single women respect the vows that married people and taken and don't interfere in the relationship.

Um, wasn't this thread about Angelina? No one said she was totally at fault. What we said was it's not likely she's worried about gossip considering the way she's conducted her life. Now, if you want to discuss Brad or Billy Bob, I have opinions about their morals too. They really don't have any more than she does. Does that make it better? Both are responsible, but we were disucssing her. To me, they're just more examples of how unplugged from the real world a lot of celebrities really are.

 

[Mara]

Thanks for being the voice of reason Lauren!!

I could have sworn I read somewhere that BB did not tell Angelina about LD or being engaged at all, and also I read recently that Brad was telling Angelina that the marriage was long since over as they became more and more friendly etc etc. It may be evidence that she is too gullible or not smart about her men as is par for her unfortunately.

Really there are TWO people involved in ANY relationship and I think terms like 'homewrecker' are silly, what's really a 'homewrecker' if the home is not happy? It takes two to tango and we don't know what one person is telling the other, so it's all just assumptions as usual!

 

[Kaleigh]

I want to see a close up of the ring.

 

[pearcrazy]

Date: 2/3/2006 1:17:55 PM
Author: Mara
Thanks for being the voice of reason Lauren!!

I could have sworn I read somewhere that BB did not tell Angelina about LD or being engaged at all, and also I read recently that Brad was telling Angelina that the marriage was long since over as they became more and more friendly etc etc. It may be evidence that she is too gullible or not smart about her men as is par for her unfortunately.

Really there are TWO people involved in ANY relationship and I think terms like ''homewrecker'' are silly, what''s really a ''homewrecker'' if the home is not happy? It takes two to tango and we don''t know what one person is telling the other, so it''s all just assumptions as usual!

You''re right Mara, homewrecker is just a silly term but it''s easier than "marriage interferer".

Brad and Billy Bob too are "homewreckers" although it is their own home they destroyed. Whatever the case, I''m not holding my breath that "Brangelina" will be any more successful in their relationship than "Bennifer" was (the original Bennifer and not the current Bennifer) I guess in the "Trading Spouses" show that Hollywood has become, anyone is fair game.

 

[Mara]

unfortunately i too don''t hold much hope that these two will be able to make it either in the hollywood dating game, which is very sad because now there''s yet another child that will be involved.

 

[moon river]

Morals, Schmorals.....This thread is all about the bling

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 2/3/2006 1:22:02 PM
Author: kaleigh
I want to see a close up of the ring.

SERIOUSLY!!!!! Oh the drahhhmahhh! Celebs = human/flawed. It''s their ROCKS I want to secretly judge.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/3/2006 12:17:07 PM
Author: pearcrazy


Oh Pulleeze!!!

She certainly has a moral obligation (we do still have societal morals don't we?) to wait until those men were not committed to make her move.

That she had such an obligation is your opinion, not a fact. I suspect you do not have a clue if she ever, "made her move", either. Who said she chased Brad?

I thought marriage and engagement were commitments on the part of the men (and their partners) to not have sexual relations with others?

Once again, that is your opinion of how a marriage works, not a fact.

Yup, I'm a PURITAN all right because in MY universe women keep their hands off of married men and married men keep their hands off of women who aren't their wives. In MY universe single men and single women respect the vows that married people and taken and don't interfere in the relationship.


I hope you have the kind of marriage and the kind of friends you want. I have many friends who have had affairs....or whose spouses did.

 

[Kaleigh]

We don't know either of the parties involved, so going on and on about who did what is really pointless IMHO. This thread was about the RING. Then it goes way off track. Not to say there is anything wrong in stating your opinions, but really it's all speculation. Who knows who did what?? So if anyone can come up with a close up of the ring I would love to see it.

 

[Momoftwo]

IMO, the thread can go anywhere the posters choose to take it.

I just saw that in an interview in the last couple of days, Angelina said she and Brad will NEVER marry since she's been divorced twice and he's just gotten his. So, I doubt there's any ring to look at anyways. Who knows though!

IMO, the ring on her RIGHT hand looks just like any RHR.

Here's a link to a story on it: http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/article/03020611.php

And this one with something Brad said: http://toronto.fashion-monitor.com/news.php/romance/2006020308angelina-jolie2

So, who knows, but no one has seen an e-ring.

 

[pearcrazy]

Date: 2/4/2006 12:16:13 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/3/2006 12:17:07 PM
Author: pearcrazy


Oh Pulleeze!!!

She certainly has a moral obligation (we do still have societal morals don't we?) to wait until those men were not committed to make her move.

That she had such an obligation is your opinion, not a fact. I suspect you do not have a clue if she ever, 'made her move', either. Who said she chased Brad?

I thought marriage and engagement were commitments on the part of the men (and their partners) to not have sexual relations with others?

Once again, that is your opinion of how a marriage works, not a fact.

Yup, I'm a PURITAN all right because in MY universe women keep their hands off of married men and married men keep their hands off of women who aren't their wives. In MY universe single men and single women respect the vows that married people and taken and don't interfere in the relationship.


I hope you have the kind of marriage and the kind of friends you want. I have many friends who have had affairs....or whose spouses did.

Those are not my opinions of how a marriage works. That is how a marriage is SUPPOSED to work. I think you are the one in an alternate universe. Promises made are not always promises kept, I know that. Did you not take vows of fidelity? I've never been to a single wedding-- NOT ONE where the partners entering into the covenant of marriage did not promise fidelity. That is what a vow is- a promise and an OBLIGATION. If not then why don't we all promise to stay together until someone better, prettier, smarter, richer comes along? As far as Angelina goes, nope, I have no clue if he chased her or she chased him-- what does it matter? At some point she decided to have sex with a married man. If another woman who is aware that your husband is married, has sex with him--- is she blameless? Certainly he is guilty of infidelity, but do you feel like she is not responsible?

As far as my marriage goes, I DO have the kind of marriage I want and the kind of friends I want- Thanks for the well wishes.

I have been faithful to my husband of 14 years. To my knowledge, he has been faithful to me. If he hasn't, then he has broken his promise. But the key is that he made me a promise. I think where you are getting me wrong is that you think I am assuming that no one cheats. Heck yes they do, but they made a promise NOT to do that. A moral and a social OBLIGATION. A couple who wants the recognition of a union by the law and by other people has made a commitment and a promise. That is a social obligation. Those are the values that I teach my children. Fidelity, honor, truthfulness, respect, promises kept. I like my puritan universe and I think I'll stay in it. Yours is way too scary for me!

I honestly don't care who did what to whom and why. They are clueless in Hollywood. The sad part is that they have children who have to be involved in the turmoil.

Since there appears to be no ring, what does it matter where the thread strays?

 

[marvel]

She also had an affair with a married women, so gossip is nothing to her.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/4/2006 10:21:09 AM
Author: pearcrazy
Since there appears to be no ring, what does it matter where the thread strays?

I don't care where the thread goes! It wasn't I who thought it should be reined in! (As you can see forom the scary universe in which I live, I am not big on reining in others. I have enough work to do on myself

.)


Deb

 

[movie zombie]

the assumption that society agrees on what marriage represents and/or should be is certainly not true.

i know couples who have not taken a vow of fidelity [sexual] when they married.......they already decided on an open marriage and didn''t include the verbage that they would be sexually faithful. and have one friend who was never ever concerned that his wife had lovers on the side, unless she formed an emotional attachment and then he was scared out of his wits. it was her emotional fidelity that only concerned him.

admittedly, what works for them would not work for me. and yet we''re good friends. the key for me is that they have always been upfront about who and what they are about in their relationship: no hiding and no sneeking around.

hollywood relationships are no worse or better than those in the rest of society.

movie zombie

 

[pearcrazy]

Date: 2/4/2006 5:57:01 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/4/2006 10:21:09 AM
Author: pearcrazy
Since there appears to be no ring, what does it matter where the thread strays?

I don't care where the thread goes! It wasn't I who thought it should be reined in! (As you can see forom the scary universe in which I live, I am not big on reining in others. I have enough work to do on myself

.)


Deb

That comment was not directed at you-- AGBF




"the assumption that society agrees on what marriage represents and/or should be is certainly not true. "--Movie Zombie

It isn't? I am really in my own universe if I have missed the trend for marriage to be moving away from sexual manogamy and more towards openess. Honestly, Movie Zombie, you really have lots of friends that allow outsiders into the marriage? OK, I'm painfully out of touch with what the new social norms are then. I was still under the impression that the vast majority of marriages have an agreement of sexual manogamy. That constitutes a social norm in my book.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 2/4/2006 6:18:08 PM
Author: pearcrazy

Date: 2/4/2006 5:57:01 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/4/2006 10:21:09 AM
Author: pearcrazy
Since there appears to be no ring, what does it matter where the thread strays?

I don''t care where the thread goes! It wasn''t I who thought it should be reined in! (As you can see forom the scary universe in which I live, I am not big on reining in others. I have enough work to do on myself

.)


Deb

That comment was not directed at you-- AGBF




''the assumption that society agrees on what marriage represents and/or should be is certainly not true. ''--Movie Zombie

It isn''t? I am really in my own universe if I have missed the trend for marriage to be moving away from sexual manogamy and more towards openess. Honestly, Movie Zombie, you really have lots of friends that allow outsiders into the marriage? OK, I''m painfully out of touch with what the new social norms are then. I was still under the impression that the vast majority of marriages have an agreement of sexual manogamy. That constitutes a social norm in my book.

while for me monogomy is the rule for marriage, yes, i do have lots of friends for whom it is not. and i''ve been surprised by that....i''ve just assumed that they had agreed to be monogamous and then found out later that that was not part of their marriage contract with one another. and these people do not share your view [or mine] that they are allowing outsiders into their marriage: for them sex is only one aspect of the marriage and not necessarily the most important.

what i''m trying to say is that i no longer assume anything when it comes to anyone''s marriage.

society may agree that the norm for marriage is monogamy but it doesn''t practice what it preaches: high divorce rates, those for whom it was never a part of the contract, and then the ever present ''cheaters'' that sneak behind the other''s back to commit adultery. what we have is a perceived and voiced agreement to sexual monogamy but in practice what we have is serial monogamy. i''m not saying its right or wrong, i''m just saying it is.

again, and this is my main point, hollywood relationships are no worse or better than those in the rest of society.

movie zombie

 

[pearcrazy]

Movie Zombie, the point I was trying to make is that the rule for marriage for most people is one partner for a lifetime. It''s a sad and unfortunate fact that about half of the couples entering into marriage will decide to leave it. The expectation remains the same though. Do you think people are entering into marriage thinking "It will never last"? Just because many partners cheat doesn''t mean that it is becoming socially acceptable, just as the student who cheats on their math test, or steals CD''s from the music store. It happens all the time-- it isn''t more acceptable because of it.

I still think most of Hollywood isn''t on the same page with the rest of society. I think many Hollywood "hookups" and marriages are publicity stunts. I think they thrive on attention and controversy and as a group tend to be much more out of touch with the average person who isn''t as rich, famous and beautiful. But again, that''s the verdict from the Pearcrazy universe. It looks like I''m getting lonely floating around in it.