Poll: Which recent royal engagement ring would you choose?

[Jambalaya]

Fun poll, bouncing off the thread about the recent UK royal engagement rings that we're discussing.

Out of the four rings of the current royal generation to marry, which would you choose?

Princess Eugenie's, a padparascha sapphire:


Princess Beatrice, MRB with baguettes:



Kate's and Meghan's:

 

[Jambalaya]

I just surprised myself by choosing Beatrice's. Although I'm not keen on the combo of MRB with step-cuts, I think they all look like super-high-quality stones. I love Meghan's, but I can't asses the cut quality. Might be fab, but it doesn't come across in photos.

 

[MeowMeow]

I can't choose. I really like aspects of all of them lol.

 

[baby monster]

Can't help focusing on their nail polish. So streaky

 

[Begonia]

All pretty, but not in love with any of them to be honest. If I HAD to choose?
The pad I guess. Window and all.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

All pretty, but not in love with any of them to be honest. If I HAD to choose?
The pad I guess. Window and all.

Me too!!

 

[Jambalaya]

Yeah, I'm not in love with any of them, either. Considering these gals are royal or married royalty, it's a bit disappointing! Not a real stunner among them, IMO.

For royals, I'd have thought these type of things were more like it! Just my opinion. I think all those gals would look amazing in emeralds, since they're all dark except Beatrice, who has lovely green eyes/red hair - great combo for emeralds IMO!

As future Queen, I'd have loved to see Kate get something like these:









And I think any of these kinds of styles would have been great for princesses/duchesses:










Just my opinion, but to me, these rings are much nicer designs and MUCH more stunning than the rings they have. I think a huge top-quality step-cut diamond would have looked absolutely amazing on Kate. She waited loyally for William for years. If I was him, I'd have really pushed the boat out and got her a diamond like that. (But I know the ring he chose was all about the sentiment, which is beautiful in its own way. Still think Kate should've got her own stunning diamond tho...)

 

[xxxxxx]

I love Eugenies Ring! But also more as a RHR and not as an engagement ring.
I agree with all your suggestions from an aesthetic perspective!
But I do understand why the royals aren't flaunting 10ct diamonds. That wouldn't be a good look for the modern "roles" they represent. To be honest that would be a reason not become a royal . In the high net worth circles in germany nobody wears big diamonds it's so boring! Only when you get in a bit more international crowd you finally see some nice rocks but only germans at a event there's no bling even though the people could afford a few 8ct +diamonds. It must be a european thing

 

[Jambalaya]

Yeah, I know, I hear ya! So boring. I do so hate the attitude that "we have lots of money but we can't have anything too nice" crowd! You only live once, after all! Look at the enormous jewels that the Queen wears! (I know they're all inherited, though.) I'm sure the royals have a fair few stones lying around that they could have re-set into something like the above!

My love language is gifts, so if I was a man in William's position, I'd have raided my personal inheritance from my mother to get Kate something stunning, and I'd have reasoned that it's our engagement, which happens once in a lifetime, so we can get what we like and it's from private funds. But that's just me.

 

[Jambalaya]

To me, the world is topsy-turvey in terms of consumer values. People are so self-righteous about jewels. It's OK for the royals to have palace upon palace, huge house upon huge house, and to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on designer clothes - which are, after all, only fabric - but they can't be seen to have a big diamond engagement ring, which will last forever. Meghan wore a dress to a dinner the other that cost $40k!

It just seems all wrong to me that Kate and William can have almost one hundred rooms to themselves but the poor old diamonds get looked down on. (Anmer Hall has about 50 rooms and their wing of Kensington Palace has approx. 40.) I wonder why property and clothes are OK but not jewels. People are very snobbish about large jewels, it seems. Like the circle you mentioned about not having big stones. I bet they spend their money on other things though - things which last a fraction of the time that diamonds do!

 

[missy]

I choose none of them...they are pretty but don't do it for me. This is what I would choose if I was a Princess.



7 carats of pure deliciousness and beauty. DVS1. This makes my heart go pitter patter.
Sigh.

 

[missy]

To me, the world is topsy-turvey in terms of consumer values. People are so self-righteous about jewels. It's OK for the royals to have palace upon palace, huge house upon huge house, and to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on designer clothes - which are, after all, only fabric - but they can't be seen to have a big diamond engagement ring, which will last forever. Meghan wore a dress to a dinner the other that cost $40k!

It just seems all wrong to me that Kate and William can have almost one hundred rooms to themselves but the poor old diamonds get looked down on. (Anmer Hall has about 50 rooms and their wing of Kensington Palace has approx. 40.) I wonder why property and clothes are OK but not jewels. People are very snobbish about large jewels, it seems. Like the circle you mentioned about not having big stones. I bet they spend their money on other things though - things which last a fraction of the time that diamonds do!

I am with you @Jambalaya but I firmly believe different strokes for different folks and what is right for one is not right for everyone. So OK you and I wouldn't "waste" money on something that holds no lasting value. We prefer gems to cars for example. But who is to say what is right for each individual? Let them spend on what makes them happy and we can spend on what makes us happy.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

It was between Eugenie and Beatrice and I went with Eugenie's just because it's so unusual and such a gorgeous sapphire.

 

[stracci2000]

I'm still all about that blue Ceylon sapphire. Not discounting the Pad, but blue is my fav sapphire color.
I am a September baby, I can't go against my star-sign!

 

[Jambalaya]

I totally agree, Missy, but my point is that many people look down on people's interest in gems, but that such self-righteous attitudes aren't applied to other forms of luxury, which seems topsy-turvey to me considering how long gems last! I've been called materialistic for my love of gems in the past. I was saying that in wealthy or royal circles, the attitude you espouse above is decidedly NOT applied to jewels! I was saying that the overall attitude seems to be that it's OK to have palaces and a dress costing 40k, but the poor old jewels get looked down on.

Logically, the luxury good that should be disapproved of the most - if people are going to discriminate, and they do, considering the disapproval of many towards jewels - is designer clothes. Because they last a fraction of the time that gems do! Same for cars.

ETA: In a nutshell, I just don't understand why jewels, particularly, get more disapproval than other luxury goods, as referred to in the post by Lessics. I know many people do hold those attitudes about jewels and gems.

 

[Jambalaya]

Stracci, is it a Kashmir sapphire? I didn't know that. I read somewhere it was a Ceylon sapphire, but I don't know if that's accurate because I thought Ceylons were lighter.

Kate's sapphire does look a nice medium blue in daylight. It looks much darker in electric lighting.

 

[Austina]

I actually don’t particularly like any of them. I think the old Queen Mum’s ring that Charlie gave Camilla would be my choice.

 

[Jambalaya]

Austina - yes, I love the design of that ring, but I'm not sure about the quality of the diamonds. They look dull to me. Perhaps I haven't seen it in daylight.

 

[Jambalaya]

Missy, the 7-carat ring you posted above is beautiful and certainly fit for a future queen!

It's just my opinion, but I think it's a pity that Kate, as a future queen, doesn't have at least one decent diamond. She doesn't even have a pair of diamond studs or a diamond solitaire necklace.

If was William, I'd have outfitted her properly with a diamond set, whether from inherited jewels or bought new. But then, I do speak as a diamond-crazed PSer, so there's that.

 

[Jambalaya]

Maybe..just maybe...Kate doesn't really like diamonds!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They have to be very careful about not flaunting wealth since they are working royals and are constantly out in public. I get it, but I feel sorry for them as it's a shame they can't wear the jewels they can afford on a daily basis.

I like all of the rings as all are classic styles. As someone else said, stone quality would be important to me, and that's something we really don't know. I do like Beatrice's new ring and it does appear to be a nice diamond, and I've always loved Kate's sapphire. I liked it enough when Diana got it to ask for one of my own. I am sure mine isn't half the quality or size of hers. But I think an oval with a sapphire halo is a timeless style.

 

[stracci2000]

Stracci, is it a Kashmir sapphire? I didn't know that. I read somewhere it was a Ceylon sapphire, but I don't know if that's accurate because I thought Ceylons were lighter.

Kate's sapphire does look a nice medium blue in daylight. It looks much darker in electric lighting.

Years ago, I thought I had heard it was Kashmir, which made it seem so special. But just after I posted my reply, I looked it up and the more recent articles say it is Ceylon.
Either way, I love that thing, and wish she would leave it on the sink in a public restroom so
I can find it.

 

[distracts]

I would LOVE Eugenie’s ring. It made me want a pad sapphire so badly. Based on the pic, that just looks like a tilt window and I suspect the stone has a high crown. It looks like a great color.

I like the other rings, but I adore Eugenie’s ring.

I agree that between the cultural conceptions of what “a large ring” is in the UK and the fact that they are out and about so much, there are probably practical reasons for going with almost normal sizes. However I hope that when they’re all just at home, they have some outstanding jewels they wear that we never get to see!

To me, the world is topsy-turvey in terms of consumer values. People are so self-righteous about jewels. It's OK for the royals to have palace upon palace, huge house upon huge house, and to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on designer clothes - which are, after all, only fabric - but they can't be seen to have a big diamond engagement ring, which will last forever. Meghan wore a dress to a dinner the other that cost $40k!

It just seems all wrong to me that Kate and William can have almost one hundred rooms to themselves but the poor old diamonds get looked down on. (Anmer Hall has about 50 rooms and their wing of Kensington Palace has approx. 40.) I wonder why property and clothes are OK but not jewels. People are very snobbish about large jewels, it seems. Like the circle you mentioned about not having big stones. I bet they spend their money on other things though - things which last a fraction of the time that diamonds do!

All judgment about consumption is like that... spending $30k on vacation is fine but $30k on an engagement ring is a waste, etc. It’s kind of weird to me. Furs also get people mad even though leather and meat usually don’t. I have fur coats and people carrying real leather purses have gotten after me for killing animals and I’m just here like “so do you and also I get cold easily.” Lol. It’s all about what things have ethical attacks that have been popularized at the time. I suspect we’ll see downsizing of houses and even less travel soon due to concern about climate change. I’m trying to get my European travel in before it’s seen as environment-destroying to take a transatlantic flight!

 

[meely]

I like Eugenie's the best, I think it’s the most unusual and had the most gravitas.
Next Meghan’s very classic and elegant, perhaps could have been a smidge bigger as it is a Royal ring.
Then Beatrice’s, very nice but not especially unusual.
Then Kate’s, the color does nothing for me and I find it very 80s. It just seems to be lacking on some detailing that could have elevated it. Plus the provenance doesn’t seem to bring much luck. I am British and grew up on almost black sapphires, I couldn’t understand why anyone would want a sapphire when I was a kid as I thought they were so ugly

Thankfully we all have different taste

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

They are all nice but I wouldn't choose any of them for an E-ring if I had a choice.

 

[dk168]

None, as IMHO, the Duchess of Cornwall's is the best.

DK

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Kate's ring (formerly Diana's) may remind people of the '80's because a million people bought replicas of it after Diana received hers! The oval halo style is present in antique rings such as this one (but it has a spinel which was common at that time). It's a classic style for sure!

 

[Polished]

I love Eugenie's ring, the colour of the pad, the way the style hugs her finger. I love the way it is large but blends at the same time. Beatrice's ring is gorgeous, I love that we've seen detailed shots of the style but it's very "ringy". I've got a ring on my finger and don't forget it.

I love Kate's iconic ring. I made one similar from a beautiful oval sapphire I inherited from my mother. I don't care that it came from a failed marriage. The ring was apparently the one happy thing that Diana felt at a time when, even from the start she was questioning her forthcoming marriage to Prince Charles. I doubt Kate wears this large ring at home (I imagine her wearing her diamond pave band William gave her after she gave birth) but I like the way it photographs well even from a distance. Then again I love history and living history is even better. The ring fits the role.

The palaces and stately homes and their royal use, whether you agree with it or not, has to do with historical tradition and play a role in maintaining the mystique of the monarchy (increasingly difficult in a the world of tabloid media). So opulance is still frowned on regarding royals. The Queen is known for her frugality. For example threadbare carpets on the stairway of Sandringham House.

The clothes they wear play a role in highlighting a royal event they are attending or fund raising charity they are supporting. Hence the justification for that expenditure. Even then they sometimes "recycle" an outfit, wearing it more than once for the opposite and same effect - that it is the charity or cause they are supporting that is important not the outfit they are wearing.

 

[m-2-b]

I know that this is not an option but I like Camilla's step cut ER the best.

 

[whitewave]