It is a truth universally acknowledged that getting married is usually incredibly expensive.
Even the best budgeteers know that from popping the question right through to savouring the last day of your honeymoon, the costs can mount up before you’ve realised – and when you add in the weight of expectation from more traditional family members (free bars, seven-tier white cakes, fancy hotel function rooms), it can be one costly affair.
But according to one expert jeweller, there is one wedding habit that is on the way out: proposers are no longer expected to spend three months’ worth of their salary on an engagement ring.
According to the latest survey, brides and grooms of the UK are spending 19% less on engagement rings than they did a decade ago – shelling out an average of £1,080, compared to the previous £1,333.
“The rules have really shifted, particularly for younger generations,” jeweller Anna Sheffield told Metro US.
“The idea of the engagement ring now, I feel, is more tied to values and integrity of the material and the maker, as well as the people who will ultimately own the rings. They are symbols of their love after all.”
Read more: The end of the free wedding bar
Although many are puzzled by the origins of the three-month ring rule, it is De Beers that invented it.
In its first advertising campaign in the Thirties, the company declared that not only should an engagement ring feature a diamond, but it should cost the giver one month of their salary.
And as wages grew and the company became even more successful, the company expanded their horizons by demanding that ring purchasers spent a hefty three-month chunk of their wages on a ring.
But as we all know, times have somewhat changed. Not only are we approaching engagements a little bit differently, but even buying a ring is no longer essential.
So, jelly ring it is then?
Images: Rex Features