Rings for the finger

by George Frederick Kunz

And will return filled with joy.)

This motto is believed to indicate that the ring had been given to a Crusader to wear on his expedition for the rescue of the Holy Land from the hands of the infidels. That it should have been found on English soil seems to be proof that the wearer returned safely to his native land.[310]

In 1774, after long and urgent solicitation, the Dean of Westminster, Dr. John Thomas, later Bishop of Rochester, consented to the opening of the tomb of Edward I of England (1272–1307) and the disinterment of his body. The corpse was found closely wrapped in coarse, thick linen cloth, the face being covered with a face-cloth of crimson sarcinet.[311] The features were still in great part well-preserved though the skin was dark brown, almost black. The monarch had been clothed with royal vesture and royal insignia, but no ring was found on either of the hands. The disinterment of King Canute’s body, however, resulted in the finding of a ring set with a large and fine stone, of what particular kind we are not informed.

When, in 1562, the iconoclastic Calvinists of Caen broke open the tomb of Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, in the Abbey of the Holy Trinity, there was still to be seen on one of the queen’s fingers a gold ring set with a fine sapphire. This was yielded to the Abbess, of the house of Montmorency, who later gave it to her father, the famous constable of France, Anne de Montmorency, when he attended Charles IX on the latter’s visit to Caen in the following year. The tomb of William Rufus, the Conqueror’s son, in Winchester Cathedral, was opened in the reign of Charles I, and in the dust of the king lay a large gold ring. So customary was it at this period to have a royal ring interred with the sovereign’s body, that even when Richard II left special directions in his will that the crown and sceptre to be buried with him should not be enriched with any precious stones, he expressly ordered that a ring set with a precious stone and worth 20 marks should be put on his finger.[312]

When, in 1360, the Earl of Richmond married the Lady Blanche, daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, King Edward III gave as presents a ring with a ruby and a belt garnished with rubies, emeralds and pearls.[313] The rubies may have been considered especially appropriate, since the red rose was the emblem of the House of Lancaster. More than a century later, in the reign of Henry VII, when Perkin Warbeck utilized his striking resemblance to Edward IV in support of his claim that he was one of the princes slain in the Tower, in 1483, by order of Richard III, and succeeded in persuading Edward’s sister, Margaret, and also King James IV of Scotland, of the truth of his pretensions, one of his rural agents in England was called in the conspirators’ correspondence “The Merchant of the Ruby,” a designation designed to cast off possible suspicion by representing the agent to be only a gem dealer.

There still exists in the English records a paper dated in 1445, the year of Margaret of Anjou’s marriage, and signed by King Henry VI. In this the king directs that a warrant of discharge be given to “our Trusty and Wellbeloved Squire John Merston, Tresorier of our Chambre and Keper of our juwelles,” for sundry jewels which had been confided to his care. The following item refers to the ring of Margaret of Anjou:[314]

“A Ryng of Gold, Garnished with a fayr Rubie, somtyme Yeven unto Us by our Bel Oncle the Cardinal of Englande, with the which we were Sacred in the Day of oure Coronation at Parys, delivered unto Mathew Phelip, to Breke, and thereof to make an other Ryng for the Quenes Wedding Ring.”

There is no mention here of any engraving on the stone of this ring, which had been used in 1431, when Henry VI was crowned in Paris. If the spinel in the Marlborough Collection, engraved with a head somewhat resembling that of Henry VI on his coins, really adorned this ring, the engraving may have been executed subsequent to Henry’s marriage with the unfortunate Margaret of Anjou.

Rings set with precious stones were given as prizes at the tournament held by Henry VII of England in 1494. The prize for jousting was to be a ruby ring, while the best in the tourney and the one delivering the most telling strokes was to be rewarded with a diamond ring. The Earl of Suffolk, Thomas Brandon, who later married King Henry’s daughter Margaret, after the death of her first husband Louis XII of France, was successful in gaining one of the ruby rings, bestowed upon him by the “Ladie Margaret,” his future wife, and Sir Edward A. Borough fought so stoutly in the mêlée that he was adjudged worthy of a diamond ring. An extra prize of an emerald ring was given to the Earl of Essex for his valor.[315]

In 1681 the Duke of Norfolk presented to the College of Arms in London the sword, dagger, and ring worn by James IV of Scotland (1473–1513) at the battle of Flodden Field, fought August 22, 1513, in which he met his death. This ring was set with a turquoise and had been sent to James by the queen of France, as a pledge of friendship and regard, when she solicited the good offices of the Scottish monarch with Henry VIII, who had just laid siege to Térouanne. Another account states that when the queen sent the ring to James, she charged him to break a lance for her sake. This ring is said to have been taken from the body of King James by Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, an ancestor of the donor.[316] The belief that the turquoise protected those who wore it from falls and wounds, probably determined its selection, but the result in this case was hardly calculated to increase the stone’s prestige.