With Neflix’s Bridgerton series set to debut its third season next month, interest in Regency-inspired jewelry, which flared in the wake of seasons one and two, is likely to blaze up once again this spring. Especially as we see the cute enameled jewels seventeen-year-old Penelope Featherington wore in earlier seasons—butterflies, daisies, and other sweet-looking flowers—give way in this latest season to golds, silvers, and sparkling diamonds, jewels far more suitable to a young lady on the cusp of romantic and sexual awakening.
Bridgerton doesn’t aim for precise historical accuracy, but instead combines nods to Georgian style with clever modern touches. I enjoy gazing at the gorgeous creations, but I also love browsing authentic Georgian and Regency jewelry sites, too. Especially when I’m first thinking about starting a new novel. I like to gather pictures related to my new story and keep them on a Pinterest board as inspiration. Here’s a link to my Pinterest Board for Not Quite a Scandal.
One picture I choose for each of my books is a piece of antique jewelry from the Georgian or Regency period, which I then use as a model for a jewel that’s meaningful to one of my characters.

A Quaker wedding dress from the early 19th century: beautiful silk fabric, but completely unadorned. Philadelphia Museum
This was a bit of a challenge for my latest book, Not Quite a Scandal, since its protagonist, Bathsheba Honeychurch, is a member of the Society of Friends, more commonly known as the Quakers. And Quakers insisted on plain dress—no frills, no furbelows, and definitely NO frivolous jewelry!
I got around this problem by making the jewel in question meaningful to Noel, the man who falls for Sheba, rather than to Sheba herself. I chose a ring I imagined Noel’s father gave to his mother, and which is in his possession now that both of his parents are gone. And I chose an unusual ring, one that would strike Sheba not just as a vain, idle adornment, but a gift with deeper meaning: a Fede/Gimmel ring.
Many Americans are likely familiar with the most common of the three ancient ring forms: the Claddagh. But the Fede ring and the Gimmel ring are far less well known today than they were in the past.

A Roman betrothal ring or wedding band, c. 3rd century CE, featuring the dextrarum iunctio, the joining of two right hands Metropolitan Museum of Art
A Fede, or ‘hand-in-hand’ ring, features two clasped hands united at a ring’s bezel. Such rings first appeared during Roman times, when the joining of two right hands, known as dextrarum iunctio, represented a solemn gesture of mutual fidelity and loyalty at the conclusion of an agreement or contract. The right hand was sacred to the ancient Roman god Fides, the deity of fidelity; “fede” is Italian for “trust” or “faith.” Depictions of the dextrarum iunctio were common not just in ancient Roman imagery, but also in early Christian art, especially in depictions of marriage.

English fede ring, late 15th/16th century Sotheby’s
Before Lord Hardwicke’s Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753, the only legal requirement for a valid marriage was that it be celebrated by an Anglican clergyman and that both parties give their consent. The marriage ceremony itself was governed by local customs and rituals. Two of those customs—the holding of hands and the giving of a ring—came together in the fede ring, which continued in use throughout the Medieval period and into the Renaissance and early modern periods throughout Europe.

16th century German gimmel ring, closed (left) and open (right). The inscription quotes the Bible (Matthew 19:6): “What therefore God what joined together, let not man put asunder”
A Gimmel, or gimmal, ring takes its name from the Latin “gemellus,” or “twin.” Gimmel rings are made of two interlocking hoops which can be taken apart. Betrothed couples would each be given a hoop from the ring to wear until the band was joined together during the wedding ceremony, when the bride would wear the ring made whole. This reuniting of the separated band, like Roman sacred handshake, served as confirmation of consent by each wedding participant. It also served a symbolic function: the joining of two lives to make one new cohesive whole.

Georgian Pearl and Paste Gimmel Ring c. 1820
In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, gimmel rings, known as joint rings in England, were used, like fede rings, as betrothal tokens.
By the 18th century, gimmel rings made with three or more interlocking bands, held together at the back by a pivot so when opened they hinged like a fan. A similar ring, one made of multiple interconnected bands which can be assembled and reassembled, are called “puzzle rings,” “harem rings,” or “Turkish wedding rings.”
Around 1600, the two types of rings—the fede and the gimmel—began to be combined into a single design. Such rings often featured a third element—a heart set on a. separate shank, which was revealed when the hands of the fede ring were opened. This is the design of the ring I discovered during one of my many searches of antique jewelry sites, the ring I chose to feature in Not Quite a Scandal:
Do you enjoy looking at antique jewelry? If so, I’ve listed some of my favorite sites for you below!
Comment on this or any of Bliss’s other posts today on Coffee Thoughts, and w!n a chance at a $25 gift certificate to your favorite independent bookstore!
If you’re shopping for (or perhaps just drooling over!) original Georgian jewelry:
If you like the look of Regency jewelry, but don’t want to pay for originals, check out these great sites that create Regency reproduction jewelry:
Sources
Dawes, Ginny Redington and Olivia Collings. Georgian Jewellery: 1714-1830. ACC Art Books, 2007, 2018.
“How Bridgerton is inspiring a Regency-jewelry revival.” Net-A-Porter blog.
Tait, Hugh. “Functional Finger-Rings.” In Seven Thousand Years of Jewellery. British Museum Press, 1986.
Photo credits:
Quaker wedding dress: Philadelphia Museum
Roman gold finger ring: Metropolitan Museum of Art
English Fede Ring: Sotheby’s
16th c German Gimmel Ring: Metropolitan Museum of Art
Antique Fede Gimmel Ring: Black Umbrella Jewelry
0 Comments