I’m confused too. I mean I can understand why the minutiae of an extremely public wedding might be examined in the news. But they have an obligation to explain why anomalies… are anomalous.
Since this is a forecast sort of news, I’m assuming someone in the Prince’s office must have thought it important to announce it. Which means the Prince made the choice not to wear a ring, and further made the decision that this would seem strange to the public and therefore must be announced.
What I haven’t been able to fathom is… what reason the Prince has to not wear a ring. I mean, if he hadn’t announced it beforehand, I wouldn’t have noticed. But since he has decided to make it an issue, I need to know why.
To summarize: I wouldn’t care, but the Prince says it’s important. But he won’t say why it’s important. Now I need to know!
In other news… on a personal level, I’m not married. And I don’t know what the protocols are for wearing rings. I imagine one might take them off as a practical measure during situation where they could easily be lost such as when in water. But, I imagine rings serve a useful symbolic purpose. If you bother to have them, especially if you bother to have ones made out of expensive materials such as gold, they can only have a symbolic purpose. I mean, if you want a symbol for just the wedding, but not the marriage, then you just get a handfasting - tie some rope around your wrists, and then it’s gone. But for marriage, and rings, the symbol is supposed to be ongoing.
Beyond pragmatic purposes for removal, I would think the absence of a ring to be somewhat suspect. In the same way that it would seem weird to me if the person I was married to suddenly stopped saying “I love you”. It’s not a direct slight, but it’s an odd and suspicious change in symbolic behavior.