Kristen Stewart

Did you hear? Twilight hunk Robert Pattinson gave co-star and sweetheart, Kristen Stewart, a ring last week! (And you thought the budget brouhaha in Washington was big news.)

While Twi-hards will be disappointed to learn that the rumored ring is not, in fact, an engagement ring - it is a rock that comes with relationship strings.

According to Hollwoodgossip.com, R-Pats threw down a whopping $17,000 for a vintage promise ring and is just "waiting for the right time to give it to her."

A source said, “The ring is rose-cut diamonds set in rose gold. It’s a very feminine piece of jewelry and very old. The diamonds aren’t huge, and it doesn’t look like an engagement ring. [He] found it through a dealer who specializes in estate jewelry, and he knew it was just perfect for Kristen.”

1/2 Carat Diamond Right Hand Ring in 14K Rose, Yellow and White Gold

He’s not proposing, though. But the snitch is convinced that he would, if Kristen were on board for it.

I haven't heard much about the use of 'promise rings' these days, but it's heart-warming to know the tradition continues even with A-listers like this Tween dream couple. It's also nice to hear that rose gold is still a hot trend for all the metal mavens out there.

Rose Gold Ring with Diamonds

Rose gold, for the uninitiated, is a gold and copper alloy also known as pink gold or red gold (depending on the amount of copper in the mix).

Rose-cut diamonds were introduced as early as the 1500's and were popular until the early 1900's - so you see them a lot in vintage pieces like the one Rob apparently selected.

Rose-Cut Diamond Center Stone

Everything's certainly coming up roses for Kristen Stewart these days. I'll be on the lookout for her rosy ring pics - so stay tuned!

In the meantime, do you guys see promise rings making a comeback out there? Is this a new trend or a sweet gesture from a bygone era?

Kate Middleton Wedding Jewelry: The Trouble With Tiaras

Kate Middleton's wedding jewelry has been the subject of MUCH speculation in bauble land, especially since she's apparently the only one who will be wearing a wedding band now that Prince Wills opted out of the sacred ritual.

So. Most royal watchers are fixating on the tiara - a favorite past time with this crowd. But does Kate have to wear one? In a word: YES!

Lady Diana chose to wear her own family heirloom when she married Prince Charles - the Diamond Spencer tiara. But since Kate is, how shall I say this delicately - a lowly commoner - it's likely her family doesn't have a stash of tiaras at the ready.

The Queen could, of course, choose to lend or (gasp!) give Kate a tiara from her vast collection - which would be seen as a sign of confidence in the bride. (Click here to learn more about the Queen's tiara collection - and which one is the current Kate frontrunner).

I love the idea of a NEW tiara making it's debut (along with an Alexander McQueen wedding gown, fingers crossed!) and InStyle's wily editors apparently agree since they recently asked some of the jewelry world's top designers to sketch out their vision for a Kate Middleton wedding tiara in an awesome pictorial.

I love this one by Chopard (of course).

And that wacky Alexis Bitter's interpretation is just crazy enough to drive the Queen to an early grave.

So what will mack out the mellon of this most famous bride? We'll just have to ride the neverending Royal Wedding pre-party wave - and keep the guessing games going until the big day on the 29th.

In the meantime, JewelClub is getting in the spirit with the launch of their Royal Sample Sale today - with lots of great Kate-inspired sapphire sample sale steals, royal watchers!

And YES the Royal Wedding Live Tweet party is ON! We're using #royaljewelry for anyone who wants to join the fun. And YES - I will be getting up at 4AM to see it live. And YES - I think I may have a jewelry addiction problem.

Paris Hilton - Jewelry Thief?

Is Paris Hilton the latest paparazzi princess to add jewelry thief to her illustrious resume?

According to the New York Daily News, the 'heirhead' is being sued by German insurance giant, Allianz, for not returning $60,000 worth of Damiani loaner jewelry that was stolen (and subsequently recovered) from her house in that notorious celebrity jewelry crime spree back in 2009.

Why do I feel like I've been in this movie before?

"Despite having recovered Damiani's jewelry, \[Hilton has\] failed to return all of the jewelry to Damiani as required by the Agreements," the suit said.

In court paper, Allianz said Damiani in 2007 loaned Hilton $60,000 of jewelry to wear for public appearances. As part of the deal, Hilton agreed to stash the jewelry in a safe or a vault whenever she wasn't wearing it.

But, or course, our Paris does whatever she darn well pleases - so she left the baubles for the world to grab in her unlocked, unalarmed Beverly Hills mansion. And now that the police have long recovered the stolen bling, she just hasn't 'bothered' to return it to its rightful owners.

I'm of half a mind to think she's doing it to get back in the headlines after Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian stole her 'famous for being famous' thunder this year. But my guess is? She's just not into details.

No comment yet from the Hilton camp. Why can't these ladies get their diamond details down? Is this just poor planning or an 'I'm above it all' attitude gone bad?