Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[sfmpco]

 

... according to BC Sherlock did have a sort of unspoken love for Irene. He even went as far as to say he knows what happened after Karachi and yes, it was romantic i.e. maybe Sherlock and Irene finally had dinner?

Not necessarily, they might have just gone to a restaurant together. 

 

"Romantic" can mean a whole range of things.

 

 

I saw that interview, and as I recall, the word he used was not "romantic" but "very loving" which has an entirely different subtext.  However, that is only BC's head canon.  He has his head canon, and each of us has a head canon.  Nevertheless, SOMETHING would have happened at the rescue of Irene.  He's got her tucked away somewhere safe, but it will be up to her to keep a low profile and stay safe--and that probably means she can never contact him again or reappear.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well! Loving was it? That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it. No wonder she sent him a single red rose when he got himself shot.

[sfmpco]

Well! Loving was it? That does put a whole new spin on it, doesn't it. No wonder she sent him a single red rose when he got himself shot.

 

Did she?  I will have to look at the flowers in HLV again.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

According to the set designer it's on a table near the foot of the hospital bed. The card merely says "W".

[T.o.b.y]

Well, something must have happened between series 1 and Janine. I mean, the way Sherlock was able to act like Janine's boyfriend, and the way they kissed, I can't really believe he has no experience at all by that time. On the other hand, the Sherlock we see in A Scandal in Belgravia is pretty clearly very inexperienced. So the most plausible theory, for me, is that Sherlock and Irene did get up to something after he saved her life. Whatever exactly that was. I don't really want to know, though I wouldn't mind a few blurry, non-explicit mind-palace flashbacks, actually.

 

I have another reason for just simply wanting to believe this: I think it would be really sad if Janine was the first person Sherlock kissed. I know he wouldn't give a damn about a first kiss, but I, a die-hard romantic, sure do, and I'd much, much, much rather it was Irene Adler, whom he actually loved / was attracted to / whatever than a woman he only seduced to get into her boss's office.

[sfmpco]

Well, the red rose is barely (and never clearly) visible.  I don't think Irene would have ever known about the incident.  

 

Logically you have to know that after he told Irene to run and he dispatched the Karachi guys around him that he would have caught up with her and whisked her off to safety.  And once they were safe???  It was a loving act to risk his life to save her (his MI6 skills no doubt coming in handy to go deep undercover), so what kind of other loving might have taken place?  Or would he have ever let himself be that vulnerable with her?  I mean, if he was a virgin up to that point, would she have been the one to take that from him?    It's hard to say.  Anyone know of any good fan fiction out there that covers this particular incident or do I need to eventually write it?

[T.o.b.y]

Well, the red rose is barely (and never clearly) visible.  I don't think Irene would have ever known about the incident.  

 

Logically you have to know that after he told Irene to run and he dispatched the Karachi guys around him that he would have caught up with her and whisked her off to safety.  And once they were safe???  It was a loving act to risk his life to save her (his MI6 skills no doubt coming in handy to go deep undercover), so what kind of other loving might have taken place?  Or would he have ever let himself be that vulnerable with her?  I mean, if he was a virgin up to that point, would she have been the one to take that from him?    It's hard to say.  Anyone know of any good fan fiction out there that covers this particular incident or do I need to eventually write it?

 

I think there are several, but I haven't read any of them.

 

I don't know whether I believe or want to believe they actually had sex (I don't want to know, I think), but it's pretty likely that something happened beyond "thanks, good bye".

 

Irene might be the kind of person who offers her body as a way of saying thank you, or because she didn't want to be beholden to him or something like that. I don't think Sherlock would accept such an offer, though.

[sfmpco]

I agree that I doubt Sherlock would have engaged in sex with her, but that's not to say that something loving and tender didn't transpire between them, a sort of bonding.  I mean, if you get your life saved by someone who has specifically put their own life in danger to save you, it bonds you.  Maybe he did finally have dinner and they had some good conversation, but some serious snogging... I doubt it.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I tried reading one but they made it into a sexual pissing contest seeing who could out manipulate the other. I didn't find it very in character at all and not at all "loving" as BC indicated that it would have been. Needless to say I didn't finish reading it.

[sfmpco]

Well, if you look at the Sherlock/Janine kiss carefully, he is not the initiator.  She is the one doing the kissing, and he's just along for the ride mostly to keep up the ruse in front of John.  If John hadn't been there would Sherlock have behaved any differently?  Maybe, but not in a romantic way.  After all, at some point they were being friendly and "intimate" enough where he played her with the line "You're the only one who really knows what I'm like" because she says that back to him verbatim in front of John.  She really did want to go all the way with him, though.  

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh yeah. Sherlock was "On the Hunt"...."The Game, Mrs. Hudson, is on". No of course he wasn't interested in Janine for Janine, she was an means to the end. Getting into Magnussen's penthouse flat. No romance there....nada, zilch, none.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh yeah. Sherlock was "On the Hunt"...."The Game, Mrs. Hudson, is on". No of course he wasn't interested in Janine for Janine, she was an means to the end. Getting into Magnussen's penthouse flat. No romance there....nada, zilch, none.

 

Yes, but, as Mary proved, there were other ways into Magnussen's office. Yet Sherlock deliberately chose this one, that involved playing at being in love and proving to himself, John and the newspapers that if he wanted a girl friend, he could damn well have one. And, conveniently, Janine is pretty good looking, and if you think of Irene Adler, she might even kind of be his type.

 

All sorts of stuff Sherlock does "for a case" is pretty convenient for him. He's a master rationalizer, if you ask me.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

True enough but then Sherlock obviously didn't have the time or the resources to case CAM's penthouse like Mary seems to have done. Janine was accessible and convenient plus it tickled Mofftiss canonical fancy?

[T.o.b.y]

Oh yeah, I am so thrilled that they kept the fake engagement from the original story! I knew that would be a gold mine...

 

I've wanted them to do the Milverton adventure for so long.

[Arcadia]

So why did you feel that series 3 slammed the door? For me, it opened it!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore this! But my “real life” seemed to think it had a prior claim on my time, and I've been running around trying to keep it happy. Stoopid life.

 

Do, please, I'm really curious how two people can read a series in completely opposite ways.

At any rate, it gave me some time to think, and I'm pretty sure our reading of S3 is closer than it seems. (And btw, no, I don't think you sounded a “bit snappy”.) So let's see what I can do here. For clarity, I've rearranged your comments a bit:

 

Besides, the question is not whether they are gay (who the hell cares about that?), but whether they are in love, and if so, to what extent.

 

Now, I don't think "in love" is the right expression for these two. I certainly do not see any kind of sexual attraction.

Well, to begin with, I think the question is indeed, for many people: are both or either of them gay? And that is, in fact, the question I was addressing in my other post. And people on all sides of the issue might care about it, for various reasons. But let's set that aside for now, because that's not your question.

 

So, to address your question: I agree with you! In S3, it's obvious these two men love each other. We don't have to guess about that, they say it: “I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world.” And: “Today you sit between … the two people who love you most in all this world.”

 

And I also agree with you that the term “in love” is not the right one to describe their relationship. In American English at least, that term is normally reserved for people who feel sexual desire for one another. The terms I would typically use to describe the love our boys have for one another are “friendship,” and “brotherhood.”

 

But I do see why other people see these things, at least I do after series 3....Basically, my take is, before series 3, people were reading stuff into the show.

By “stuff” I must assume you mean the aforementioned “sexual attraction.” Because their growing friendship was explicit, it didn't need to be read in. TGG - “That thing you did, that was good.” HoB - “I don't have friends, I've only got one.” And so, so sadly at the very end, when it's too late (or so John thought): “He's my friend.”

 

But if we're not talking about friendship, if we're talking about sexual desire, then I think yeah, we were deliberately invited to speculate about that in S1&2. Jokes about “they're two single men living together so they must be gay” were pretty much shoved into our faces: (“If you'll be needing two bedrooms!”) And since Moftiss brought the subject up, I think it only natural for the audience to consider the possibility that they really were sexually attracted to one another. Personally, I didn't see it; but I didn't really see any indication to the contrary, either, other than the obvious; John insisting he wasn't gay. And although courtesy dictated that I take him at his word, the show played with the idea just enough that I remained open to the idea that John was lying to himself and to us. And it seemed perfectly natural to me that other people might read even more into it than I.

 

In series 3, there was stuff in the show that literally begged to be read.

Again, agreed – especially if by “stuff” you mean “signs of love”. But – here's where you and I differ, I think – much of what begged to be read was also this: “John and Sherlock are not 'in love'.”

 

So now we've move away from your question again, and back to mine, which is: is there still a possibility we will see Sherlock and John in a sexual relationship? Now I'm the one who thinks people are reading stuff into the show that isn't there. I was genuinely amazed to read somewhere that John touching Sherlock's knee on stag night was proof that they were sexually drawn to one another. Wha …..????? In my experience of people, that proves nothing except that John lost his balance. (However, I've never been that drunk, or on a stag night. Or a man. So I'm willing to concede I missed something.)

 

The women are actually a part of this. Because they grant deniability, they are extremely convenient. If I wanted to play with the idea that two characters are in love but never really go there and also wanted to call people "absurd" who pick up on my idea and take it seriously, I'd see to it that I'd find "regular" partners for at least one protagonist really fast, too. I don't think they'd have written the stag night scenes into an episode where John is not on the brink of being married to the love of his life, for example. I think Mary's presence really allows the writers to go a much overboard with the romance between the two leads as is possible without showing them actually make out. Which is why I'm quite amused that the majority of fans who are emotionally very invested in pairing the men apparently want nothing more than for her to leave. They should be grateful!

Exactly. And that's one reason I think they've shut the door on the idea that John, at least, might “be in love with” a man; or even if he were, that he'd ever act on it; because they've married him off to a woman. Really, does John Watson strike anyone as the kind of person who would get married, then proceed to carry on with someone else?

 

And "he kissed a girl" proves absolutely nothing. .... It's not that simple.

No, it's not that simple in real life, but that's not what I was getting at. Here's where it gets really tricky, because it's not “in story” – it's about the writer's intentions. (Oh, no, that again.)

 

If Moftiss wanted me to believe that our boys are gay and/or “in love,”, it would have been so simple. Have their reunion end in tears and hugs. Make Janine a James (not all PA's have to be women!) Have John ditch Mary. Have Sherlock declare himself at the airfield.

 

Instead, they came up with a scenario that makes any coupling between John and Sherlock highly improbable. John moves out, marries a woman, begets a child. Sherlock flirts with two women, kisses not only them but Mary (while Anderson, who needs comforting the most, gets an awkward pat on the shoulder), and harbors a naked Irene in his mind palace. Kissing Janine doesn't prove he's straight; but it sure as heck highlights the absence of any kissing between men. This is Sherlock Holmes, he doesn't care a fig what people think, if he felt compelled to kiss a man, he'd do it, imo. But he doesn't.

 

So my conclusion is …. the writers are moving away from “oh, the boys might be gay, isn't that funny” to “these men seriously love each other – just not 'that way'.”

 

And a final comment; a door closed can be reopened. So we'll see.

[T.o.b.y]

 

So why did you feel that series 3 slammed the door? For me, it opened it!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore this! But my “real life” seemed to think it had a prior claim on my time, and I've been running around trying to keep it happy. Stoopid life.

 

Do, please, I'm really curious how two people can read a series in completely opposite ways.

At any rate, it gave me some time to think, and I'm pretty sure our reading of S3 is closer than it seems. (And btw, no, I don't think you sounded a “bit snappy”.) So let's see what I can do here. For clarity, I've rearranged your comments a bit:

 

Besides, the question is not whether they are gay (who the hell cares about that?), but whether they are in love, and if so, to what extent.

 

Now, I don't think "in love" is the right expression for these two. I certainly do not see any kind of sexual attraction.

Well, to begin with, I think the question is indeed, for many people: are both or either of them gay? And that is, in fact, the question I was addressing in my other post. And people on all sides of the issue might care about it, for various reasons. But let's set that aside for now, because that's not your question.

 

So, to address your question: I agree with you! In S3, it's obvious these two men love each other. We don't have to guess about that, they say it: “I want to be up there with the two people that I love and care about most in the world.” And: “Today you sit between … the two people who love you most in all this world.”

 

And I also agree with you that the term “in love” is not the right one to describe their relationship. In American English at least, that term is normally reserved for people who feel sexual desire for one another. The terms I would typically use to describe the love our boys have for one another are “friendship,” and “brotherhood.”

 

But I do see why other people see these things, at least I do after series 3....Basically, my take is, before series 3, people were reading stuff into the show.

By “stuff” I must assume you mean the aforementioned “sexual attraction.” Because their growing friendship was explicit, it didn't need to be read in. TGG - “That thing you did, that was good.” HoB - “I don't have friends, I've only got one.” And so, so sadly at the very end, when it's too late (or so John thought): “He's my friend.”

 

But if we're not talking about friendship, if we're talking about sexual desire, then I think yeah, we were deliberately invited to speculate about that in S1&2. Jokes about “they're two single men living together so they must be gay” were pretty much shoved into our faces: (“If you'll be needing two bedrooms!”) And since Moftiss brought the subject up, I think it only natural for the audience to consider the possibility that they really were sexually attracted to one another. Personally, I didn't see it; but I didn't really see any indication to the contrary, either, other than the obvious; John insisting he wasn't gay. And although courtesy dictated that I take him at his word, the show played with the idea just enough that I remained open to the idea that John was lying to himself and to us. And it seemed perfectly natural to me that other people might read even more into it than I.

 

In series 3, there was stuff in the show that literally begged to be read.

Again, agreed – especially if by “stuff” you mean “signs of love”. But – here's where you and I differ, I think – much of what begged to be read was also this: “John and Sherlock are not 'in love'.”

 

So now we've move away from your question again, and back to mine, which is: is there still a possibility we will see Sherlock and John in a sexual relationship? Now I'm the one who thinks people are reading stuff into the show that isn't there. I was genuinely amazed to read somewhere that John touching Sherlock's knee on stag night was proof that they were sexually drawn to one another. Wha …..????? In my experience of people, that proves nothing except that John lost his balance. (However, I've never been that drunk, or on a stag night. Or a man. So I'm willing to concede I missed something.)

 

The women are actually a part of this. Because they grant deniability, they are extremely convenient. If I wanted to play with the idea that two characters are in love but never really go there and also wanted to call people "absurd" who pick up on my idea and take it seriously, I'd see to it that I'd find "regular" partners for at least one protagonist really fast, too. I don't think they'd have written the stag night scenes into an episode where John is not on the brink of being married to the love of his life, for example. I think Mary's presence really allows the writers to go a much overboard with the romance between the two leads as is possible without showing them actually make out. Which is why I'm quite amused that the majority of fans who are emotionally very invested in pairing the men apparently want nothing more than for her to leave. They should be grateful!

Exactly. And that's one reason I think they've shut the door on the idea that John, at least, might “be in love with” a man; or even if he were, that he'd ever act on it; because they've married him off to a woman. Really, does John Watson strike anyone as the kind of person who would get married, then proceed to carry on with someone else?

 

And "he kissed a girl" proves absolutely nothing. .... It's not that simple.

No, it's not that simple in real life, but that's not what I was getting at. Here's where it gets really tricky, because it's not “in story” – it's about the writer's intentions. (Oh, no, that again.)

 

If Moftiss wanted me to believe that our boys are gay and/or “in love,”, it would have been so simple. Have their reunion end in tears and hugs. Make Janine a James (not all PA's have to be women!) Have John ditch Mary. Have Sherlock declare himself at the airfield.

 

Instead, they came up with a scenario that makes any coupling between John and Sherlock highly improbable. John moves out, marries a woman, begets a child. Sherlock flirts with two women, kisses not only them but Mary (while Anderson, who needs comforting the most, gets an awkward pat on the shoulder), and harbors a naked Irene in his mind palace. Kissing Janine doesn't prove he's straight; but it sure as heck highlights the absence of any kissing between men. This is Sherlock Holmes, he doesn't care a fig what people think, if he felt compelled to kiss a man, he'd do it, imo. But he doesn't.

 

So my conclusion is …. the writers are moving away from “oh, the boys might be gay, isn't that funny” to “these men seriously love each other – just not 'that way'.”

 

And a final comment; a door closed can be reopened. So we'll see.

 

 

O-o-o-kay, thanks! I think I understand you better now.

 

I never read series 1 and 2 as "the boys might be gay, isn't that funny". I always thought the joke was on the other characters: "People think they're gay, just like they did with the original characters, it's absurd, isn't it, people are so stupid, isn't that funny?" But I see what you mean, now that you've explained it. I just don't think there ever was the remotest possibility of either of them being gay or attracted to the other in that way. The only maybe, maybe possibility I see is in series 3 "Sherlock may be in love with John, but now it's too late, isn't that sad". But I still don't see sex. I don't see anything that has anything to do with sex. I don't even believe that Sherlock would care so deeply for anybody on the grounds that he wanted to sleep with that person, because I don't read him as being so terribly interested in sex. Not quite as disinterested as he claims, but it certainly does not seem like his priority No 1 in life, and in spite of his protestations in A Scandal in Belgravia, I do think he finds it disturbing.

 

Sherlock is primarily in love with his work, if you ask me. And John is the one human being who became an essential part of that. So gets a share, to a certain extent, in the "married to it" kind of love that Sherlock has for it.

 

Why oh why do people care whether either of the boys might be gay? For god's sake, why does that matter? Would it be a kind of a political statement: "Sherlock Holmes is (not) gay!" ? Ugh. I just want them to be Sherlock and John. I'm terribly interested in what that means, exactly, though.

 

I don't think the door was ever seriously open in the way you mention above.

[Arcadia]

.....I never read series 1 and 2 as "the boys might be gay, isn't that funny". I always thought the joke was on the other characters: "People think they're gay, just like they did with the original characters, it's absurd, isn't it, people are so stupid, isn't that funny?"

Yep, I can go with that, to me it's just a different facet of the same thing. Except I think the joke is more on the audience than on the other characters.

 

....Why oh why do people care whether either of the boys might be gay? ...

Oh, for so many reasons... Some because they like the idea. Some because they don't. Some because they're naturally nosy. Others because they think it will help them understand ... something. And so on. Does it matter? I'm not sure; that might depend on who you are and why you care. Caring is not necessarily judging.

 

I don't think the door was ever seriously open in the way you mention above.

Frankly, I don't either; but it appears a lot of other people do. (Did?) So many I decided maybe I'd better hedge my bet, in case they're right.

[Carol the Dabbler]

You know what wouldn't surprise me in the least?  Seeing a scene in Series 4 where it's obvious that Sherlock and John really are lovers.  And then we find out that we "misinterpreted" that scene.  Ha-ha, fooled us again!

 

[Arcadia]

Sssssshhhhhh, the Moftisses might be listening!!!!!!!!!!!!

[T.o.b.y]

I don't quite know where to put this, but I guess this thread is as good as any, and I don't really want to start a new one.

 

Okay, here it goes, the long, rambling, completely unnecessary and uncalled for essay I knew I'd be writing one day when I'm being blissfully idle on my couch instead of cleaning my apartment like I should.

 

 

Love in Sherlock - or another reason why this is my favorite TV

 

All stories that matter at all to me are about love. And if the author didn't intend them to be about love, then I find the love in them and focus on it. If there's no love to find, then I lose interest.

 

Love is usually handled a certain way in fiction, at least the fiction I know. Love is always good. If a story has good and evil characters, then the good guys have love and the bad guys have power, and in the end, the good guys win because of their ability to love and do heroic deeds motivated by love, which the bad guys didn't foresee, because they don't understand love.

 

Love is supposed to make you strong. It's supposed to be the hero's trump card.

 

In Sherlock, it's all a bit more complicated.

 

In Sherlock, we're asked to sympathize with a main character who says things like "Love is a dangerous disadvantage", "Sentiment is a chemical defect found on the losing side", "Alone is what I have, alone protects me", "I don't have friends", "I'm not involved". He claims caring is a "mistake", and when Moriarty talks about his heart, he says he's been reliably informed he doesn't have one.

 

The first impulse, when watching and hearing him say these things, is to go, oh, nonsense. First of all, Sherlock, you're just kidding yourself, and secondly, what are you going on about, love is beautiful and wonderful and you're the hero and on the side of the angels, of course you've got to love people. And it'll help you in the end. That's just the way it works.

 

But is it?

 

Where did love actually get Sherlock? He loves John, I think that much is clear, though we may never agree on the exact nature of that love. But he does. I have yet to see that love be of any use in outsmarting a villain, though. Moriarty and Magnussen, our two big bad guys so far, seem to have a frightfully good understanding of affection and it's use as a pressure point. In both cases, Sherlock found himself at a disadvantage when dealing with them, because they saw and used his love for his friend(s) to narrow his options considerably. They even followed the exact same "game plan": First, they put John in mortal danger (the pool / the fire), to ascertain just how far such a threat would push Sherlock. Satisfied with their results, they then proceeded to the next level (the rooftop / the confrontation at Appledore), to get Sherlock to do what they want and beat him.

 

Now, of course so far, the villains didn't really get the results they probably hoped for. But was it because of love? Not really. In the case of The Fall, especially, it was kind of the opposite: Sherlock was able to outsmart Moriarty and fake his suicide, because he could find it in his heart to cruelly dupe John and leave him mourning by his graveside while he took off and worked on his own again for two years, once again protected by being alone. That's not exactly a very loving course of action. And Sherlock finally got the better of Magnussen by employing the simple and decidedly unloving method of shooting him in the head while yelling "Merry Christmas".

 

So far, Sherlock's moments of greatness have been when he was able to push love and humanity aside and just be the sociopath he keeps calling himself.

 

It's not just Sherlock who is shown to be at a disadvantage because of love. There's Molly, for example. Her crush on our hero has allowed him to manipulate her to his heart's content, and get her to help him out once and again, no matter how rude he's been or how insane his request. There's Mycroft, otherwise an all-powerful one-man government and secret service, whose attachment to his little junkie detective brother is decidedly his Achilles Heel. There's Irene Adler, who could have walked away from the Holmes boys with everything she ever wanted, if she hadn't gotten so carried away with her game of attraction to be willing to risk it all for the sake of her fascination with him being simply recognized by Sherlock. There's Mary, who will go so far as to mortally wound a friend and threaten to kill people for the fear of losing the love of her husband. There's John, who loves Mary so much he feels he has to keep her in his life at all costs, even if that means ignoring her entire past life and not even knowing her name.

 

Love is a dangerous disadvantage sometimes. It won't solve all of anyone's problems. It certainly won't make your life easier. It's not a super-weapon that you can point at baddies and make them dissolve with. Love makes you vulnerable, and it meddles with your judgement, and it means you are in constant danger of losing those you love and breaking your heart.

 

Is it worth it?

 

According to Sherlock, yes. And that's the beauty of this show. It doesn't take the usual simplistic stand on love that you find in most "light-hearted entertainment", but it's still very positive about it.

 

Because love is, in the end, the reason Sherlock is still alive, the reason he's neither a cold, lonely, sad control freak like his brother or a dead mad psychopath like Moriarty. Love may not be an advantage, but somehow, it's still a good enough reason not to die. The characters on Sherlock who have someone to love are happier than the ones who don't.

 

So in the end, I guess the message is, love is perilous, but it's definitely worth the trouble. I like that. I love that, in fact.

 

 

[Schlauer Fuchs]

I love your essay, brilliant "analysis"!

 

Except maybe for this:

Because love is ...  the reason he's neither a cold, lonely, sad control freak like his brother or a dead mad psychopath like Moriarty.

 

I'm not yet sure if either of that is true

 

Talking of which: Did anyone ever notice Mycroft's wearing a wedding ring? And he seems to be sexually experienced, at least he teases his brother with his inexperience ("Sex doesn't alarm me." - "How would you know?"). Do we know to whom he was (maybe is) married? ("we" clearly excludes me here    )

[T.o.b.y]

Talking of which: Did anyone ever notice Mycroft's wearing a wedding ring?

 

Yeah, it has been noticed, and speculated about quite a lot, but to no avail, as far as I know.

 

Theoretically, it might be Mr Gatiss's wedding ring. He's married, right?

 

Here are pictures of character and actor where you see the hands:

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether it is the same ring, can't tell from the photos. All I know is that I avoid having to take off my wedding ring at all costs, so if I were an actor and they let me keep it on for a role, I'd never say no...

 

Somehow, Mycroft does not strike me as the marrying kind. The ring could just be a family heirloom. My husband used to wear a ring long before we were married that was from a family member.

 

Who knows...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I believe it's traditional in the UK to wear one's wedding ring on one's left hand, whereas Mycroft wears a ring only on his right hand.  So I'm reasonably certain that Mark Gatiss's wedding ring is the one that Mycroft does not wear.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

And it has been mentioned before that a view fans believe that they have noticed Not-Anthea sporting a similar ring to Mycroft's. A secret club, organization, or the Diogenes now allows female members?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Nicely written Toby.

 

Mycroft's ring could be government issued, possibly something from the UK version of the FBI Academy.