The first time I wore a wedding gown was in college, where I went to my friend Amy's class to be a "live mannequin" for a presentation she was doing. I don't really recall what kind of class would have students do something like this, but Amy was interested in the wedding industry. Since I did not consume food during my entire junior year of college (only a slight exaggeration), I was the only one willing to do this who could fit into a size 2, so I agreed to it. It was 1989, so the dress was truly craptacular--big shoulders, fitted, mermaid skirt, weird, collar-like neckline and smothered with beading and lace. It was heavy and hard to walk, in, too; I had to take little steps. I could not figure out how anyone could walk down an aisle in such a dress, let alone attend a party--I was like a mummy, all bones and shrouded in lace. All the girls in our dorm came downstairs to admire my finery, and everyone seemed to think it was beautiful, but I was definitely not one of those girls. It was a Catholic women's college; we even had nuns living in our building, and a lot of my friends got married during or right after college, yet I could more readily see myself going into outer space than getting married.
I remembered this when we met with the wedding organizer for the Mount Washington this past weekend. Although she seemed really fine with anything we wanted, and repeated "it's about what you want" several times, she still insisted on the idea that I need to make some sort of grand entrance and not see Scott until the ceremony. She also told us a story of how one groom stepped on the bride's long dress only to have it completely rip down the back. Then the bride punched him.
It is even harder than I expected to explain why I find some wedding rituals not only unecessary, but ridiculous, in ways that have little to do with my age. I have also been stumped many times by the question, "What are the wedding colors?" I just don't get the impulse to match everything (too "matchy matchy" as Heidi Klum would say)--as long as you don't have anything like fuschia or periwinkle, most colors go together pretty well. I do appreciate those who flout convention and do really over-the-top things, things, though, like the bride (see picture at left) who wanted a cake that looked just like her. She was roundly criticized online, but I think the haters need to step back and admire her chutzpah.
Most of the people we met with about the wedding have been pretty laid back, though. The baker actually seemed too mellow--he kept getting the information wrong (August 15th, right? At the VFW hall? And you're Mandy?), and it wasn't really a "cake tasting" as the Knot explains it; I tried a couple of sample of cupcakes with frosting (it was chocolate or vanilla--no cherry fillings or hazelnut cream,as the Knot promised--but it was really delicious. The frosting was really light and fluffy and not too sweet, and the vanilla cupcakes were also airy but had a kind of sweet crunchiness on the top. He agreed to the whole strawberries, and we'll have some kind of flower on top. Karen, who is doing the flowers, is thinking about rose petals. BTW, she does not spray her roses, so no fear of pesticide poisoning.
The wedding favors will be from Kellerhaus, which is that faux-Austrian ice-cream and candy shop near where a lot of you will be staying. I wanted to go with chocolates, but I didn't like the wedding theme decorations for the boxes (swans, hearts, cupids, those naked "Love Is" children) so they let me pick an anchor. Later, Scott questioned the symbol of the anchor (do you want an anchor right under your name?) but I wanted something nautical. And anchors can be good things--it's not as though I chose a picture of a brick with a rope tied to it.
The reception hall in the boat is on the lowest level, and there are no windows. Don't worry if you tend toward seasickness--the boat was on the water and there was no movement at all that I could discern, and the lake only gets slightly choppy at times (and that can be felt only minimally). If you are nervous about this, try sea bands--they are effective on the water. I wouldn't recommend Dramamine if you are even going to have one drink. I almost passed out visiting Scott in Michigan once when I had half a glass of wine after Dramamine. We won't spend that much time in our reception hall anyway--after food and cake, we can lounge by the water and watch the NASCAR dads and retirees from Connecticut dance the electric slide, all ceremonial details complete.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wedding Crashers
In Rebecca Mead’s book One Perfect Day, she points out how the wedding industry sells the concept of tradition, in suggesting that the bride and groom “create their own traditions” by “customizing” their ceremonies. What it means is that couples can congratulate themselves for having a traditional wedding, but can also put their own spin on the proceedings. For example, instead of having a flower girl, couples can combine their love of sea turtles with their love of scrapbooking by having a sea turtle transport their beribboned scrapbook down the aisle to kick off the ceremony.
I am all in favor of this, by the way, and I think couples should make their own decisions about their wedding ceremonies. But don’t call it “tradition.” Isn’t a tradition, by definition, something that you don’t create but follow? And is “traditional” a good thing? (consider how the term “traditional marriage” is often used, and who uses it). Even the roots of some of the most benign-seeming wedding traditions are either more sexist than I had even thought, or just so strange I don’t know why we still observe them. Here are just a few that I found:
The bridesmaids and ushers dressed similarly? They are there to fool evil spirits or exes by dressing just like the bride and groom and confusing them. OK, maybe some of my exes would be fooled by someone dressed like me (apologies to any of you reading this), but Scott’s exes would not fall for that. Which begs the larger question: is it fair to lump them in with evil spirits?
The bride usually stands on the left so that the groom’s right hand would be free for swordplay should he be challenged to a duel by a rival at the altar.
The groom is not allowed to see the bride before the wedding because, in arranged marriages, he might back out beforehand if she’s not attractive enough. This tradition lives on: the wedding coordinator on the Mount Washington tried to talk me into changing into my dress in the dressing room on the boat (my thought, also: a dressing room on a boat?) but I declined.
The bouquet is thrown because at one time, wedding guests would pull and tear at the gown of the bride to gain some of her good fortune, sort of the way the zombies did in Night of the Living Dead. To distract them, she threw them the flowers. Then probably a lamp, her shoes, the groom...
The “something old/something blue” tradition is supposed to ward off evil spirits, too. However, the “something borrowed” is supposed to be from a happily married woman, so she can pass her luck in marriage to the bride. I am wearing the necklace of my dearly departed, thrice-widowed (before the age of fifty)Nana. She did have great luck in card games, though—maybe I will inherit that.
The original Roman tradition of cutting the wedding cake went something like this: the groom broke the cake over the bride’s head to symbolize fertility. And this was no soft buttercream confection, either--it was a denser, non-sweet cake made of barley. Why that symbolizes fertility, I have no idea.
Bouquets were originally made of herbs like thyme and garlic and were meant to ward off evil spirits, the original wedding crashers.
One wedding ritual that I think Scott would like is an Italian tradition called “sawhorsing.” While this sounds wildly inappropriate, bear with me. Basically, the bride and groom march to the center of town with a double-handled hacksaw. To the cheering of onlookers, they saw through the log until it is cut in half, symbolizing the teamwork of marriage. Scott likes using saws and always has use for some cut lumber, and I accept any opportunity to tone my arms, so this might be a tradition worth preserving.
We have a long list of traditions that we will be avoiding at our wedding: No unity candle (we were expressly permitted from having “flaming materials” in our function room on the boat, but that’s not the reason: I just don’t like them. Did you know that this did not even originate in any church, but was dreamed up by the wedding industry?). No bridesmaids or ushers. No processional. No bouquet throwing. No cake smashing. No champagne toast. No receiving line. Yes, we are leaving ourselves open targets for myopic exes, evil spirits, and jealous rivals with swords, but it’s a risk we’re willing to take.
I am all in favor of this, by the way, and I think couples should make their own decisions about their wedding ceremonies. But don’t call it “tradition.” Isn’t a tradition, by definition, something that you don’t create but follow? And is “traditional” a good thing? (consider how the term “traditional marriage” is often used, and who uses it). Even the roots of some of the most benign-seeming wedding traditions are either more sexist than I had even thought, or just so strange I don’t know why we still observe them. Here are just a few that I found:
The bridesmaids and ushers dressed similarly? They are there to fool evil spirits or exes by dressing just like the bride and groom and confusing them. OK, maybe some of my exes would be fooled by someone dressed like me (apologies to any of you reading this), but Scott’s exes would not fall for that. Which begs the larger question: is it fair to lump them in with evil spirits?
The bride usually stands on the left so that the groom’s right hand would be free for swordplay should he be challenged to a duel by a rival at the altar.
The groom is not allowed to see the bride before the wedding because, in arranged marriages, he might back out beforehand if she’s not attractive enough. This tradition lives on: the wedding coordinator on the Mount Washington tried to talk me into changing into my dress in the dressing room on the boat (my thought, also: a dressing room on a boat?) but I declined.
The bouquet is thrown because at one time, wedding guests would pull and tear at the gown of the bride to gain some of her good fortune, sort of the way the zombies did in Night of the Living Dead. To distract them, she threw them the flowers. Then probably a lamp, her shoes, the groom...
The “something old/something blue” tradition is supposed to ward off evil spirits, too. However, the “something borrowed” is supposed to be from a happily married woman, so she can pass her luck in marriage to the bride. I am wearing the necklace of my dearly departed, thrice-widowed (before the age of fifty)Nana. She did have great luck in card games, though—maybe I will inherit that.
The original Roman tradition of cutting the wedding cake went something like this: the groom broke the cake over the bride’s head to symbolize fertility. And this was no soft buttercream confection, either--it was a denser, non-sweet cake made of barley. Why that symbolizes fertility, I have no idea.
Bouquets were originally made of herbs like thyme and garlic and were meant to ward off evil spirits, the original wedding crashers.
One wedding ritual that I think Scott would like is an Italian tradition called “sawhorsing.” While this sounds wildly inappropriate, bear with me. Basically, the bride and groom march to the center of town with a double-handled hacksaw. To the cheering of onlookers, they saw through the log until it is cut in half, symbolizing the teamwork of marriage. Scott likes using saws and always has use for some cut lumber, and I accept any opportunity to tone my arms, so this might be a tradition worth preserving.
We have a long list of traditions that we will be avoiding at our wedding: No unity candle (we were expressly permitted from having “flaming materials” in our function room on the boat, but that’s not the reason: I just don’t like them. Did you know that this did not even originate in any church, but was dreamed up by the wedding industry?). No bridesmaids or ushers. No processional. No bouquet throwing. No cake smashing. No champagne toast. No receiving line. Yes, we are leaving ourselves open targets for myopic exes, evil spirits, and jealous rivals with swords, but it’s a risk we’re willing to take.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Weddiquette, or Brides, Quit Swinging your Arms Like Ropes Already
The most beautiful wedding ever imagined could be turned from sacrament to circus by the indecorous behavior of the groom and the flippancy of the bride. Emily Post, Etiquette, 1927
As many of you know, the Kirsti half of Scott and Kirsti is now on Facebook, which means that I am frittering my time away on 60-character posts (which is great fun, by the way). Many of my FB postings lately have been about reading a very old copy of Emily Post’s Etiquette that I got for two dollars at an antique store while Scott was rifling through piles of dusty records. I have unearthed a lot of good stuff this way: wooden bowls, a garnet bracelet, Tricia Nixon paper dolls. I even found this disturbing but fascinating old book titled Medical Curiosities, written in the late nineteeth century, in which them medical term for conjoined twins was “double monsters” and lycanthropy was the diagnosis if you were unusually hairy. My pharmacist brother, Karl, really wanted that book, and when he had to move back east after Hurricane Katrina I gave it to him, so I can’t provide any more tidbits from that particular text. However, my point is that I love old, weird books, and this connects to our wedding because my Emily Post book devotes several entire chapters to wedding etiquette. And she is one odd lady, truly obsessed, at least back then, with turning everyone into what she labels "People of Quality."
I need to tell you up front that I waited to research current wedding etiquette after I sent out a good portion of the invitations, which, according to Emily Post, were sent out sixteen weeks too early, without guests’ names on the response cards. Current Emily Post also says that we must have an open bar at our wedding, because guests are not supposed to pay for anything at the wedding, but the boat does not allow open bar. Two strikes right there!
If we go by the 1920s version of Etiquette, we have already broken pretty much every single rule she lays out. First, the oldest possible age Emily Post can imagine for a bride is thirty (she has a whole section called “In Bridal Dress at Thirty” as if it’s something one finds herself in by accident, after a bender) and she stresses how crucial it is for the “Early Autumn” bride to wear “a tint of rose-beige” to flatter her aging complexion.
The closest I can come in this book to anything that would be anywhere applicable to our wedding would be “the second marriage,” even though neither of us has been married before. This section focuses on “The spinster’s wedding” and this means no bridal veil, orange blossoms, nor myrtle wreath and bridesmaids. The garland is an even bigger deal than the white dress, surprisingly—Post says that the garland is a “coronet of chastity and the bride’s right to wear it was her inalienable attribute of virtue.” No problem, because I think the tiara is the new garland--and the only myrtle wreaths I found online were for front doors.
The rules are a little different for a widow, who can’t be given away by her father because she has already been given away once. Apparently, she is not able to be "given back." Post believes that widows should be as low-key as possible, and there’s more than a hint that she finds second weddings—even those of widows—distasteful. Post recommends a “traveling dress” or “afternoon street dress and hat in any color” except white for the attire. She stresses that there ought not to be “ribboned-off seats” and only “the simplest afternoon tea" at such weddings.
Post is very much bothered by brides who have personalities or senses of humor. For example, she lists some things that a bride should never do:
She must not reach up and wigwag signals while she is receiving, any more than she must wave to people as she goes up and down the aisle of the church. She must not cling to her husband as though unable to stand, or lean against him or the wall, or any person or thing. She must not swing her arms as though they were dangling ropes. She must not switch
herself this way and that, and she must not shout; and above all, she must not, while wearing her bridal veil, smoke a cigarette.
The bride in this scenario does not sound remiss about the finer points of etiquette, but really drunk. Now, I might understand Ms. Post’s aversion to this behavior if she disapproved of drinking, but she actually finds abstainers a bit whiny and inconvenient. In her world, after a fancy dinner, women drink liqueur “from a tray of little glasses” and retreat to the parlor, and the men
…Alone, remain seated at table, drinking their fine cognac and smoking cigars and eating unsalted nuts.
At our wedding, we hope everyone enjoys as many unsalted nuts as they want, regardless of gender.
As many of you know, the Kirsti half of Scott and Kirsti is now on Facebook, which means that I am frittering my time away on 60-character posts (which is great fun, by the way). Many of my FB postings lately have been about reading a very old copy of Emily Post’s Etiquette that I got for two dollars at an antique store while Scott was rifling through piles of dusty records. I have unearthed a lot of good stuff this way: wooden bowls, a garnet bracelet, Tricia Nixon paper dolls. I even found this disturbing but fascinating old book titled Medical Curiosities, written in the late nineteeth century, in which them medical term for conjoined twins was “double monsters” and lycanthropy was the diagnosis if you were unusually hairy. My pharmacist brother, Karl, really wanted that book, and when he had to move back east after Hurricane Katrina I gave it to him, so I can’t provide any more tidbits from that particular text. However, my point is that I love old, weird books, and this connects to our wedding because my Emily Post book devotes several entire chapters to wedding etiquette. And she is one odd lady, truly obsessed, at least back then, with turning everyone into what she labels "People of Quality."
I need to tell you up front that I waited to research current wedding etiquette after I sent out a good portion of the invitations, which, according to Emily Post, were sent out sixteen weeks too early, without guests’ names on the response cards. Current Emily Post also says that we must have an open bar at our wedding, because guests are not supposed to pay for anything at the wedding, but the boat does not allow open bar. Two strikes right there!
If we go by the 1920s version of Etiquette, we have already broken pretty much every single rule she lays out. First, the oldest possible age Emily Post can imagine for a bride is thirty (she has a whole section called “In Bridal Dress at Thirty” as if it’s something one finds herself in by accident, after a bender) and she stresses how crucial it is for the “Early Autumn” bride to wear “a tint of rose-beige” to flatter her aging complexion.
The closest I can come in this book to anything that would be anywhere applicable to our wedding would be “the second marriage,” even though neither of us has been married before. This section focuses on “The spinster’s wedding” and this means no bridal veil, orange blossoms, nor myrtle wreath and bridesmaids. The garland is an even bigger deal than the white dress, surprisingly—Post says that the garland is a “coronet of chastity and the bride’s right to wear it was her inalienable attribute of virtue.” No problem, because I think the tiara is the new garland--and the only myrtle wreaths I found online were for front doors.
The rules are a little different for a widow, who can’t be given away by her father because she has already been given away once. Apparently, she is not able to be "given back." Post believes that widows should be as low-key as possible, and there’s more than a hint that she finds second weddings—even those of widows—distasteful. Post recommends a “traveling dress” or “afternoon street dress and hat in any color” except white for the attire. She stresses that there ought not to be “ribboned-off seats” and only “the simplest afternoon tea" at such weddings.
Post is very much bothered by brides who have personalities or senses of humor. For example, she lists some things that a bride should never do:
She must not reach up and wigwag signals while she is receiving, any more than she must wave to people as she goes up and down the aisle of the church. She must not cling to her husband as though unable to stand, or lean against him or the wall, or any person or thing. She must not swing her arms as though they were dangling ropes. She must not switch
herself this way and that, and she must not shout; and above all, she must not, while wearing her bridal veil, smoke a cigarette.
The bride in this scenario does not sound remiss about the finer points of etiquette, but really drunk. Now, I might understand Ms. Post’s aversion to this behavior if she disapproved of drinking, but she actually finds abstainers a bit whiny and inconvenient. In her world, after a fancy dinner, women drink liqueur “from a tray of little glasses” and retreat to the parlor, and the men
…Alone, remain seated at table, drinking their fine cognac and smoking cigars and eating unsalted nuts.
At our wedding, we hope everyone enjoys as many unsalted nuts as they want, regardless of gender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
