In your specific example in your OP, you said that it's fine for a legally married couple to have their marriage blessed by a pastor. But you can get legally married and have your marriage blessed all at the same time. It is necessary in European countries to have both a legal & religious ceremony, because the religous ceremony is not recognized by the government there. But we do not have this issue in the US, you can be religiously & legally married in one ceremony.
Yes, you can - however, I added that because there are situations where a couple decides after being married civilly that the religious affirmation is also important to them. I don't begrudge them that if they are doing it for the right reason - but they still can't call it their wedding and do everything that goes with having an actual wedding. They are already married. They should have every right to seek the blessings of their religious institution if they wish, as long as they do so tastefully and for the right reasons. Most people will think of this ahead of time and do so on their wedding day if this important to them.
Threadjack: The only way I could see doing a baptism re-do is if the baptism took place the day the baby was born because they thought the baby might not live. My little brother was baptized the day he was born at the hospital because they thought he might not make it. He was re-baptized at the church two months later.
Eh, I get that, but even then the baby was already baptized, kwim?
Threadjack: The only way I could see doing a baptism re-do is if the baptism took place the day the baby was born because they thought the baby might not live. My little brother was baptized the day he was born at the hospital because they thought he might not make it. He was re-baptized at the church two months later.
Eh, I get that, but even then the baby was already baptized, kwim?
It kind of doubled as a "meet the baby and thank God he's alive" party, too, and given what my parents had been through even years later I can't fault them.
SIGH. This is just ridiculous. There is no justification for a PPD. End of story. You are not more special than anyone else.
So frustrating that almost daily someone is posting about a damn PPD.
You made a decision to get married at the JOP or elope or whatever. You do not DESERVE a re-do or second wedding or whatever. As as adult, you made the decision to get married when you did. UGH. What is wrong with people???
Threadjack: The only way I could see doing a baptism re-do is if the baptism took place the day the baby was born because they thought the baby might not live. My little brother was baptized the day he was born at the hospital because they thought he might not make it. He was re-baptized at the church two months later.
Eh, I get that, but even then the baby was already baptized, kwim?
It kind of doubled as a "meet the baby and thank God he's alive" party, too, and given what my parents had been through even years later I can't fault them.
Oh absolutely, I get it, and I wouldn't judge anyone in this situation - I'd just be happy for them that the baby was okay. I give a lot more leeway for babies anyway - invite me to your 8th baby shower and I will show up gift in hand with a smile on my face - as long as I get to sniff the little bugger.
Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable.
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation.
faithall said:Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable. I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married. If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that? IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing. I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation. ---------------------------------------------------------
It's unseemly because you get one day not as many as it takes to get it right. You're wrong, nothing you can say is going to change that.
And to the bolded, you are correct- your personal feelings do not change what is right/wrong. Reenacting your wedding is wrong, period, regardless of why you want to do it.
Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable.
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice.Agreed, Personal feelings shouldn't come in to it ..These things happen all the time Doesn't make it right and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation.
By having a PPD you are lying to your guests. You get married once!
There is only 2 examples where people could have 2 "Weddings",
If they get divorced between them- then it's a real marriage, just happening again.
Or a renewal of wedding vows -quite common my parents had one on their 18th year anniversary but it wasn't a PPD, Dad wore a suit, mum wore a cute outfit. I think the "reception" was sandwiches in the church hall, nothing fancy, just a little get together with the family. (I think maybe 25 people came) and it was just during a normal sunday service.
Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable.
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation.
She can't have "her day" because she already did. The day she got married was her day. Everyone has the right to plan the wedding they want (note: I did not say everyone deserves a traditional fancy wedding). If someone wanted a traditional fluffy wedding, why didn't they do that in the first place?
The birth of my oldest son didn't quite go as planned. I wanted a natural, water assisted birth. Instead I had an epidural and birthed flat on my back. I think I'm going to shove him back up my hooha and re-do his birth so I can have the beautiful experience everyone talks about. I deserve that damnit!
Yeah, sounds ridiculous right? Insert the word "wedding" everywhere you see the word "birth" and you have the same scenario. Sit on that for awhile.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to put on a lovely dress, do her hair and makeup, invite people to a delicious meal, hire a DJ, dance the night away, decorate with flowers, and serve a fabulous cake. This is called a party. If people would become more comfortable with the concept of entertaining, there might be less insistence on pretending to have a wedding when you are already married as an excuse to have a party. Personally, when I feel the urge to dress up and play pretty princess, I buy a new dress and throw a party. It's fun, and doesn't violate any etiquette rules.
In your specific example in your OP, you said that it's fine for a legally married couple to have their marriage blessed by a pastor. But you can get legally married and have your marriage blessed all at the same time. It is necessary in European countries to have both a legal & religious ceremony, because the religous ceremony is not recognized by the government there. But we do not have this issue in the US, you can be religiously & legally married in one ceremony.
Yes, you can - however, I added that because there are situations where a couple decides after being married civilly that the religious affirmation is also important to them. I don't begrudge them that if they are doing it for the right reason - but they still can't call it their wedding and do everything that goes with having an actual wedding. They are already married. They should have every right to seek the blessings of their religious institution if they wish, as long as they do so tastefully and for the right reasons. Most people will think of this ahead of time and do so on their wedding day if this important to them.
And I agree with you. I was more speaking to the OP who was trying to say that PPD are ok if they are "marketed" correctly as a blessing on a marriage. If a couple goes back to their religion and wants their marriage blessed, it shouldn't be a big to do and I think their "ceremony" should fall within the confines of a Saturday/Sunday service. I think inviting immediate family and close friends would be fine, but it should not resemble a wedding in any way. A few times during our Saturday 4:30 mass at church, they have had vow renewals for people celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. In these cases, the couples family have sat in the front rows to witness while the priest goes through their vows. It's always lovely.
Keep in mind that many churches do not view a blessing (Convalidation in the Catholic Church) as an event to be celebrated on a grand scale.
Before you (the couple) opt for this, ensure you're doing it for the right reasons and not to be the center of attention for the day.
FI and I are considering this later on. I am Catholic and he is not, though he is a believer, but never brought up in the Religion. I personally was not ready to ask him to go through all the sacraments just so we could get married in the Church. We opted to get married at the venue with a friend officiating. When he is ready, then its a step we will take and discuss the process with the Church. But I agree, it is definitely not a do-over. Its a small ceremony after Sunday mass that lasts 10-15 minutes and I would probably only have our parents and siblings there.
@faithall This is an etiquette forum. Like what part of that don't you get? No one is here giving you their personal opinion on PPD's. Everyone is giving answers based on etiquette.
You are on an etiquette forum spewing a bunch of crap.
You make some very pertinent points. The notion of a bride's wedding day being "her day" is an invitation to self-indulgent behaviour; and that is indeed poor manners regardless of whether she is forming a legal contract on that day or not. Nobody ever gets sole title to a day, and conversely everybody has authority over her own share of every single 24-hour period even if her legal wedding was contracted weeks ago. So the "her day" argument is moot.
But it is one of the reasons that you see such desperate clinging to the argument that the legal dimension of marriage is the only dimension that "counts" for wedding purposes. No sociologist of repute would make the argument that marriage is distinguished solely and utterly by its legal registration. Indeed the most common sociological definitions of marriage do not mention legality at all, for example "Marriage is a socially supported union involving two or more individuals
in what is regarded as a stable, enduring arrangement based at least in
part on a sexual bond of some kind; serving to regulate sexual behavior; to transfer, preserve, or
consolidate property, prestige, and power, and most importantly and as
the basis for the institution of family.
" If you analyze that definition -- and since there is no accepted sociological definition of marriage there are other wordings, mostly similar but with variations, but let us stick with that one for now -- then it becomes apparent that, apart from the obsessive insistence on legality as a distinctive, most of the redo-opponents are flinging their stones from the vantage point of glass houses. Consider:
"Socially supported" -- most women who have boyfriends expect their relationship to be recognized socially and demand the perquisites of that recognition, specifically that they be invited as a couple to social events including weddings, long before they actually hold their 'wedding'.
"Stable, enduring" -- many 'real' brides take multiple years from accepting a proposal until actually celebrating their 'wedding' so that they can save up sufficient funds; demonstrating thereby that the quality of enduring stability already exists.
"Based on a sexual bond" ... "to regulate sexuality" -- very few self-proclaimed 'real' brides actually wait until their wedding to form a sexual bond, and their active sexuality is acceptable in their pre-'wedding' relationship because it is considered "stable and enduring".
"transfer, preserve, or
consolidate property" -- when a couple move in together and start paying mutual bills and, often, co-signing tenancy agreements or mortgages, they have already created financial entanglements and common property rights that unite them legally.
"the basis for the institution of family" -- many couples have already begun their family, not just to the extent of being "a little bit pregnant" when they have their big 'wedding' day but even having multiple children and choosing their own children to be their 'wedding' attendants.
In short, having a big fluffy wedding when you are already married in every other way EXCEPT legal is nearly ubiquitous. Even a mere thirty years ago, a co-habiting mother of three with a joint chequing account would be given the same harsh judgment that many of the girls posting here give regarding do-overs: that that boat has sailed. "But at least I'm not LEGALLY married yet" has become their desperate cry to claim the entitlement to all the self-aggrandizement a bride can indulge in on "her" one day. No wonder they are so inflexible on it. But unfortunately, legalities are not where standard etiquette draws the line. If it were, we would have formal parties following signing an employment contract and receptions after going to court to fight a traffic ticket. Standard etiquette is about the social formalities, not the legal formalities. Which means that co-habiting and child-rearing are actually far more significant in terms of whether standard etiquette considers you married, than is the legal registration.
The fact is, a hostess can throw a lovely formal party to celebrate any event she chooses, and to honour any guest-of-honour she chooses. She can wear buy herself a thousand-dollar dress if she wants to and cater a dinner for three hundred people or for four people, and etiquette completely approves -- because, as STARMOON44 points out, practicing hospitality is a social virtue. And along with that happy fact is the truth that, everything that is tasteless at an ordinary party is actually tasteless at a 'real' wedding too -- it is just that society tends to be more tolerant of the entitlement-behaviour of brides.
So: don't wear a ball-gown to church, or an evening gown during the day, or go to lengths to force your guests to be under-dressed in contrast to you (but there's no rule against wearing white to parties, even if it's a do-over.)
Don't come late to your own party and make a grand entrance as if you were a head-of-state, forcing your guests into the role of courtiers and peasants. Greet them as they arrive like a good hostess, instead.
Feel free to open the dance floor by dancing the first few measures together as host and hostess -- but don't shine the spotlight on yourselves for dance after meaningless dance while your guests yawn and wish they were at a nightclub so that they could be dancing too.
Feel free to have your nearest friends help you with the role of hostess and share fun times with you -- including accepting little parties if theywant to give them in your honour. Let them coordinate their dresses for the party if they want to (you don't have any right to stop them, anyway,) but don't ask them to dress in identical dresses that don't flatter any of them.
Register your household goods in the old-fashioned way so that the registry service can help you replace broken pieces and add to your collection, and can notify you if your patterns are cancelled; and plan out the heirloom-quality goods you will need to acquire over the next couple of decades to be ready for your own daughters' weddings if necessary; but do not advertise your wants or expect people to give you anything -- it's a household registry and your own responsibility, not a 'gift' registry. If anyone does want to give you something, let them go to the effort (and have the fun) of sleuthing out your registry for themselves and snooping into it.
And be nice to other people. Whether you are a bride or not. Even on internet boards.
Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable.
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation.
To the bolded: you are right, there is nothing inappropriate about that. What the previous posters are saying is inappropriate is re-enacting the ceremony or pretending you (general you) aren't married when you actually are.
It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to put on a lovely dress, do her hair and makeup, invite people to a delicious meal, hire a DJ, dance the night away, decorate with flowers, and serve a fabulous cake. This is called a party. If people would become more comfortable with the concept of entertaining, there might be less insistence on pretending to have a wedding when you are already married as an excuse to have a party. Personally, when I feel the urge to dress up and play pretty princess, I buy a new dress and throw a party. It's fun, and doesn't violate any etiquette rules.
Who are any of us to make a judgment about what is acceptbale and not acceptable.
This is the Etiquette board, so this is kinda the place where women make judgements and comment on what is acceptable etiquette-wise.
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married. Read that part again that you just wrote. . . the part where you say she is legally married. That is your answer right there. A woman can't have a PPD after she has been legally married because she is already married.Once you are already a wife, it is pretty ridiculous to pretend you are a blushing bride and walk down the aisle in a pretend ceremony.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. You are choosing to miss the point. Before you are married, it's fine to want all of those things. Once you are already married, it is absolutely ridiculous and stupid to play pretend just to have those things. If all of the traditional trappings of a wedding were so important to these women, then why the heck couldn't they wait to get married?The answer is that they could have waited, they just chose not to because of whatever "special" circumstances they think they are in. The time frame doesn't matter.The time frame is everything because once you are married you are a wife and not a bride!!! materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. This has nothing to do with why PPDs suck. . . did you even read what ppl are writing here, or read the FAQ at the top of this forum? Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. RIGHT, SO PLEASE DON'T GIVE ADVICE CONTRARY TO GOOD ETIQUETTE. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice.Reread what you wrote and consider following this advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation. Um, no. Etiquette is a code of behavior and manners that helps guide people socially and helps them to be polite.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
So, it's perfectly acceptable for a bride to want a proper wedding and gifts and the full trappings before she is legally wed. But her wanting those same things after she's wed is unseemly all of a sudden?
She can want them all she wants. Doesn't mean she should have them. I want to quit my job and go lie on a beach all day but doesn't mean that I'm entitled to get that. If she made the choice to get married in a way that she didn't originally envision then she needs to live with that choice.
How do you guys feel about vow renewals and after what period of time and under what circumstances are they okay?
For me, I don't mind them at all, though if you're doing one right away, I'd rather it was private. DH and I toyed with the idea of doing a VR each year to celebrate, but we'd never invite anyone. We'd do it just for us - to reaffirm our vows to each other. We might go back to our location for a 5 year VR, but again, we wouldn't invite anyone. I don't think I'd do one with guests for anything less than 10 years at least.
AroundTheBlock, that was a wonderful analysis. Reading through this thread, there has been this nagging in the back of my head that there is at least little bit of hypocrisy to say that a "big party" is justified for one religious ceremony but not another. You made this evident very eloquently: "apart from the obsessive insistence on legality as a distinctive, most of the redo-opponents are flinging their stones from the vantage point of glass houses."
One of your positions seemed to be that many of the practices of brides are actually rude in a general sense, but they are tolerated because they are brides: "...everything that is tasteless at an ordinary party is actually tasteless at a 'real' wedding too -- it is just that society tends to be more tolerant of the entitlement-behavior of brides."
So, I guess what I'm trying to ask, how DO you resolve the seeming hypocrisy? That is, you advise (wisely!) against certain practices (don't make a grand entrance, don't wear a ballgown to a church, don't force your friends to color coordinate, don't shine the spotlight on yourself over and over, etc.) for a blessing of a marriage, for example. But you don't explicitly advise against them for a wedding--and most of these are widely accepted as fine at a wedding. Both are religious ceremonies/celebrations to honor the joining of two people. Why is one set of rules ok for one, but not the other? It doesn't make sense that a marriage license signed that day should act as a "waiver" to certain observations of etiquette.
I'm not saying reenact the wedding ceremony, but as you say, "The fact is, a hostess can throw a lovely formal party to celebrate any event she chooses." Why should the blessing of a marriage be an invalid reason for a polite, hospitable party?
Anyway, very thoughtful post, thank you for sharing. I just want to clarify, I'm not really arguing for or against anything here,I'm kind of just thinking out loud, and these are some of my unresolved thoughts. I form my opinions carefully and with deliberation. AroundTheBlock had such a well thought out post I thought she may be willing to elaborate further.
If getting married in the church and having a "proper wedding" are so important to someone, I don't know why they wouldn't just do that in the first place. The reason it's not ok to want "all the trappings" of a wedding after being married is because once you're married, that ship has sailed. It would be like waiting until your baby is a year old and then saying, "You know what? I never had a baby shower. I want one!" and then expecting one to be thrown for you. You only get one wedding day and it's up to you how you want to do it. If a big wedding is important to you, then have a big wedding when you get married. Just don't do it after you're already married.
Classyduck, thank-you for reading through that rather long post. I was careful, when I got to my advice section, NOT to limit my advice to do-overs. While the things you noted are indeed common at weddings, that has not always been so. Some of them are ethnic customs that have come into the mainstream as over-the-top weddings have become more popular; some are just inappropriateness that has slipped in as "wedding etiquette" became increasingly out of touch with everyday behaviour. Thirty or forty years ago, the only brides I saw making a "grand entrance" were from Eastern Orthodox traditions where the bride and groom are indeed crowned as king and queen -- and they were never the host and hostess when they made their grand entrance in that role! Brides from mainstream WASP traditions stood next to their hostesses at the door in their role as guest-of-honour and greeted their guests as they arrived, just as hostesses do today when they choose to follow standard etiquette. And, incidentally, just as did the mothers of those eastern-European brides.
Weddings -- at least weddings with dancing -- have always featured some sort of wedding dance, but not multiple feature dances. The host couple "opens the floor" (or their guests of honour do so at the hosts' request) and then all the rest of the guests join in after the first few measures or after the first tune. Every gentleman makes a point of dancing with the hostess and the lady guests of honour. So at some point during an evening wedding the groom will dance with both his mother and his mother-in-law, and the bride will dance with both her father and her father-in-law. Those are sweet and poignant moments -- but private. Guests might notice them as they danced past, and smile, but the sweetness is driven away by a DJ on the microphone announcing that eveyone has to leave the dancefloor and just watch, again and again.
The colour-coordinating has been around longer, but largely because there was a lot less variety in clothing prior to the 1950s. Gentlemen just wore their good suit, or if they had it their formal morning dress, and ta-da! they were colour-coordinated. Girls in a wealthy society wedding had dresses made alike as gifts from the bride's family; but middle-class girls often just wore their Sunday best dresses. But dressing alike has always been a teen-girl bonding "thing" and in post-war wealth of the 50s it came into the reach of the middle class. I think the thing that made it acceptable was that the girls wanted to do it. No-one (not even me) has a right to tell other adults how to dress, so if a gang of girls thinks it will be fun to honour their best friend by dressing alike for her special party, they can go for it -- wedding or not.
Bottom line is, that a well-bred bride is not going to rely on her family's and friends' tolerance and indulge herself in rude behaviour just because it has become common. Friends and families will also overlook things like registry information on invitations and cash bars, because of their love for the bride, but that's no reason to choose to do such things. All the other self-indulgences brides commit (regardless of how much they are or are not entitled to the term "bride) fall into the same category.
If getting married in the church and having a "proper wedding" are so important to someone, I don't know why they wouldn't just do that in the first place. The reason it's not ok to want "all the trappings" of a wedding after being married is because once you're married, that ship has sailed. It would be like waiting until your baby is a year old and then saying, "You know what? I never had a baby shower. I want one!" and then expecting one to be thrown for you. You only get one wedding day and it's up to you how you want to do it. If a big wedding is important to you, then have a big wedding when you get married. Just don't do it after you're already married.
This exactly. And to echo something @artbyallie said - it's really sad when the white poofy dress bullshit parade is considered more "real" than the actual moment when a couple exchanged vows and were married. That's messed up.
Keep in mind that many churches do not view a blessing (Convalidation in the Catholic Church) as an event to be celebrated on a grand scale.
Before you (the couple) opt for this, ensure you're doing it for the right reasons and not to be the center of attention for the day.
FI and I are considering this later on. I am Catholic and he is not, though he is a believer, but never brought up in the Religion. I personally was not ready to ask him to go through all the sacraments just so we could get married in the Church. We opted to get married at the venue with a friend officiating. When he is ready, then its a step we will take and discuss the process with the Church. But I agree, it is definitely not a do-over. Its a small ceremony after Sunday mass that lasts 10-15 minutes and I would probably only have our parents and siblings there.
*stuck in box*
You know that your FI does not have to be Catholic for you to be married in the Church, right?
Re: Marketing your wedding Re-Do: Managing the "real" wedding: The Church
I don't see why a woman can want to have her perfect wedding and that's all fine for her want to dress up and have a day, but that she can't have "her day" after she's been legally married.
If it is inappropriate for her to want to look lovely and have a dress and a cake and feed her guest a 20 a plate dinner, and celebrate her marriage with family and friend after her legal marriage, then it should be just as unseemly before. The time frame doesn't matter. materialistic behavior shouldn't be accepted either before or after the wedding occurs. Brides do get married for the gifts under what you consider "the proper order" all the time. Why don't you call them out on that?
IN CASE ANYONE NOTICED: this is an area for etiquette. Your personal feelings on the situation should not affect your advice. These things happen all the time and I don't think anyone should refuse to offer advice just because you don't like the terms under which it's happening. I saw an opportunity to offer advice where no one else was willing.
I will continue to post on this topic simply because there are all kinds of ways to celebrate your wedding. That's what etiquette is: the best way to handle a difficult situation.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's unseemly because you get one day not as many as it takes to get it right. You're wrong, nothing you can say is going to change that.
By having a PPD you are lying to your guests. You get married once!
There is only 2 examples where people could have 2 "Weddings",
She can't have "her day" because she already did. The day she got married was her day. Everyone has the right to plan the wedding they want (note: I did not say everyone deserves a traditional fancy wedding). If someone wanted a traditional fluffy wedding, why didn't they do that in the first place?
The birth of my oldest son didn't quite go as planned. I wanted a natural, water assisted birth. Instead I had an epidural and birthed flat on my back. I think I'm going to shove him back up my hooha and re-do his birth so I can have the beautiful experience everyone talks about. I deserve that damnit!
Yeah, sounds ridiculous right? Insert the word "wedding" everywhere you see the word "birth" and you have the same scenario. Sit on that for awhile.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
You make some very pertinent points. The notion of a bride's wedding day being "her day" is an invitation to self-indulgent behaviour; and that is indeed poor manners regardless of whether she is forming a legal contract on that day or not. Nobody ever gets sole title to a day, and conversely everybody has authority over her own share of every single 24-hour period even if her legal wedding was contracted weeks ago. So the "her day" argument is moot.
But it is one of the reasons that you see such desperate clinging to the argument that the legal dimension of marriage is the only dimension that "counts" for wedding purposes. No sociologist of repute would make the argument that marriage is distinguished solely and utterly by its legal registration. Indeed the most common sociological definitions of marriage do not mention legality at all, for example "Marriage is a socially supported union involving two or more individuals in what is regarded as a stable, enduring arrangement based at least in part on a sexual bond of some kind; serving to regulate sexual behavior; to transfer, preserve, or consolidate property, prestige, and power, and most importantly and as the basis for the institution of family. " If you analyze that definition -- and since there is no accepted sociological definition of marriage there are other wordings, mostly similar but with variations, but let us stick with that one for now -- then it becomes apparent that, apart from the obsessive insistence on legality as a distinctive, most of the redo-opponents are flinging their stones from the vantage point of glass houses. Consider:
In short, having a big fluffy wedding when you are already married in every other way EXCEPT legal is nearly ubiquitous. Even a mere thirty years ago, a co-habiting mother of three with a joint chequing account would be given the same harsh judgment that many of the girls posting here give regarding do-overs: that that boat has sailed. "But at least I'm not LEGALLY married yet" has become their desperate cry to claim the entitlement to all the self-aggrandizement a bride can indulge in on "her" one day. No wonder they are so inflexible on it. But unfortunately, legalities are not where standard etiquette draws the line. If it were, we would have formal parties following signing an employment contract and receptions after going to court to fight a traffic ticket. Standard etiquette is about the social formalities, not the legal formalities. Which means that co-habiting and child-rearing are actually far more significant in terms of whether standard etiquette considers you married, than is the legal registration.
The fact is, a hostess can throw a lovely formal party to celebrate any event she chooses, and to honour any guest-of-honour she chooses. She can wear buy herself a thousand-dollar dress if she wants to and cater a dinner for three hundred people or for four people, and etiquette completely approves -- because, as STARMOON44 points out, practicing hospitality is a social virtue. And along with that happy fact is the truth that, everything that is tasteless at an ordinary party is actually tasteless at a 'real' wedding too -- it is just that society tends to be more tolerant of the entitlement-behaviour of brides.
So: don't wear a ball-gown to church, or an evening gown during the day, or go to lengths to force your guests to be under-dressed in contrast to you (but there's no rule against wearing white to parties, even if it's a do-over.)
Don't come late to your own party and make a grand entrance as if you were a head-of-state, forcing your guests into the role of courtiers and peasants. Greet them as they arrive like a good hostess, instead.
Feel free to open the dance floor by dancing the first few measures together as host and hostess -- but don't shine the spotlight on yourselves for dance after meaningless dance while your guests yawn and wish they were at a nightclub so that they could be dancing too.
Feel free to have your nearest friends help you with the role of hostess and share fun times with you -- including accepting little parties if they want to give them in your honour. Let them coordinate their dresses for the party if they want to (you don't have any right to stop them, anyway,) but don't ask them to dress in identical dresses that don't flatter any of them.
Register your household goods in the old-fashioned way so that the registry service can help you replace broken pieces and add to your collection, and can notify you if your patterns are cancelled; and plan out the heirloom-quality goods you will need to acquire over the next couple of decades to be ready for your own daughters' weddings if necessary; but do not advertise your wants or expect people to give you anything -- it's a household registry and your own responsibility, not a 'gift' registry. If anyone does want to give you something, let them go to the effort (and have the fun) of sleuthing out your registry for themselves and snooping into it.
And be nice to other people. Whether you are a bride or not. Even on internet boards.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
I think they'd only need "renewal" if there was a divorce, in which case the couple would just remarry.
Weddings -- at least weddings with dancing -- have always featured some sort of wedding dance, but not multiple feature dances. The host couple "opens the floor" (or their guests of honour do so at the hosts' request) and then all the rest of the guests join in after the first few measures or after the first tune. Every gentleman makes a point of dancing with the hostess and the lady guests of honour. So at some point during an evening wedding the groom will dance with both his mother and his mother-in-law, and the bride will dance with both her father and her father-in-law. Those are sweet and poignant moments -- but private. Guests might notice them as they danced past, and smile, but the sweetness is driven away by a DJ on the microphone announcing that eveyone has to leave the dancefloor and just watch, again and again.
The colour-coordinating has been around longer, but largely because there was a lot less variety in clothing prior to the 1950s. Gentlemen just wore their good suit, or if they had it their formal morning dress, and ta-da! they were colour-coordinated. Girls in a wealthy society wedding had dresses made alike as gifts from the bride's family; but middle-class girls often just wore their Sunday best dresses. But dressing alike has always been a teen-girl bonding "thing" and in post-war wealth of the 50s it came into the reach of the middle class. I think the thing that made it acceptable was that the girls wanted to do it. No-one (not even me) has a right to tell other adults how to dress, so if a gang of girls thinks it will be fun to honour their best friend by dressing alike for her special party, they can go for it -- wedding or not.
Bottom line is, that a well-bred bride is not going to rely on her family's and friends' tolerance and indulge herself in rude behaviour just because it has become common. Friends and families will also overlook things like registry information on invitations and cash bars, because of their love for the bride, but that's no reason to choose to do such things. All the other self-indulgences brides commit (regardless of how much they are or are not entitled to the term "bride) fall into the same category.