DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Weddings
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37783--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Hanna Date: August 30, 2019, 10:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m a fan of Downton Abbey, but was tired of the social justice
topics. I’m not really in need of being educated about social
issues by the programs I watch on television, and most of those
plot-lines were truly ludicrous. The jazz singer and cousin
what’s her face, for example.
I was also constantly annoyed by how stupid they constant made
Robert’s character.
As an aside, I know many Americans including me tend to
romanticize that period in England. I was fascinated to hear one
of my managers in England absolutely go off the ledge when I
mentioned the show; he despises the whole idea. (But if you
handed him an estate I’m sure he’d take it!)
#Post#: 37792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: LifeOnPluto Date: August 31, 2019, 2:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Aleko - thanks for the fantastic analysis of Downton's
inaccuracies!
Back on topic, I thought it was quite common in the UK to have A
lists and B lists for weddings. The A list guests get invited to
the main part of the reception (eg a sit down dinner, and
speeches, etc), and the B List guests join the party later in
the night for dessert and dancing.
As an Australian, that always struck me as being rather rude,
but I recall on the old boards, there were a few Brits who
defended the practice.
#Post#: 37794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Sara Crewe Date: August 31, 2019, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=LifeOnPluto link=topic=1288.msg37792#msg37792
date=1567235330]
Aleko - thanks for the fantastic analysis of Downton's
inaccuracies!
Back on topic, I thought it was quite common in the UK to have A
lists and B lists for weddings. The A list guests get invited to
the main part of the reception (eg a sit down dinner, and
speeches, etc), and the B List guests join the party later in
the night for dessert and dancing.
As an Australian, that always struck me as being rather rude,
but I recall on the old boards, there were a few Brits who
defended the practice.
[/quote]
The rule in the U.K. is that you can *add* people at each stage
but you can’t remove them.
Therefore, everyone who is invited to the service must be
invited to the next stage (usually the meal), some extra people
will be invited to the second stage and then everyone from the
first and second stages must be invited to the third stage which
is dancing and perhaps a buffet.
Having a ‘pretend’ reception with canapés and then sneaking off
with your *real* friends for a meal is just as shatteringly rude
in the U.K. as anywhere else in the world.
#Post#: 37824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Aleko Date: August 31, 2019, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sara Crewe, you pretty much nailed it.
I'd only add that there isn't always a third stage; an evening
dance is not traditional. There are two reasons for this:
1: For well over a century the hours for weddings in England
were restricted by law, to prevent people (such as eloping
minors) sneaking off and getting a clergyman to marry them
clandestinely at dead of night, or some other time they could
count on nobody being in church to spot them. From 1837 a
marriage was only legal if it was performed between 8 am and
noon; then in 1886 the permitted hours were extended to 3pm; in
1934 to 6pm. It was only in 2012 that it became legal to marry
at any time of day or night. But the Canons of the Church of
England consistently lagged behind the law: DH and I got married
in 1992 and the vicar told us we were in luck; a year or so
previously the Canons had finally been updated to come into line
with the 1934 legislation, so he was allowed to marry us at 5pm
as we wanted.
So, from 1837 to 1886 nobody in England could get married except
in the morning; after that the laws were successively relaxed,
but right up to from 1886 to 1990-ish, anyone wanting a Church
of England wedding still had to have it before noon. This meant
that the 'wedding breakfast' started no later than 2, so by
maybe 5 or 6 everyone would have had enough food and festivity;
partying on till it was time for an evening meal and then
dancing into the night would have meant 12 or more hours
non-stop..
2: It used to be assumed (or at least valiantly pretended by one
and all) that the couple had not previously been sleeping
together, and therefore that the night of their wedding was The
Big Night. So they needed to 'go away' early enough to get to
their honeymoon hotel in time for that. 'Going away' was a big
traditional event that has been almost completely dropped in the
last two or three decades: the couple would slip off, change out
of their wedding outfits and reappear in ordinary (but smart and
new) day clothes, say goodbye to all their guests and get into
their vehicle, which in the interim would have been decorated by
the best man and his accomplices with ribbons, L-plates, a sign
saying "JUST MARRIED", and old shoes on strings trailing from
the back bumper, and everyone would stand on the steps to wave
them off. That brought the whole thing to a natural end; a few
gannets might hang on to hoover up the last of the food and
drink, but generally the guests started going home. It's only
since everyone has shed even the pretence that the 'wedding
night' is an important rite, that bridal couples have felt able
to party on into the night with their guests.
#Post#: 37841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Nestholder Date: August 31, 2019, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's legal to get married at home, or in your
parents' or grandparents' house, in the UK (unless your grandma
happens to own, say, Windsor Castle). Which is a shame, because
I think that sort of wedding sounds charming. I guess one could
have the reception at home, but the actual wedding would have to
be in a licensed building.
I honestly cannot remember if we had rehearsal for my wedding,
but the grand Rehearsal Dinner definitely was not a Thing then.
Doubt it is now. I'm not really sure why the rehearsal is
necessary, either. I mean, the celebrant conducts everybody
through the wedding - it's not as though you are required to
memorise a bunch of lines and come in on cue.
#Post#: 37850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: lisastitch Date: August 31, 2019, 6:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1288.msg37824#msg37824
date=1567273541]
Sara Crewe, you pretty much nailed it.
2: It used to be assumed (or at least valiantly pretended by one
and all) that the couple had not previously been sleeping
together, and therefore that the night of their wedding was The
Big Night. So they needed to 'go away' early enough to get to
their honeymoon hotel in time for that. 'Going away' was a big
traditional event that has been almost completely dropped in the
last two or three decades: the couple would slip off, change out
of their wedding outfits and reappear in ordinary (but smart and
new) day clothes, say goodbye to all their guests and get into
their vehicle, which in the interim would have been decorated by
the best man and his accomplices with ribbons, L-plates, a sign
saying "JUST MARRIED", and old shoes on strings trailing from
the back bumper, and everyone would stand on the steps to wave
them off. That brought the whole thing to a natural end; a few
gannets might hang on to hoover up the last of the food and
drink, but generally the guests started going home. It's only
since everyone has shed even the pretence that the 'wedding
night' is an important rite, that bridal couples have felt able
to party on into the night with their guests.
[/quote]
In addition, as the age at which people get married has risen,
more wedding couples are hosting their own weddings. When DH
and I got married, my parents were definitely the hosts. I had a
going-away outfit, and we left when most people were still
there. By the time DS and DDIL got married, they were the ones
planning the wedding and reception, and were hosting it in a way
that DH and I were not.
#Post#: 37878--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: jpcher Date: September 1, 2019, 2:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Nestholder link=topic=1288.msg37841#msg37841
date=1567290853]
I don't think it's legal to get married at home, or in your
parents' or grandparents' house, in the UK (unless your grandma
happens to own, say, Windsor Castle). Which is a shame, because
I think that sort of wedding sounds charming. I guess one could
have the reception at home, but the actual wedding would have to
be in a licensed building.
[/quote]
OH! NO! I'm in the US and married my LDH in our home with a
licensed pastor. I certainly hope the marriage was legal! All
the paperwork said it was. LOL! It was a charming wedding with
friends and relatives all attending. A good time was had by all.
What would a licensed building be? A courthouse? A church?
#Post#: 37884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Aleko Date: September 1, 2019, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I don't think it's legal to get married at home, or in
your parents' or grandparents' house, in the UK (unless your
grandma happens to own, say, Windsor Castle). [/quote]
Actually it is, if you can convince the Archbishop of Canterbury
that you really, really need to get married at home. For
example, if you tell him that either the bride or groom is
bedbound, or has an electronic tag and will be arrested if they
leave their house, he will (hopefully) issue you a special
licence to get married there. Such a licence is what's needed
when a dying person in hospital wants to marry, or in any other
case where it just isn't practicable for the wedding to happen
in a regularly licensed place.
[quote]Which is a shame, because I think that sort of wedding
sounds charming. I guess one could have the reception at home,
but the actual wedding would have to be in a licensed
building.[/quote]
For a very good reason! Society at large needs to know who is
legally married and who isn't; and getting married in a private
house militates against this need. Up till 1753 you could get
married in a private home or anywhere, and the result was that
you could never be sure if someone claiming to be single was
actually married, or vice versa. (Some people probably weren't
100% sure if they themselves were married or single.) Bigamy was
rife, and there was a mass of marital litigation and wrangles
over inheritance. All the 18th- and 19th-century legislation
laying down the permitted times and places for weddings, and
insisting on public notification of one's intentions to marry
("calling the banns") was aimed at ensuring that marriages were
public. It's still the law in England that for a church marriage
to be valid the church door must be kept open during the
marriage service, so that anyone can walk in, to witness the act
or object to it - you can't get married behind closed doors.
The vicar who married DH and me said, while explaining to us how
to get the banns called, and that if we couldn't produce a valid
banns certificate to show us before the day, the wedding
couldn't happen, that while this might all sound like antiquated
flummery to us, it still is important. He himself had once been
conducting a marriage and when he said the bit about "if any man
can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined
together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his
peace", a man spoke up from the back of the church: "I'm the
uncle of the bridegroom's wife, and he's still married to her!"
The groom lived in an inner-city district nowhere near anywhere
his any member of his own or his wife's family lived, and had
never set foot in the local parish church himself, so her
reckoned it was safe to have the banns called there, as it was
highly unlikely that anybody who heard the banns would know his
name. But somebody did, and that person told his wife's uncle in
time!
[quote]What would a licensed building be? A courthouse? A
church? [/quote]
Religious marriages can only be performed by a minister of
religion who has been registered as an officiant and authorised
by the Registrar General to conduct religious marriages. In
other words, such an officiant is acting in a dual capacity,
both religious and civil, and s/he has to do the legal paperwork
accordingly. Where the minister is such an officiant, her/his
church will be a lawful place for a wedding. That includes
churches of most major Christian denominations, synagogues,
Hindu and Sikh temples, and many others. If a minister is not so
registered, the marriage has no legal validity and the couple
will need to have a civil marriage ceremony as well to be
considered married in the eyes of the law.
Until very recently, civil marriages could only be contracted in
a registry office. Every district has one; it's where you go to
register births, marriages and deaths ("hatches, matches and
despatches"). The Registrar performs the marriage.
However, very recently (2012, I think?) this restriction has
been relaxed and any suitable place, such as a country house
hotel or historic house, may apply to be licensed officially as
a wedding venue; a licensed officiant (civil or religious)
comes out to it. However, weddings must still take place in a
building (i.e. the wedding venue must have an actual address);
you can't marry on a beach or a mountain top.
#Post#: 38010--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Gellchom Date: September 3, 2019, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Aleko, that was so interesting! Thanks for sharing that with
us.
I guess in the US, the concerns that you raised are covered by
having to have a license issued by the state and completed and
filed by a legal officiant (government official; licensed
clergy; other licensed, sometimes temporarily, person). The
location is rendered irrelevant. Do you have licenses like that
in the UK?
We don't have any requirement like banns, though; closest thing
is the waiting period in some states after getting the license.
Come to think of it, although I don't know if it is a legal
requirement, local newspapers list marriage licenses granted, so
if there is a waiting period, that serves the purpose. How
nearby geographically must the banns be called?
Why no outdoor weddings in the UK? I guess you could probably
have an official ceremony in a government office the day before
and then do your wedding outdoors or in an unlicensed venue,
couldn't you?
#Post#: 38021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: JeanFromBNA Date: September 3, 2019, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1288.msg37884#msg37884
date=1567333054]
The vicar who married DH and me said, while explaining to us how
to get the banns called, and that if we couldn't produce a valid
banns certificate to show us before the day, the wedding
couldn't happen, that while this might all sound like antiquated
flummery to us, it still is important. He himself had once been
conducting a marriage and when he said the bit about [b]"if any
man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined
together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his
peace", a man spoke up from the back of the church: "I'm the
uncle of the bridegroom's wife, and he's still married to her!"
[/b]The groom lived in an inner-city district nowhere near
anywhere his any member of his own or his wife's family lived,
and had never set foot in the local parish church himself, so
her reckoned it was safe to have the banns called there, as it
was highly unlikely that anybody who heard the banns would know
his name. But somebody did, and that person told his wife's
uncle in time!
[/quote]
Shades of Jane Eyre (or Four Weddings and a Funeral)! I've
wondered if this ever happens in modern times.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page