News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • November 21, 2017, 12:56:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*  (Read 21420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Celany

  • Member
  • Posts: 1661
  • the soul of a cat, in the body of a person...
S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« on: November 02, 2014, 02:25:45 PM »
"Declaring someone part of the wedding party" reminded me of this one. A friend of mine got married a few years ago. She and HTB were from different cultures. They wanted their wedding ceremony to be fairly short (about 20 mins). So they each picked a reading that they would like to have read, and they each picked something from their culture that they wanted to be a part of the ceremony. The rest of their ceremony was the vows that they wrote, and the actual "now you're married, you can keep each other" part. 

The part that her HTB wanted included was something that is traditionally done by to the couple by ALL the married women present. As they wanted a short ceremony, they asked my friends's MOH to do this particular thing. Just the MOH. When we were doing the wedding rehearsal, the MOG thew a FIT when she saw how they were handling that part of the ceremony. She attempted to insist that ALL the married women present should take part. Oh, and also, they HAD to have traditional music playing, but luckily she brought a DVD of a traditional song that was about 1/2 an hour long, which should surely be enough time for all the married women to do this thing. If not, the song could loop.

BTB listened to MOG's fit very calmly and then said, no, we're doing it X way, and then turned away from MOG to talk to the wedding planner about a few more things. MOG marched over the HTB and attempted to harangue him in front of all of us. HTB is (happily) *awesome*, and after his mom's first few words, said "Mom, this is me and Bride's wedding. We already decided how we're handling all this. It's a shame you don't agree with it, but we're doing it the way we planned." And then he walked away.

Technically, MOG didn't so much try to add an act to the wedding as co-opt it and demand it be the way she wanted. I was so glad to see that she didn't get her way (though she did get "revenge". She's very lucky that my friend is a compassionate wonderful person, else her little "game" would have cost her seeing the wedding). But has anybody else experienced this? Someone who is not the bride or groom trying to insist "well, of *course* you're going to do X thing during the ceremony", even at the 11th hour? I don't understand what people are thinking when they do this.
I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior. ~ Hippolyte Taine

Katana_Geldar

  • Member
  • Posts: 1448
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2014, 02:42:42 PM »
I think some people forget it's not their wedding.

daen

  • Member
  • Posts: 1314
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2014, 02:58:46 PM »
I think some people forget it's not their wedding.

I recall seeing some TV show where the bride and her mother were having a power struggle over who planned the wedding, and the mother said something to the effect of "It's your turn to plan the wedding when your daughter gets married." As I recall, hearing the words spoken aloud let the mother realize that she was doing what her mother had done to her - and that she hadn't appreciated it at the time, either. I've also heard of a real-life MOB saying "You can plan your second wedding, but I get this one."

I think that in some circles, the MOB planned the wedding because the bride would have been too young and inexperienced to do so, and because weddings were expected to conform to a fairly rigid norm.  That doesn't carry over well into current day, with people marrying later in life and a lot of emphasis on the wedding being an expression of the couple's personalities.

Celany

  • Member
  • Posts: 1661
  • the soul of a cat, in the body of a person...
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2014, 03:09:29 PM »
I think some people forget it's not their wedding.

I recall seeing some TV show where the bride and her mother were having a power struggle over who planned the wedding, and the mother said something to the effect of "It's your turn to plan the wedding when your daughter gets married." As I recall, hearing the words spoken aloud let the mother realize that she was doing what her mother had done to her - and that she hadn't appreciated it at the time, either. I've also heard of a real-life MOB saying "You can plan your second wedding, but I get this one."

I think that in some circles, the MOB planned the wedding because the bride would have been too young and inexperienced to do so, and because weddings were expected to conform to a fairly rigid norm.  That doesn't carry over well into current day, with people marrying later in life and a lot of emphasis on the wedding being an expression of the couple's personalities.

I feel like I've seen a number of comments here about brides being angry because someone in the service industry (at the dress store, usually) made a comment about how "they can always do it differently for their second wedding", which is also right up there for me in the "who says/does that?" category of things. Nothing says "love and respect" like deciding to hold something off for wedding #2 when you're in the middle of planning wedding #1.

It was also interesting, in the case of my friend, that it was her HTB's mom pitching the fits. Brides mom didn't say mum about a thing. But then, Bride's mom also had another daughter (who'd already gotten married, and mom participated a lot in that wedding), and I'm also sure that Bride had a talk with her mom about wanting to hear her mom's input, but as Bride & Groom were paying for the whole thing themselves, all input would be considered, but B&G got the final say.

Groom's mother only had Groom & his little brother. Chances are good that little brother may never get married, and Groom's mom had that air of "gorgeous woman who expects to be listened to in all things because she is a gorgeous woman" on top of "will order around sons because they are sons and must always listen to their mother". I'm very grateful that my friend is never going to live anywhere near her MIL, because that would end in a lot of drama for no good reason.
I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior. ~ Hippolyte Taine

Library Dragon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1440
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2014, 03:12:47 PM »
DH handles the pre-marriage counseling and prep for parishioners.  We have a parish wedding coordinator.  The current coordinator works well with him.  The previous one was horrible. 

There is a common wedding act that originated on a soap opera.  It has no sacramental basis.  DH will explain this and some HCs will opt not to do it.  (If they do DH says okay and moves on.) The previous coordinator would harshly insist that they include it.  Poor couples would be confused.  It's one reason she is the ex coordinator. 

DH insists that he only discusses the weddings with the HCs.  He too often acts as the referee between families trying to make changes that he know HCs don't want. 

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

camlan

  • Member
  • Posts: 9273
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2014, 03:19:17 PM »

I think that in some circles, the MOB planned the wedding because the bride would have been too young and inexperienced to do so, and because weddings were expected to conform to a fairly rigid norm.  That doesn't carry over well into current day, with people marrying later in life and a lot of emphasis on the wedding being an expression of the couple's personalities.

I'm 55, which is probably about the age of a lot of mothers who have daughters getting married.

In the 1980s, when most of my friends were getting married, in those 10 years after college, the bride's parents were almost always the hosts of the wedding. The bride certainly had input, and possibly even the groom, but the bride's parents were the ones paying for the wedding.

The amount of input the bride had varied greatly. One of my friends basically planned her own wedding and her dad just paid for it, while her mother checked over things to make sure that the guests would be comfortable, have enough to eat and drink, etc. The MOB made suggestions, but the bride had the final choices.

But in many cases, the parents of the bride would present the bride with choices, you can have the reception at Hotel A or Venue B or Church Hall C. Pick the meal from one of these 4 choices in our price range. You can have any wedding gown you like, as long as it is under $700. That sort of thing.

But there certainly were MOBs who pretty much controlled the entire wedding, down to the wedding gown and shoes.

So there's a bit of an adjustment when these women become MOBs themselves, and suddenly learn that the rules have changed and they won't be hosting their daughter's wedding; they will be guests at their daughter's wedding.

If you aren't involved with something for many years, you simply have no way of knowing the rules have changed. And it can come as a shock to women who have been expecting and looking forward to do the wedding planning with their daughters, as a last mother/daughter bonding moment before the daughter gets married, to find that their advice and experience is not wanted.
Nothing is impossible, the word itself says, “I’m possible!” –Audrey Hepburn


Katana_Geldar

  • Member
  • Posts: 1448
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2014, 03:37:50 PM »
DH handles the pre-marriage counseling and prep for parishioners.  We have a parish wedding coordinator.  The current coordinator works well with him.  The previous one was horrible. 

There is a common wedding act that originated on a soap opera.  It has no sacramental basis.  DH will explain this and some HCs will opt not to do it.  (If they do DH says okay and moves on.) The previous coordinator would harshly insist that they include it.  Poor couples would be confused.  It's one reason she is the ex coordinator. 

DH insists that he only discusses the weddings with the HCs.  He too often acts as the referee between families trying to make changes that he know HCs don't want.
Is this the "if anyone objects to this marriage speak now"? Because that's an actual thing and it was in Jane Eyre, but it's not about people jumping up and saying that the bride is in love with someone else. It's if the bride was already married, or the bride and groom were closely related, or it was a forced marriage that one of the parties was being taken advantage of.

daen

  • Member
  • Posts: 1314
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2014, 03:40:37 PM »
DH handles the pre-marriage counseling and prep for parishioners.  We have a parish wedding coordinator.  The current coordinator works well with him.  The previous one was horrible. 

There is a common wedding act that originated on a soap opera.
  It has no sacramental basis.  DH will explain this and some HCs will opt not to do it.  (If they do DH says okay and moves on.) The previous coordinator would harshly insist that they include it.  Poor couples would be confused.  It's one reason she is the ex coordinator. 

DH insists that he only discusses the weddings with the HCs.  He too often acts as the referee between families trying to make changes that he know HCs don't want.

Which act? I confess to being very curious.

EllenS

  • Member
  • Posts: 4654
  • I write whimsical vintage mysteries.
    • My Author Page:
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2014, 04:02:26 PM »
I could see where, if the HC was going to appropriate or alter some symbolic act that had deep cultural or religious meaning for one of the families, a parent might object or be offended on seeing it at the rehearsal. I don't think it would be out of line in that context for the parent to take their son or daughter aside and say something like "Are you sure you want to do this? Because that is really, really inappropriate and will be insulting to our entire family's upbringing." And depending how important the act was, or how much the HC was mangling it, the offended party might express themselves very strongly. Especially in a mixed-culture wedding, the officiant might not be aware there was a hot-button.

That doesn't sound like what OP witnessed. But I could see it happening, and I don't think the parent would be totally in the wrong in such a case.

Library Dragon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1440
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2014, 04:16:11 PM »
It's the Unity Candle.  There is some discussion that was around before 1981, but the wedding of Luke and Laura on General Hospital made it a craze and the insistence that all weddings had to have one and that they had always been part of the ceremony.

Full disclosure: I had one at my wedding in 1982.  The British Army chaplain that witnessed our sacramental marriage had never seen one before.  To be honest in all the years I had set up for weddings I'd never seen one, but I was a big General Hospital fan at the time and they were in all the wedding supply catalogs that year. 

The pastor of a local Episcopal church won't have it in the church in suggests doing it at the reception if the couple wants one.

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

TootsNYC

  • Member
  • Posts: 33792
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2014, 04:36:50 PM »
Not the ceremony, and not in my own life, but I remember hearing a story about a couple who didn't want to do the dollar dance, even though it was pretty traditional in the bride's culture.

At the reception, the bride's aunts commandeered the dance floor and started announcing/arranging the dollar dance and collecting the money.

And my MIL started bringing rice from home (in the Carolina box!) once the brides stopped handing out things to throw, or started using birdseed. I mentioned the reasons why no rice a few times, and then she stopped.

lakey

  • Member
  • Posts: 967
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2014, 04:45:52 PM »
There are traditions that are very important to some cultures and religions. When a bride and groom decide to not follow those traditions, or not follow them exactly, it is a big deal to the parents and grandparents. I don't know what happened during the planning stages for this particular wedding, but I would hope that the groom, knowing how important these things are to his mother, would have given her a lot of advanced warning and explanation so that the whole thing wouldn't come to a head at the rehearsal. The MOG, of course, behaved badly in making a scene at the rehearsal.
The couple have a right to have a wedding ceremony that works with their own beliefs, but letting the parents know during the planning stages that the ceremony is going to be different than expected might lessen the chances for an argument at the rehearsal, which is stressful for everyone.

Of course sometimes there is a relative that refuses to cooperate, but then they can make the choice to attend or not.

I and my family are traditional Catholics, with particular expectations for a religious wedding. Years ago one of my nephews got married and had a Wiccan wedding. This nephew, being very immature, didn't mention to anyone, including his brother who was best man, that it would be a Wiccan wedding until the rehearsal. Fortunately, the parents called everyone in both parents' families so that they knew what to expect. So everyone attended and behaved well, and it ended up being a friendly, fun little wedding. The brother/best man was resentful about not being told, but he accepted the situation and performed his role. My nephew ended up divorced in a short time, not because it was a Wiccan wedding, but because he was not adult enough to handle it better. As a matter of fact he is now on his third marriage, and that one isn't exactly going well.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 04:57:50 PM by lakey »

lakey

  • Member
  • Posts: 967
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2014, 04:54:41 PM »
Quote
It's the Unity Candle.  There is some discussion that was around before 1981, but the wedding of Luke and Laura on General Hospital made it a craze and the insistence that all weddings had to have one and that they had always been part of the ceremony.

That is done at a lot of Catholic weddings which have some pretty strict rules about what music and actions are allowed in liturgies.
I had no idea that it came from General Hospital's Luke and Laura wedding. I wish I didn't know. As I recall, Luke and Laura's relationship started out very poorly.  Now I'm going to think of that whenever I see a couple doing the Unity candle.

Katana_Geldar

  • Member
  • Posts: 1448
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2014, 04:57:33 PM »
The candle is supposed to show the light of Christ, which is why there are baptism candles. There's no provision for it in the Rite of Marriage which is why some churches forbid it.

kudeebee

  • Member
  • Posts: 2702
Re: S/O declaring some *act* part of the wedding *ceremony*
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2014, 05:14:09 PM »
Lighting a Unity Candle was around long before Luke and Laura's wedding.  All my friends and relatives and I had one when we married in the late 60's and the 70's.