|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who gives this woman?
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
Both of which (but the former specifically) grated incredibly in this day and age. Why is someone allowed to "give away" a woman as if they re property to be transferred? What sort of message does this give about a womans place and position? Why is the groom "allowed" to kiss the bride, rather than them both being allowed to kiss?
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt. And yet the giving away of a daughter like a car to a new owner felt incredibly patronising.
Lets be clear, the couple have been living together for years, so I think it even loses any symbolic sense - a sense of supporting them joining together.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Interesting story here:
quote:
The Crown Princess of Sweden has upset the country's church leaders by announcing she wants to be given away by her father when she marries next month, a practice which the Swedes consider sexist.
[...]
The decision has prompted the head of the Swedish church, Archbishop Anders Wejryd, to take the unusual step of issuing a public statement expressing his disapproval at the adoption of such an Anglo-Saxon practice.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
[ 14. August 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Schroedinger's Cat
IMO the couple wanted something 'traditional' precisely because they were already living together. They wanted a wedding that seemed like more than a formality, more than just a bit of paper. They wanted to indicate that this really was a new, different stage in their lives.
Most British couples don't get married in churches these days, and recapturing a sense of tradition is one of the main reasons for doing so. This is probably frustrating for churchgoers at the more radical end of the spectrum, especially in the CofE, but there's not much of a market for radical church weddings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
That is in the 1662 BCP. It is optional in the Common Worship one. quote:
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
As far as England and Wales is concerned that is not traditional. It is an innovation which has only spread in the last 40 years or so. I think it's been picked up from films, which means it may have been the custom in California.
I suspect it stems from some sort of hypocritical wish to make people think the couple had abstemiously avoided any form of physical contact at all until that moment. Or perhaps it represents a symbolic consummation, bearing in mind one can't really have people having an actual one in public.
It is not in either the BCP or the Common Worship form of service.
quote:
Both of which (but the former specifically) grated incredibly in this day and age. Why is someone allowed to "give away" a woman as if they're property to be transferred? What sort of message does this give about a womans place and position? Why is the groom "allowed" to kiss the bride, rather than them both being allowed to kiss?
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt.
Why or how is that changing or adapting? In the 1662 BCP the priest says "... I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together .... ". The Common Worship version says 'proclaim'.
Or did the couple make that statement themselves, rather in the manner of Napoleon putting his crown on his own head. That would be taking rather more of a risk. It is just possible, though unlikely, that that could imperil the marriage's validity. I also can't see why anyone would want to do that. quote:
And yet the giving away of a daughter like a car to a new owner felt incredibly patronising.
Lets be clear, the couple have been living together for years, so I think it even loses any symbolic sense - a sense of supporting them joining together.
Provided they choose options within the law, aren't these choices, though, the couple's to make rather than for each individual guest to come to their separate opinion about.
After all, there are quite a lot of things I'm a bit sniffy about but that doesn't entitle my inner Victor Meldrew to insist that people can't do them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Later in the service, the groom was told he could now kiss the bride.
As far as England and Wales is concerned that is not traditional. It is an innovation which has only spread in the last 40 years or so.
As has the practice of applauding after the Minister has declared them man and wife.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by S Cat:
They did finish by declaring them husband and wife, so it was clear that they are quite prepared to change and adapt.
Why or how is that changing or adapting? In the 1662 BCP the priest says "... I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together .... ". The Common Worship version says 'proclaim'.
[/QB]
Husband and Wife (both defined in relationship to each other).
Man and Wife (one defined by what he is, one by relation)
Woman and Husband (ditto but reversed to likely bias)
Man and Woman (both defined by what they are)
I understand that Wif(e) was the original (english) word for woman. So the cause and effect strictly speaking is backwards.
[ 14. August 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
For the weddings of all 3 daughters we used "who brings ..." not "who gives." The latter is a throwback to a woman's property being transferred to her husband, along with her. It's not been a legal requirement since the 1884 Married Women's Property Act - although there are still significant financial issues involved in becoming married (aside from the cost of the ceremony) that is). In the absence of written (and witnessed) authority, all previous wills are revoked and intentions overruled.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
It felt like a CW-style service (it was definitely not BCP language). The last 3 weddings I went to were different for all sorts of reasons, but the church one was broadly similar though. I don;t go to enough CofE weddings to know the subtle differences.
I don't know why they chose a traditional-style wedding, but it may have been for the brides family. I don't believe that the couple would have chosen it for themselves if there was no consideration for others (which is a perfectly good reason, of course, but I don't think it was for the couple themselves).
In many ways, the whole celebration was about the two families coming together, in the form of the couple at the centre. To me, that is what it was all about, and I think to them - a celebration of their ongoing commitment. Whereas the service itself seemed more like the "traditional" handing over of a daughter to a new owner.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One of my friends in university, a fairly conservative Catholic who did not agree much with feminism had St Paul's admonitions for wives to submit to their husbands, as the reading for her wedding, as a possible slight against the feminist revolution.
I held my tongue so that I did not respond that if it weren't for the feminist revolution, she would probably not be working on her doctorate right now. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
It's part of the BCP service - see page 3 of this pdf
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Or did the couple make that statement themselves, rather in the manner of Napoleon putting his crown on his own head. That would be taking rather more of a risk. It is just possible, though unlikely, that that could imperil the marriage's validity.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia (yes, I know we're talking about an Anglican wedding):
quote:
The Church from the beginning realized that Matrimony was in its essence a contract between individuals. So far as regarded the external forms which gave validity to that contract, the Church was ready to approve all that was seemly and in accordance with national custom, recognizing that an engagement thus lawfully entered upon between two baptized Christians was elevated by Christ's institution to the dignity of a sacrament.
Italics added.
Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I've been to weddings where both parents walked the bride down the aisle and both answered, "We do."
"Who gives this woman?" can be a transfer of property, but it can also be viewed as a passing of care and responsibility but it probably should apply both ways. My MIL told me how much less she worries about her children once they're married, so when I married her 28 year old son she was gratefully "giving" me this young man to take care of. She had this attitude in spite of the fact that he was a military man who had been out on his own for ten years.
"Now, you may kiss the bride," always just sounded to me like, "This is the place in the ceremony where you do that." It never occurred to me that anyone was pretending we hadn't kissed before. My husband just hugged me due to an overwhelming fear of getting lipstick on his face. Something about an episode where Popeye married Olive Oyl.
Why is it brides get all upset over these traditional lines, but still want that $5000 dollar mess of white netting and lace that represents virginity? Parents probably wonder why they can't put their foot down over that.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why is it brides get all upset over these traditional lines, but still want that $5000 dollar mess of white netting and lace that represents virginity?
White symbolising virginity is a recent, and incorrect, assumption. Queen Victoria wore white, to use some lace she fancied, and influenced "tradition" thereafter. Prior it was any colour.
BTW, the colour of purity at that time was blue.
quote:
Parents probably wonder why they can't put their foot down over that.
If they are paying, they can complain about the cost.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
Giving the bride in marriage is a BCP thing and I have no trouble with it. View it as a father giving away his "possession" to another man, or view it as parents ceding their care of a loved one, or don't do it at all; I'm not much bothered. My sister was given away by our mother (our father being long-departed this world) back in the mid-1980s and it didn't seem a strange thing even then.
The snogging at the altar though... yuk. It's not part of the marriage service and it's not (as far as I can see) an appropriate inclusion in the service either. It reminds me of countless GCSE papers I've marked where ill-taught pupils seem to think that the marriage service includes all-out copulation on the altar because "the marriage don't count til the bride and groom have sex".
If a bride and groom choose to exchange a quick peck once they've "done the deed" that's fine, but saying "you may now kiss your bride" seems to be an invitation to engage in a game of profound tonsil tennis that is not appropriate. Save it for later, loves.
I was once (early 80s) attending at the altar as an old parson delivered the sacrament, at the end of which the groom leaned forward and asked "Aren't you going to say 'you may now kiss the bride'?"
Father paused, looked at them both, then he too leaned forward and said... "No!" Quite right too!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
Vietnamese weddings (including my own) have a senior family representative answer, one from each. So you get "Who gives this man..." and "Who gives this woman" and the patriarch or matriarch of each side answers publicly. The point of it is to underline that the families are supportive of the new couple, and to try to forestall the various tugs-of-war that often develop later on when some relative tries to get one spouse to put birth family above the marriage.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I loved it when Mr. Lamb got "given away." His older brother had to speak for him, as his parents were not living.
It's maybe worth noting that in the Vietnamese culture marriages link two families, not just two people, and it is a vanishingly rare marriage that goes on in the complete absence of any input (good or bad) from the couple's relatives. I'm sure you can all imagine the bad, but I've also seen marriages saved by the intervention of in-laws to stop their son or daughter being an asshole.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
It does make sense to me - it is then about the parents both accepting that their children are now someone else's primarily responsibility. And by including it, it involves the families (I am all for the families to be involved, to be seen to be joined as well).
It is not the fact of a transfer or a fact of the couple kissing that is the problem for me. It is the one-sided nature - that the bride is given away, the groom isn't; that the groom may kiss the bride, not that they may kiss each other.
I suppose it struck me in this case, because I know who is the boss in their relationship, and it is not the groom. Apparently, in the rehearsal, when they got to the part about "You may kiss the bride", she replied "Does he have to?"
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Having someone not in the family 'give' the bride away is quite old. Read up on Charlotte Bronte's wedding -- it was her father's church in fact, but Rev. Bronte whether from ill health or a fit of the sulks refused to even show up, never mind give his daughter away. (The distance from Haworth parsonage to church is measurable in yards.) So one of her female friends was promoted from attendant to giver-away.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was at a wedding yesterday, and it was a fairly traditional Anglican service. Including the giving away of the bride.
Traditional it may or may not be. But not part of the authorized liturgy (at least in the Church of England).
It is not a feature of either of the services in Common Worship (the 'new' one, or the Series One service). And the rubrics of the BCP almost preclude it.
It's part of the BCP service - see page 3 of this pdf
Mea culpa. Of course it is - reading fail when I checked!
Though nevertheless it is less obviously a big deal than it is often treated as - no indication as to any sort of response, verbal or otherwise.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I know that half of the fun of going to weddings is making fun of the choices of the couple. Still, in this case, I'd write it off as a personal choice and butt out.
I suppose that, at some point, a priest could suggest that a church wedding isn't what a couple really wants. But you, humble guest, don't have that prerogative.
My wife is very liberal, and no one is under the impression that she is anyone's property. She wanted to be presented by her dad, and she wanted me to get his blessing when I proposed. If she hadn't wanted those things to happen, I would have payed attention.
People are entitled to decide for themselves what is important to them.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
My sister-in-law walked down the aisle alone, as the Minister was of a modern bent and was against the practice of giving away the bride. I see no problem with it, but then again in my household Ma Preacher is a liturgy critic par excellence, so I have a different perspective on things.
As a past Chair of Session, my attitude was 'tradition within reason' was always the best way, there are brides like Og's and who am I to stand in their way? If someone isn't clear on anything, than tradition is always best, as they won't be disappointed that they didn't get what they expected.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Schroedinger's cat: quote:
Apparently, in the rehearsal, when they got to the part about "You may kiss the bride", she replied "Does he have to?"
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Boy, the honeymoon was over years ago!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I believe that after Prince Albert's death, Queen Victoria gave away one of her daughters at the wedding.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Og - I am not criticising the choices. I am quite happy with them having any form they want.
What I have a problem with is the CofE still including this type of wording as a reasonable option for a service.
I was at a humanist wedding a couple of months ago, and, while I might not agree with the basis of the humanism, I was perfectly happy with everything that was said. It was their choice, and there was nothing I could disagree with.
Whereas this wedding should have been more comfortable, and yet I found it more disturbing.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
At my younger daughters wedding, the parents of the bride and the groom answered "I do" when asked, "Who gives this man and this woman to each other?"
It was an agreement by all the parents to butt out.
Moo
That doesn't entirely make sense to me. Couldn't the question just have been omitted?
It does make sense to me - it is then about the parents both accepting that their children are now someone else's primarily responsibility. And by including it, it involves the families (I am all for the families to be involved, to be seen to be joined as well).
It is not the fact of a transfer or a fact of the couple kissing that is the problem for me. It is the one-sided nature - that the bride is given away, the groom isn't; that the groom may kiss the bride, not that they may kiss each other.
Ah. I see what you mean. I think I misread the original anecdote by Moo.
I agree that the 'transfer' of both bride and groom encourages a strong sense of family involvement on both sides. Of course, for many modern Western families, nothing is really being 'transferred'. People will marry or not regardless of their parents' consent, and most couples are already living together.
As for what the CofE should agree to, the drop in church weddings probably means that there's a great reluctance to reject requests, especially those involving customs with a certain degree of longevity.
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
For the weddings of all 3 daughters we used "who brings ..." not "who gives." The latter is a throwback to a woman's property being transferred to her husband, along with her. It's not been a legal requirement since the 1884 Married Women's Property Act - although there are still significant financial issues involved in becoming married (aside from the cost of the ceremony) that is). In the absence of written (and witnessed) authority, all previous wills are revoked and intentions overruled.
Over recent years, we've seen a major trend to "bring", and most of the time now, it's both mother and father of the bride. We've told Dlet that if ever the time comes when some poor unfortunate agrees to marry him, we would together bring him to the service also.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I got to attend a Spanish wedding in Mexico, no idea where specific behaviors came from but parents were seated up front at their own special places - hers just to the side of the bride, his just to the side of the groom. The ceremony was clearly about the families coming together not just about the bride and groom as if they are entirely separate from any families. I liked it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
.... Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
That's straightforward CofE doctrine too, but it isn't actually the issue I was commenting on.
Because a CofE wedding takes effect legally, without any involvement by the Registrar, and because a CofE clergyperson can marry people without having to be appointed a deputy registrar, the arcane issue which the pedantic discuss from time to time, is which bits of liturgical irregularity do or don't put at risk the validity of the marriage?
Yes, the couple marry each other. Nevertheless, having a celebrant who is either a validly ordained priest or a validly appointed registrar is necessary if the marriage is to take effect in law. Failure to meet this test means the couple will not be married. Whatever the position in other jurisdictions, that is the position in England and Wales. I don't know, and wouldn't want to answer the question, whether someone else other than the celebrant stating that the couple are now husband and wife brings the validity into question or not. It probably doesn't, but I would certainly discourage anyone from taking that risk.
Lamb Chopped, whatever people's avowed sociological views, and however much they may claim to be very modern and not like that, a very large number of marriages in England are to this day marriages between families as well as couples. Although we select our own spouses rather than have arranged marriages, people ingest a very clear understanding from childhood, that is so implicit in society that they are not aware of it, that they are expected to fall in love with and choose somebody that their families will like, approve of and accept. The tensions between that and peoples' feelings drive the plots of a hundred soap operas and keep agony aunts in business.
I can't imagine that isn't the same everywhere else in the western world.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Og - I am not criticising the choices. I am quite happy with them having any form they want.
What I have a problem with is the CofE still including this type of wording as a reasonable option for a service.
I was at a humanist wedding a couple of months ago, and, while I might not agree with the basis of the humanism, I was perfectly happy with everything that was said. It was their choice, and there was nothing I could disagree with.
Whereas this wedding should have been more comfortable, and yet I found it more disturbing.
You are happy with their choice, you would just prefer that they not be allowed that choice if they want to be married in your church.
You have said a lot about what would make you comfortable or happy. We haven't heard anything about the bride. Did she look annoyed or happy at the line in question? Did you ask her or her dad (or someone else in the know) about what went into including that line, or did you just grouse quietly and take it to the web the next day?
It would be condescending to include the line in every wedding, without any input from the bride. But I would argue that it would be equally condescending to tell brides that they can't have a presentation, no matter what it means to them and how much time they have spent discussing and considering the line, because other people who weren't in on their discussion and discernment and who know zilch about their thoughts and feelings on the matter might be offended.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
1662 is still a legally authorized form of service. The 1662 service contains "obey".
I'm not entirely clear on whether a couple is allowed to insist on a particular form of service, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A couple of years ago I conducted a wedding (with a family I know well) in which the father did intend to "give away" the bride.
Well, that was the idea ... except I got ahead of myself in the service and forgot to ask the question! So we went through the rest of the wedding, I declared them man and wife - and it was only during the next hymn, with dad smiling broadly at me, that I realised the blunder.
So, after the hymn and before the Bible reading, I fessed up and then asked, "Who gave this woman ...?" to which the dad magnificently replied, "I did"! (Cue applause all round the church).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
.... Thus, the couple does essentially marry themselves by declaring before witnesses that they are husband and wife. The Church merely ratifies the bond that they themselves have contracted.
That's straightforward CofE doctrine too, but it isn't actually the issue I was commenting on.
Because a CofE wedding takes effect legally, without any involvement by the Registrar, and because a CofE clergyperson can marry people without having to be appointed a deputy registrar, the arcane issue which the pedantic discuss from time to time, is which bits of liturgical irregularity do or don't put at risk the validity of the marriage?
Yes, the couple marry each other. Nevertheless, having a celebrant who is either a validly ordained priest or a validly appointed registrar is necessary if the marriage is to take effect in law. Failure to meet this test means the couple will not be married. Whatever the position in other jurisdictions, that is the position in England and Wales. I don't know, and wouldn't want to answer the question, whether someone else other than the celebrant stating that the couple are now husband and wife brings the validity into question or not. It probably doesn't, but I would certainly discourage anyone from taking that risk.
Lamb Chopped, whatever people's avowed sociological views, and however much they may claim to be very modern and not like that, a very large number of marriages in England are to this day marriages between families as well as couples. Although we select our own spouses rather than have arranged marriages, people ingest a very clear understanding from childhood, that is so implicit in society that they are not aware of it, that they are expected to fall in love with and choose somebody that their families will like, approve of and accept. The tensions between that and peoples' feelings drive the plots of a hundred soap operas and keep agony aunts in business.
I can't imagine that isn't the same everywhere else in the western world.
In England and Wales for a marriage to be valid the following must be present/done
- the couple must be able to marry - ie not already married, have capability, uk residency, i/d must be proven
- notice of marriage have been posted at least 28 days before the ceremony and within the last 6 months. This can be by Banns (CofE) or publicised at the local Registrar office. If not married in a CofE church the Registrar must issue a Blue Form for each party given permission to perform the ceremony
- the ceremony takes place between 8 am and 6 pm in a valid location and with a Registrar (or authorised person present)
- the doors must be kept open
- there must be at least 2 independent witnesses (apart from the Registrar and couple)
- an authorised form of words must be used (there are several legal choices). The parties must agree that they are free to marry, the opportunity for objectors to come forward must be given (very few grounds for a valid objection), and the parties must contract ("I take you to be my wedded wife etc.").
That's the legal minimum. What particular churches or denominations expect is added to that. It is possible (I've done it) to perform the minimum legal ceremony in about 5 minutes.
The one thing most people don't know is that raising an objection is a serious matter. The wedding service confers a change of legal status. Any objection is effectively a challenge in law and must be addressed. Frivolous objections are a breach of the peace and result in a summons for Mr Plod to attend. It's best to suggest to suggest to jokey friends that this is not an opportunity for a quick laugh - they will be lucky to get away with a verbal reaming from the Police. Unlucky and they will get a criminal record - false objections count as crimes against the state, whom the Vicar/Minister is representing in the service.
Special licences can be obtained at short notice - the shortest being (I think) 24 hours in the case of an Archbishops Licence. This is only used in extremis - e.g for a hospital wedding when one party is dying.
The one thing that's always puzzled me is the door open bit. I know why it's there (possibility of objection) but how can weddings behind closed doors (e.g Royalty/celebs) be valid? There's no opportunity for public objection in a chosen guest list. Anyone help here?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Two answers.
1. Wedding times: Section 114 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 removed the restriction on hours for weddings. However the CofE are still covered by other legislation so have to remain within the 8am-6pm timeslot. It's not clear what the position is for Nonconformist churches; however the Home Office has apparently said that "neither local authorities nor religious groups are required to provide services outside of the traditional hours".
2. As far as the "open doors" policy is concerned, apparently "the Registrar general interprets this to mean that the public must have unfettered access to witness the marriage and make objections prior to or during the ceremony". In practice doesn't happen, especially in (say) celebrity weddings, but surely the point is that they are not secretive private affairs. And AFAIK, all weddings have to be announced publicly by means of Banns or by notice being pinned up in Registry Offices - theoretically this means that people can hear or see and then eject. (I believe that Wallis Simpson got divorced in Ipswich rather than London so that no-one would see the public notice of her intention).
Intersting article here by Joshua Rosenberg.
[ 15. August 2016, 07:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Thirty seven years ago my Dad walked me down the isle, dropped me off with my husband, turned round and conducted the ceremony.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
When we set off he pulled me back and whispered 'slow down and enjoy it' - wise words for brides who wish to run down the isle and for life in general.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... theoretically this means that people can hear or see and then eject.
I meant "object" (whoops).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
It was the practice in one Anglican team I worked with - if the bride wanted to be 'given away' by Dad or indeed anyone - was to ask 'who brings this woman to be married', rather than 'who gives...'. Although if required we'd ask the 'who gives...', though not in the liturgy.
Sometimes involving a person in relationship to the bride (parent, relative, friend) in handing her over formally (for want of a better phrase) can be a pastorally significant moment. I know it needn't involve anything being said at all, but I wouldn't be adverse at all to that. Also at that moment, it can be sort of symbolically significant if Dad and the husband-to-be shake hands.
Yes, the couple have probably been together - even living together for years. But it is good to mark that something formally, publically and covenantually is happening, so it's not entirely fair, I think, to accuse couples of hypocrisy for these apparently silly little traditions.
Besides where religion and human beings are concerned isn't there nearly always a shadow of hypocrisy in everything we do anyway? Hence the need for grace etc.
Of course, as a good feminist I am appalled(!) at the early meaning and establishment of 'giving away'; the bride indeed being part of a dowry arrangement whereby a portion of her inheritance/father's wealth was assigned to her husband, and the woman being regarded legally as chattel to the man. The idea of women only really being legitimately 'visible' in society as something that a man could either dispose of as part of a business deal, or acquire in a similar way is not pleasant to reflect upon!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
If we object to the bride being "given away", can we also please object (as I always do) to referring to the wedding as "the bride's big day"? There is a groom involved as well (except in SSM, but let's not go there in his thread) - so it's THEIR big day!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, I don't suppose the CofE allows brides to promise to 'obey' any more.
It certainly has at the 3 weddings I've attended so far this year (2 1662s and a 1928). One also had the Song of Solomon...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not entirely clear on whether a couple is allowed to insist on a particular form of service, though.
I think it depends how "churchy" the couple are. If they just want to get married in your church then it's likely that the incumbent can do a lot to steer the couple in terms of what happens.
OTOH, the most recent wedding I've been to specified 1928 BCP, pretty well the entire Song of Solomon, "have you got Hymns A&M because if not we'll be bringing our own?" and "please Mr Vicar can you sit this one out as we've got a few of our own vicars that we'd quite like to take the service in your church?"
I'd never seen 1928 done as a full Nuptual Mass, but I have now.
I think, really, if it's legal to be done in the CofE and you can get agreement then the couple can do whatever they want.
[ 15. August 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If we object to the bride being "given away", can we also please object (as I always do) to referring to the wedding as "the bride's big day"? There is a groom involved as well (except in SSM, but let's not go there in his thread) - so it's THEIR big day!
Absolutely. While one accepts that there's more scope for the bride to get all prettied up and outshine her hubby, I sometimes wonder if the imbalance in the 'bride's big day' is possibly an indicator of the relationship. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard the bloke say, 'well, it's really for her, you know. So she can have her special day.'
Ref: the promising to obey. I think I've included that maybe twice or thrice in all the weddings I've done to date. I always offered it, as an option, in the modern CofE service and I promise (cross my heart!) I gave a generous orthodox exposition of how it was understood in scripture. But only two or three women chose to include it. And the reason given, as I remember, was 'because my mum said it at her wedding' or 'it's traditional'.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't think it's entirely clear to what extent the vicar or the couple are entitled to insist on things being done their way. People are expected to co-operate with one another. There is quite a lot of flexibility but what would be clear is that the couple is not entitled to insist on something that conflicts with the the permitted forms of service.
Query whether a service according to the 1928 book - which was never properly legal anyway - per se, rather than selecting Common Worship options that are close to it, would be permissible. Depending on what was done, it's taking a bit of a risk as to whether the marriage has 'taken'.
I'm fairly sure that no one can insist on importing their pet reverend over the head of the incumbent and without his or her agreement.
On 'obey', from memory, I think you can only have it if the husband also 'endows'.
[ 15. August 2016, 10:36: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What grates with me is the insistence on having the signing of the registers in the middle of the service but out of sight of the congregation.
Why? Well, at many weddings the congregation assume this means the end of the service 'proper' so they chatter and getting them to settle down for prayers is nigh to impossible. If the registers are signed in the middle of the church at least people can see that this is part of the service, and they might be persuaded to shut up.
As for departures from the 'norm', the weirdest thing I've seen was a bride who entered with her pet goat which then stood by her side at the chancel step.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for departures from the 'norm', the weirdest thing I've seen was a bride who entered with her pet goat which then stood by her side at the chancel step.
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What grates with me is the insistence on having the signing of the registers in the middle of the service but out of sight of the congregation.
I've never come across this. IME the Signing usually comes after the service proper, with the organist (or someone else) providing music until such time as the couple are ready to leave.
In our church the Signing is done within the church - we have a table at the front but towards the side (Anglicans might think of the location as a Lady Chapel) - this works well although it doesn't stop the chattering!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I think in Anglican services the usual place for signing is towards the end, just before the blessing and exit. Whether or not it's done in the vestry or on a side altar table, or wherever, I suppose is up to practicalities and/or what the minister wants to do. I think it's nice to have it out in the open, so that the couple when they've finished signing, can sit and listen to the music they're paying their soloists/choir/organist for.
But on the vestry side of the argument. It does offer a useful moment of respite from the tension of the event, recoup nerves and get ready for the big exit down the aisle, for the couple. A few relaxed moments out of sight of the congregation. It can depend, too, on how much room there is for registers and certificate books and the photographer prancing about.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
According to the Episcopal BCP (1979):
quote:
After the Declaration of Consent, if there is to be a giving in marriage, or presentation, the Celebrant asks,
Who gives (presents) this woman to be married to this man?
or the following
Who presents this woman and this man to be married to
each other?
To either question, the appropriate answer is, “I do.” If more than one person responds, they do so together.
This comes from the "Additional Directions," not from the service itself.
It's also a great trivia question for Episcopalians who are into those sorts of things. "Who says 'I do' at an Episcopal wedding?" It's (sometimes) the parent(s), not the Bride and Groom.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Perhaps it would be better to "present" rather than "give away" the bride.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I like that a lot ... but it still differentiates between bride and groom, which some folk might take issue with. Perhaps parents (or other older relatives) could present BOTH parties? There's no legal reason why they can't.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
