homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Who gives this woman? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Who gives this woman?
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?

And just to lower the tone, perhaps the goat was her previous boyfriend. [Projectile]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A few years ago I attended a wedding where both the bride and groom had adult children from previous marriages, and the groom had a grandchild or two. (Neither had living parents.) Everyone from both families walked up the aisle together, and all of the family members participated in the presentation of either the bride or 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
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
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.

I always give the couple the option. I always explain why it's an option. The bride always chooses to have her father or parents give her away. In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I always give the couple the option. I always explain why it's an option. The bride always chooses to have her father or parents give her away.

Always? That surprises me.

quote:
In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married. (I also kept my middle name, with which I had been baptized, rather than taking my maiden name as my middle name.) I think the "introduction" of the newly-married couple is more appropriately done by the emcee or whatever at the reception. (I've been to weddings where the priest does the Mr. and Mrs. bit, then an hour later the reception emcee or disc jockey does a big fanfare, introducing "for the first time anywhere" Mr. and Mrs. Whoever. I guess he wasn't at the wedding.

--------------------
"...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
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
In most cases, the bride also asks for me to announce the couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Doe.
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married.
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Common Worship notes for the Marriage Service say
quote:

6 'Giving Away'
This traditional ceremony is optional. Immediately before the couple exchange vows the minister may ask:

Who brings [my emphasis] this woman to be married to this man?

The bride's father (or mother, or another member of her family or a friend representing the family) gives the bride's right hand to the minister who puts it in the bridegroom's right hand. Alternatively, after the bride and bridegroom have made their Declarations, the minister may ask the parents of bride and bridegroom in these or similar words:
N and N have declared their intention towards each other.
As their parents,
will you now entrust your son and daughter to one another
as they come to be married?

Both sets of parents respond:
We will.

I always ask the bride (in the absence of her father) whether she wants me to ask the question or not, and go with her choice. The person 'giving away' is not actually expected to say anything at all at that point - though they very often say 'I do'.

I don't invite the groom to kiss the bride since they've not needed my permission so far, and IMO kissing is a mutual activity. I tell them at the rehearsal that once I have proclaimed that they are husband and wife, then they may kiss if they wish.

It is fairly common practice in C of E churches for the signing of the register to take place immediately following the vows and nuptial blessing, and I definitely prefer it to be done in front of the congregation.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
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).
How quaint! But again, I suppose it was more about tradition than anything else.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've never seen the signing of the register done during the wedding itself (other than watching royal weddings on television). It's normally done in the Sacristy immediately following the ceremony. Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.

--------------------
"...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
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Always? That surprises me.

Young women want that sentimental moment with their fathers on their wedding day.

quote:
originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.

That sort of formality is almost extinct in the US as well. You only see it at weddings and on envelops addressed by the elderly.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

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.

The Series One marriage service in Common Worship is more or less identical to the 1928 book.

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I absolutely detest that! I wouldn't mind so much if they were introduced as "Fred and Ethel Mertz," but I did not give up my first name (aka my Christian name) when I got married.

Assuming Ethel Smith married Fred Mertz, I can list among my friends and acquaintances women who prefer to be addressed:

  • Ms Ethel Smith
  • Mrs Ethel Smith
  • Ms Ethel Mertz
  • Mrs Ethel Mertz
  • Mrs Fred Mertz

Some of the Mrs Freds get offended if you address her as Mrs Ethel, because that implies she's divorced. Some Mrs Ethels are offended (a la Pigwigeon) by Mrs Fred. (Most, but not all, of the Mrs Freds are retired.)

I can count at least one who uses Ms Ethel Smith professionally and Mrs Fred Mertz (or plain untitled Ethel Mertz) socially, and takes umbrage at any other combination.

Some of the Ms hate "Mrs", and some of the older Mrs hate "Ms".

Some of the Ethel Smiths use Mrs Ethel Mertz at their children's schools. Oh, and you can add a couple of divorced-and-remarried Ethels who use both their first husband and second husband's surnames (in whatever order) so that they have a surname that contains the surnames of all their children.

[ 15. August 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I don't invite the groom to kiss the bride since they've not needed my permission so far, and IMO kissing is a mutual activity. I tell them at the rehearsal that once I have proclaimed that they are husband and wife, then they may kiss if they wish.

At our wedding, the minister simply smiled, winked, and said in a quiet voice, "kiss."
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wonder if there is a Pond difference here; IME that sort of formality seems almost extinct in Britain.

That sort of formality is almost extinct in the US as well. You only see it at weddings and on envelops addressed by the elderly.
Well, if you'd sent my son a high school graduation present this past June (and didn't have the "Rev." thing going on), you'd have seen it on his thank-you note.
Yeah, he thought it was bizarre.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.

Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.

Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.

Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.

Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?

I believe Pigwidgeon is in the US, so it would be the marriage license being signed.

And no, no couple would expect to be photographed signing it. (If I recall correctly, the bride and groom never sign it in the state where i live; they signed the application for it.) A few times, I have seen a picture of the minister, maid/matron of honor and best man signing it. But it really is a non-event.

On re-reading, though, perhaps Pigwidgeon is referring to a parish registry, which would not be a legal document, so far as I know.

[ 15. August 2016, 20:40: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
(If I recall correctly, the bride and groom never sign it in the state where i live; they signed the application for it.)

Oops. Should have checked before posting; the bride and groom do sign the license here. I know my wife and I didn't sign it after the wedding, so we must have done so prior to, as Pigwidgeon suggests.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.

Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.

Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?

Yes, couples expect a photograph of the license signing. Why not? Photographers cost money. Might as well get as many pictures as possible.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Some clergy have the bride and groom sign the evening of the rehearsal just to be safe (so that it's not forgotten), but then the officiant signs following the ceremony.

Which country are you in Pigwidgeon? Although there other sorts of occasions where it doesn't matter much, that would be very dangerous here for a wedding if anything went wrong and you got caught.

Besides, don't the couple expect to be photographed signing?

I'm in the U.S. I guess the thinking is that since the officiant hasn't signed it, it isn't legal yet. (But I know one priest who almost always forgot to sign -- I don't know if he had the bride and groom sign in advance or not.) Apparently too many brides and grooms take off after the ceremony and are hard to track down (which would make signing during the ceremony sensible).

I only know of one couple who was photographed signing the register (I was on the Altar Guild for that one). The photographer was one of those who thought the whole wedding was a photo opportunity, and rules did not apply to him. He decided to get a good view of the register signing by standing on a folding chair -- which immediately clamped down on his leg and wouldn't let go. I had to leave the room since I couldn't refrain from laughing.
[Snigger]

--------------------
"...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
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
On re-reading, though, perhaps Pigwidgeon is referring to a parish registry, which would not be a legal document, so far as I know.

Yes, I meant the parish register. The license is signed on the day by the officiant and the witnesses.

--------------------
"...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
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In our congregation (Lutheran in US) we normally put the license and fancy schmancy faux certificate (provided by state--we don't do faux) on the altar along with a pen. Then we grab the designated witnesses to sign right after the ceremony, before any picture taking begins. (I don't think our state expects the couple to sign on the day of--that is for the witnesses, who are often part of the bridal party.)

Then the pastor's wife (i.e. me) makes darn sure the pastor signs the thing and clutches it to my bosom until it can be dropped into a mailbox on the way to the reception. That's because the man who married the two of us confided he had forgotten to send one in for over a year, until the state contacted the couple to ask whether they were living in sin or what... [Eek!]

--------------------
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
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In certain areas of evangelicalism, the giving away of women is still depressingly common, and it is about women in some sense belonging to men. Since I personally regard this as BS, I pre-empted the situation by making it clear in advance that I was not going to be given away. Failing that, had the question been asked, I would have answered that I was giving myself away, but this would have created an awkward scene at the happy event so it was best avoided [Snigger] . I was a thirty-five year old woman who had been living independently for years and it just seemed a bit ridiculous to me. I might have minded less if I had been twenty and getting married straight out of my parents’ home.

Ours being a French wedding, and religious marriages having zero validity in the eyes of the French state, we were already married by time we arrived at the religious ceremony. Consequently we organised the procession in more or less the traditional French manner: flower girls looking cute; witnesses (mixed pairs of groom’s witnesses and bride’s witnesses); parents (usually groom’s mother is with bride’s father and vice versa – we didn’t do this for purely practical reasons related to parental disability); happy couple. I find this an excellent arrangement.

I have heard of couples getting married at the Town Hall, and then splitting up again so that groom waits at the altar and bride arrives with her father. Again, I found this a bit ridiculous. Someone did try to give us some explanation about getting married in the eyes of God, but I wasn’t buying it. I think people mostly do it because they’ve seen it in (American) movies. It’s looks less absurd if the civil and religious ceremonies aren’t on the same day, but when you’ve just been to the Town Hall in your wedding clothes, said I do and signed a load of papers that make you legally married, it isn’t working for me.

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only solution to that confusing environment is for French people who are legally married to cease holding any religious ceremonies that looks like weddings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since a French marriage is an entirely and exclusively secular affair, as LVER has explained, I see no reason why a religious ceremony should not follow. (And it's certainly far better than the queer hybrid you have in the UK).

In protestant circles in France everyone is entirely clear that this is a service to bless an existing marriage and not the actual wedding; more often than not, this is explicitly stated.

However, to echo a comment above by Lamb Chopped, in a Catholic wedding there is (as I discovered when conducting an ecumenical one a few years back) a "fancy schmancy faux certificate" signed in full view of the congregation, so you could well be led to believe it had some official value.

tangent/

The big insight I gained from this was that as an institution, the Catholic church in France still hasn't really come to terms with the 1905 separation of Church and state, and still behaves in many respects as if France is a Catholic Country™. This mindset is reflected, amongst other things, in recent burkini-banning decisions, and is to my mind pretty crucial to overturn if we're going to make any headway here in combating radicalisation.

/tangent

[ 16. August 2016, 10:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But you've just highlighted the French problem; everyone may know that the religious ceremony is legally irrelevant, but couples and churches treat it as if it were a 'wedding', and still include old-fashioned wedding rituals. So there's obviously an awkward form of hybridity there.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I take a wedding I always ask the couple if they want these two bits to be included, making it clear they are not part of the modern service. They all want "You may now kiss", and almost all want "Who gives". As others have said, it is often an emotional father-daughter moment, however much we all disagree with the original meaning behind those words.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you've just highlighted the French problem; everyone may know that the religious ceremony is legally irrelevant, but couples and churches treat it as if it were a 'wedding', and still include old-fashioned wedding rituals. So there's obviously an awkward form of hybridity there.

I believe marriage to have both a sacred and a secular aspect. I don't think the French solution to this dilemma is any more ungainly than the British one in this respect and makes it clear that marriage is open to all, not just believers.

There's no reason to take a passing swipe at our system in the context of this thread, especially as the official ceremony doesn't have any of this "giving away" business.

(Neither do any religious ones I've been to here of any stripe, either. I was happy to walk one of my daughters down the aisle this spring but I didn't need to do any giving*).

==

*Apart from for the bills.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wasn't taking a 'passing swipe' at your system. I think it's probably for the best that the religious and legal sides of marriage are separated in France, and in some other countries.

But la vie en rouge's comments suggest that separating the two doesn't automatically imply that supposedly anachronistic or illogical rituals will disappear (or won't be introduced from elsewhere) just because the religious service isn't a 'real' wedding.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the French system is jolly sensible - marriage is at least a legal property contract and that makes it plain.

Secular weddings in the UK are positively encouraged to have all sentimental razzmataz of church weddings at their worst.


The last wedding I attended was a secular one presided over by a registrar with more liturgical sense than many vicars.


Since the bride said she was a feminist, I was rather surprised to hear the registrar say something along the lines of "X (the bride) is going from the care and protection of Y (the father) to Z (the groom)."

--------------------
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
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a long time since we've been to one such, but I've heard that brides in some services still promise to obey - and even to submit! In 2016!

As to the religious/secular divide: a majority of weddings here are now conducted by marriage celebrants. A marriage gains its legal validity from having been conducted by an authorised celebrant, whether or not that person is clergy or secular. Secular celebrants are required to undergo training before being authorised. Most clergy are all but automatically authorised and need no further training. No restriction as to place as long as it's Australian territory (including of course an embassy etc). Many are conducted in parks.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Since a French marriage is an entirely and exclusively secular affair, as LVER has explained, I see no reason why a religious ceremony should not follow. (And it's certainly far better than the queer hybrid you have in the UK).


Why hybrid? Have CofE ministers (I can't speak for other denominations) ceased to be registrars in Britain? As I remember it the whole wedding - including the legal bit - was down to clergy, who act as state registrars during the service.

In Ireland, there is what technically what might be called a hybrid approach to marriage; in that it's the state registrar (and clergy are not used in that capacity) who registers everything legally and receives the couple's declarations on two separate occasions. A marriage in a church (as in the non-legal but holy bit) can't happen without the state paperwork being presented and then sent off afterwards. It's a great system as it leaves the legal nuisances to the state officials and gives the religious officiants less fuss. I think also, as it sounds like in the US, the appropriate papers can be signed 24 or 48 hours ahead of the religious ceremony.

Of course, in many people's minds, it's the purely state aspect (the certification/registration etc) that is the not-so-real bit. Making vows before God, for some folks at least, is the bit that really matters; and all that making it legal business is just to keep the beaurocratic requirements for the state happy for legal purposes.

It was a long time ago, but once upon a time ordinary low-status couples merely had to exchange vows in the presence of their clergy person somewhere in the vicinity of the church building for it to be recognized by their local community that they were 'man and wife'.

--------------------
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
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

In protestant circles in France everyone is entirely clear that this is a service to bless an existing marriage and not the actual wedding; more often than not, this is explicitly stated.

I have been to several "weddings" which have been separate from the legal bit with the government's registrar. In all cases, the couple did the legal bit with a couple of witnesses, then had the big public affair afterwards. Mostly, they wanted to do things in their "wedding" that were not at the time legal for a registrar-operated one, I think.

In all cases, the person presiding over the big ceremony referred to the trip to the registry office (which was done in suits, but not the wedding clothes in most cases) as something like "legal formalities", and the promises made in front of assembled friends and family in the big foofy white dress as the "real wedding".

They were very clear that the thing done with the registrar was some technical detail done to satisfy the local apparatchiks, and rather contemptuous of the uppity state for insisting that their hoops were jumped through.

ETA: None of these weddings were French.

[ 16. August 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
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.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say about the white dress. I know brides didn't always wear white and it didn't always symbolize virginity, but it did for some time. All of these "traditions," have changed meaning over the years, so why keep the big-white-dress tradition, one that costs a fortune, all so the bride can pretend she's a princess for a day, while making a fuss about a tradition of "giving the bride away," when it, too, has meant something different from generation to generation and from wedding to wedding.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Why hybrid? Have CofE ministers (I can't speak for other denominations) ceased to be registrars in Britain? As I remember it the whole wedding - including the legal bit - was down to clergy, who act as state registrars during the service.

From where I'm sitting, it looks hybrid precisely because ministers of religion can act as registrars. That's mixing up church and state in a very un-French way.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
the person presiding over the big ceremony referred to the trip to the registry office (which was done in suits, but not the wedding clothes in most cases) as something like "legal formalities", and the promises made in front of assembled friends and family in the big foofy white dress as the "real wedding".

I think this and Anselmina's post are further evidence that a lot of our assumptions about marriage are extremely culture-specific.

I suspect they also vary in proportion to the extent to which marriage is viewed as a sacrament.

For my part, I think venbede has an excellent point, which is that when you look into it, a huge part of marriage is about the protection of the rights of the people involved. Not unity candles, fancy dresses, the number of bridesmaids, or who gets to give away whom.

If the "legal stuff" is merely "tiresome bureaucracy", why get (legally) married at all? And if you're going to get (legally) married, why should it be shocking that you have to go through the proper formalities?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I know brides didn't always wear white and it didn't always symbolize virginity, but it did for some time. All of these "traditions," have changed meaning over the years, so why keep the big-white-dress tradition, one that costs a fortune, all so the bride can pretend she's a princess for a day, while making a fuss about a tradition of "giving the bride away," when it, too, has meant something different from generation to generation and from wedding to wedding.

You could say that the personal significance of much church liturgy and doctrine has changed from generation to generation, yet historical denominations continue to hold on to those words.

This being the case, brides are only doing the same thing when they perpetuate certain customs while rejecting their precise original significance.

One aspect of postmodernism is that apparently secularised people take religious symbols, rituals, and language, and invest them with a meaning of their own. The wedding ceremony is one clear example of that.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AIUI the white dress tradition doesn't go all that far back and has little, if anything, to do with 'purity' or any of that nonsense.

All but the poorest brides expected to have a new outfit for their wedding: making it white (or at least pastel) was a sign that you had sufficient funds to have other clothes.

The white bit came from the dress Queen Victoria wore when she married Albert, and other society girls followed suit, wearing for their wedding the dress in which they were presented at court, which was always white or ivory.

Men wearing tails for weddings has the same origin in court dress of standard black tails, stripey trousers, grey waistcoat, white shirt and sober tie - never wing collar and white tie in the day unless you are a waiter, a schoolboy or sitting Oxford exams.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Should I ever get married(!) I would be very offended at someone referring to my wedding in fucking 'scare quotes' or as hybrid.

France, I accept, does have some peculiar challenges where state and religion are concerned, so what might be in one culture the very natural exchange of vows before God in a holy place conveniently and efficiently integrated with the legal business in the person of the cleric may well seem strange to someone like Eutychus. It doesn't mean it's a 'hybrid'. Or as Leorning Cnit puts it a 'wedding' to the people who are actually getting married and to whom it has real significance.

I don't think, either, that the legal business is a negligible part of the whole thing. If people could be trusted - which they can't - and if (feminist cliche coming up) women hadn't needed some protection from being abused as mere possessions for so many thousands of years, solemn vows in a holy place might have held more value than they often seem to, sadly. So Ven Bead is certainly right there.

--------------------
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
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my state (possibly it varies in the US among states) the clergyman is required by law to have the marriage license in hand, before solemnizing the union. Our rector has been burned on this before and is now a stickler. There was a wedding once in which the groom left the license on the kitchen table, at home half an hour's drive away. The rector refused to proceed without it. So the groom drove home to fetch the document, while all the guests and wedding party went downstairs to have the reception and eat and drink. An hour later, refreshed and tiddly, they all trooped upstairs again to have the actual ceremony.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How PC can you get?

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my state (possibly it varies in the US among states) the clergyman is required by law to have the marriage license in hand, before solemnizing the union.

As a Nonconformist church in Britain, we must have the two forms from the Registrar (= his and hers) in hand before the wedding can go ahead. Sometimes we get them weeks in advance; often at the rehearsal a couple of days before the ceremony. I've never been given them on the day and in fact that could make things quite difficult, as time would be needed to go through the details with the couple.

By the way, it's not the Clergyperson's presence that makes the wedding legal in our set-up, but the presence of a duly Authorised Person from the church or a Registrar from the local authority. I have been such a Person in the past, but it's much easier if someone else does the form-filling.

[ 18. August 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just to bring the thread full circle, was the goat giving her away?

And just to lower the tone, perhaps the goat was her previous boyfriend. [Projectile]
And if it's kissed by a pure maiden under a full moon, it will turn back into a handsome prince.

And now, I will show you a more excellent way.

Kidding. But here's how the Orfies do it. As you will see there is no giving, no obeying, and no kissing.

{bride and groom stand at rear of church}

Priest: {lots of prayers}

Priest: Josephine, have you promised yourself to any other man?

Bride: Nope.

Priest: Do you enter into this marriage willingly?

Bride: Yep.

Priest & mousethief: {same thing}

{All walk to center of church}

Priest: {lots of prayers including tons of stuff about rings from the Bible, including Tamar [Eek!] }

Priest: {takes ring} {3x} This ring is given to the handmaiden of God Josephine in the name of the F & of the S & of the HS. {puts ring on her finger}

{same for mousethief}

Priest: {lots of prayers about marriage including famous married couples throughout the Bible, and a hope for sprogs "should that be God's will."}

Priest: (taking crowns) {3x} The handmaiden of God Josephine is crowned unto the servant of God Mousethief in the name of F/S/HS.

{same for mousethief}

{everybody (priest, bride, groom, sometimes best man and maid of honor) walks three times around the table in the middle of the church while the choir sings about Isaiah}

{Bride and groom drink from a common cup}

Priest: {lots of prayers followed by} Y'all can go over to the parish hall; we've got to sign some papers.

There you have it. No giving, no vows, no kissing.

___________
The "crowns" can be woven of leaves, woven of fake leaves (as ours are), or actual brass crowns the church has on hand for weddings in general, which are borrowed and returned to the church. They symbolize the crowns of martyrdom, and that both the husband and the wife must "give themselves" for the other. They are actually tied together with ribbons (some feet long of course to allow freedom of motion within bounds), which has its own symbolism that is left for the reader to infer.

[ 18. August 2016, 19:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief if I told you a crowning ceremony complete with ribbons was included in my daughter's wedding to a Maronite this spring, would it make you happy? That must make me at least a little bit almost-Orthodox by association, surely?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mousethief if I told you a crowning ceremony complete with ribbons was included in my daughter's wedding to a Maronite this spring, would it make you happy? That must make me at least a little bit almost-Orthodox by association, surely?

Well I'll be happy if your daughter has a long and happy marriage. How she got there is far less important. But it makes me happy that you shared this. As for making you almost-Orthodox, nah. [Biased]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Should I ever get married(!) I would be very offended at someone referring to my wedding in fucking 'scare quotes' or as hybrid.

My "wedding" was in quotes because in purely legal terms it wasn't a wedding - the legal wedding had happened earlier that day or the day before in the presence of the local registrar, the statutory witnesses and nobody else.

As far as the couple were concerned, the important thing was the ceremony where they made promises in front of their friends. They viewed that as their wedding, and it was a wedding in every sense except the legal one.

The thing that the law would refer to as their wedding was the thing that took less than ten minutes with the registrar, and the couple concerned viewed it as a bit of necessary but uninteresting bureaucracy, and no more exciting or significant than opening a joint bank account or changing the names on their passports.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

The words "Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?" are indeed part of the 1662 BCP's solemnization of Holy Matrimony.

"You may kiss the bride," however, appears to be a Hollywood addition which has taken root in real life.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have heard an British Orthodox priest say that for an Orthodox wedding, it is necessary to attend the registry office first to make the wedding valid in British law just because the Orhtodox service includes no vows.

A civil partnership requires no vows, but if the same sex partners are prepared to be faithful to each other, there is nothing to stop them.

--------------------
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
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I have heard an British Orthodox priest say that for an Orthodox wedding, it is necessary to attend the registry office first to make the wedding valid in British law just because the Orhtodox service includes no vows.

A civil partnership requires no vows, but if the same sex partners are prepared to be faithful to each other, there is nothing to stop them.

I'm pretty sure that vows are not required by English law for marriage (and I assume Scottish likewise). Most people choose to have them for a civil ceremony of course.

But the legal requirements are pretty minimal I understand - a confirmation that the partners can be married legally (i.e. are not already married and are not closely related) and that they both freely assent to their marriage.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am fairly sure that exactly what Mousethief describes wouldn't be valid as a wedding in England and Wales, even if the Orthodox priest is authorised to solemnise weddings as a deputy registrar. It's not, though, the vows that are critical. It's that I'm fairly sure the law requires some version of each party saying separately, 'I ... take you ... as my wife/husband'. Exactly what is the bare minimum statement required I don't know, but there has to be one.

A marriage can't be caused to come into existence between two people without that. Otherwise it would be conceptually possible to produce a valid forced marriage.

If the form of Orthodox wedding used in England and Wales doesn't contain that, then it would be necessary to attend before a Registrar first. However, I suspect - but don't know, of course - that this is included in Orthodox weddings here.


Despite the more than slightly mystifying use of the weirdly inappropriate word 'hybrid', what Eutychus describes in France would cause a problem for the CofE. If the couple are already married civilly before the wedding, then the form used in church should be a 'An Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage'. It strikes me that it would be a fairly bad nonsense for a couple to ask the clergy to pretend to go through a wedding as such for them, if they are already married.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Kiss the bride" has been replaced with "you may give each other a sign of love" in some weddings, which means kiss each other on joint initiation I suppose.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Despite the more than slightly mystifying use of the weirdly inappropriate word 'hybrid', what Eutychus describes in France would cause a problem for the CofE.

I'm surprised at the amount of reaction this word has generated.

"Hybrid" means
quote:
of mixed character; composed of different elements
The way a CoE wedding is arranged comprises both temporal and spiritual aspects, governed by two different sets of authority and required to contain different elements that satisfy both sets. How is that not hybrid?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe that having a civil wedding followed by a church "marriage" (which is really a blessing and I don't know if it contains vows made "before God") has been the norm in Holland for several centuries.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The thing that the law would refer to as their wedding was the thing that took less than ten minutes with the registrar, and the couple concerned viewed it as a bit of necessary but uninteresting bureaucracy, and no more exciting or significant than opening a joint bank account or changing the names on their passports.

I disagree with this attitude very strongly. My civil wedding was not a bit of tedious bureaucracy. It made me married, and if (God forbid) our relationship ended in divorce, it is this bit that would have to be undone. A civil ceremony ought to be taken very seriously. I understand that the spiritual elements of marriage are important to people (they are to me), but OTOH the New Testament seems fairly clear to me that worldly authorities are established by God and we ought to submit to them so far as they are not in conflict with our faith. I don't buy that God was somehow not paying attention to 'Do you, Mademoiselle firstname middlename la vie en rouge take Monsieur firstname middlename extra Catholic middlename Parisien for spouse? - Yes' because the mayor was asking and not a minister of religion.

A number of European countries have this set-up. I wonder if people tend to have a different outlook on it when it's the norm.

(And returning to the OP a bit, a civil ceremony here has no official parental involvement whatsoever nor anything remotely resembling 'giving away'. The sine qua non cast is composed of the couple, between two and four witnesses, the mayor and an official who looks after the paperwork. The idea seems a bit absurd and I think that maybe says something about the real status/meaning of 'giving away'.)

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Enoch wrote:
quote:
I am fairly sure that exactly what Mousethief describes wouldn't be valid as a wedding in England and Wales, even if the Orthodox priest is authorised to solemnise weddings as a deputy registrar.
Yes, I think so - in fact, having posted earlier, I now have a dim recollection of hearing about an Orthodox wedding ceremony where the priest had to explain to family visitors from abroad (the wife's family was Greek IIRC) that there would be a few extra bits they may not be familiar with, so that the ceremony would also comply with the legal requirements, so that no separate civil ceremony would be needed. But I'm a bit hazy on that and can't quote a reference.

Another reason for having two ceremonies (religious + civil) is that any venue also has to be legally registered for the purposes of marriage ceremonies. (My local pub is so registered!) Probably most churches are by now, but maybe a few are not.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools