Thread: Hospitality and Dress Codes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027437

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Over in All Saints, I mentioned that I am planning to tell my wedding guests that I don’t want women to come dressed in black. This is generating some discussion that I think would probably be better suited over here.

Our invitations are going to include a practical information sheet (directions, hotels, bla bla… and also the dress code. “Elegant, ladies no black please.”) My reason for not wanting black dress is simple: I’m old-fashioned [Razz] . I was brought up to think that black is for funerals. Turning up at a wedding dressed in black = saying “I’m as happy about this event as I would be if you were dead” and is consequently Rude™. I know that black has become very fashionable of late in some quarters but I really don’t like it and would very much prefer not to see it at my own wedding. I also don’t want to see a sea of black on our photos.

The reason we are only asking women is mostly pragmatism. TBH I would prefer for men not to be in black either, but I am aware that a lot of men only own one suit, and buying another one is an expensive business. OTOH, at a recent wedding I attended, I counted no less than 4 women in little black dresses, and (since I am fairly well acquainted with most of them) I know for a fact that they own other (coloured) dresses, or could easily borrow one from a friend. If they preferred to buy another one (which is a shopping opportunity for those who like that kind of thing), it would be less expensive for them than it would be for men to buy a new suit. Also if men are wearing a black suit, they usually have a white shirt/coloured tie, so it’s not all over funereal black from head to toe.

But beyond that, what I am wondering about is the general question of imposing a dress code on an event like a wedding. Personally I think that at one’s own wedding, it’s ok to ask people not to behave in a way that one finds rude. If I was specifically asked to dress in black for a wedding, I would bite my tongue and do it, even though I personally don’t like it. I think respect goes two ways – the host does their best to make sure their guests have a good time, but guests respect the sensibilities of their hosts. It’s my view that a wedding with no alcohol is a sad affair, but if the happy couple are strict teetotallers, it’s up to me to suck it up. They are showing me a good time by their own lights. To me, hospitality/inviting someone to an event, especially an event as important as a wedding, doesn’t mean letting them do anything they like.

I also don’t really buy “you should let people come as themselves”. Aside the fact that I don’t have any friends who never wear anything but black*, all outfits are not appropriate in all situations IMO. My employer imposes a dress code on me which I follow as a condition of my job. Much as I love my red Nike sneakers, I wouldn’t turn up to a formal event in them. In the same way, I think it’s allowable to define what is and isn’t an appropriate way to dress at a wedding, and the choice ultimately lies with the people getting married.

I’m not planning to be Bridezilla on the whole. It’s just this one point that is important to me.

Anyway, where is the line between being a good host, and organising an event the way you want it to be?

*My one friend who most regularly dresses in black is my best friend the professional fashionista. As it turns out, she feels even more strongly than I do about black at weddings and is proud of me for Taking A Stand™ on this crucial sartorial point [Biased] .
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I just wrote a long reply and lost it - gah! It came down to 'your do, your rules (within reason)'.

M.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Hmm. I don't quite get the "wearing black is something I associate with funerals therefore..." reasoning - it seems to imply an intent on the wearer to say "I’m as happy about this event as I would be if you were dead", which of course is almost certainly absent in the wearer's mind - it might be what you'd mean if you wore black, but it isn't what they mean, and therefore I cannot see how it's in any way rude. Rudeness is intentional.

It's your wedding, of course, but the general point of "don't assume people mean by something what you'd mean by it" is an important one.

But then I don't understand dress codes, the idea of appropriateness and so on. I cannot for the life of me understand why I can't turn up at work in trainers and T-shirt, I know I can't, but it seems an utterly stupid rule to me and I always wish the entire human race would lighten up and stop having these arbitrary and illogical expectations.

/rant

[ 02. July 2014, 09:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
La vie, I agree with you. I'm sure there are none of your female friends whose only smart clothes are black.

Even without the funeral implications, do your friends really want to look like a gaggle of solicitors meeting after work - or I suppose that should be notaires, or isn't that how lady notaires dress?

I also agree with your point about men's suits.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Have to say that I seldom notice what people are wearing, except for reasons that Jesus might have been alluding to when he talked about adultery of the mind...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Meant to add; missed edit windo: Just as a thought experiment, how would you feel if you received a wedding invitation from a pair of heavy metal fans who insisted that everyone come in either cargo shorts or tight black jeans, and a T-shirt either black or emblazoned with the name of a rock band? I'm just sort of trying to see how far the "ultimately up to the couple themselves" goes [Biased]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
"Dear friends and family, we are getting married by the Archdruid of Britain on the top of Glastonbury Tor at sunrise on June 21st 2015. Dress: skyclad."
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think an insistence on a certain dress code is probably unreasonable - if the couple are SF fans, then it might be reasonable for the main participants to dress up in SF costumes, and it might be acceptable to suggest that guests might like to follow this example, But not to insist on it. Insisting on it is for a fancy dress party, not a wedding (or other similar do - funerals, baptisms etc have the same issues).

Requesting people not to wear black seems fair, but could be seen as a negative comment. I would have suggested that a more positive wording - so maybe request that men requested to wear something green, and women something orange* (if appropriate). It makes it a positive request, and can be understood as a way of getting interesting and consistent photos. It seems like a fun and interesting thing to do, rather than a restriction, although the effect is the same.

Dress codes do suck though. Where what you like, cover up your genitalia, stop pretending that it makes a difference.

*As we know, Orange is the new Black
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meant to add; missed edit windo: Just as a thought experiment, how would you feel if you received a wedding invitation from a pair of heavy metal fans who insisted that everyone come in either cargo shorts or tight black jeans, and a T-shirt either black or emblazoned with the name of a rock band? I'm just sort of trying to see how far the "ultimately up to the couple themselves" goes [Biased]

Personally, I'd probably roll my eyes somewhat but I'd give it a go if that was what they really wanted (as long as I didn't feel indecently dressed in what was being requested). After all I probably wouldn't be the only one feeling a bit daft in such a get up but for me I would just have to think of it as "fancy dress"! It would certainly be an unusual look for me to try...
But I think asking for people to avoid one colour is a long way along the spectrum from asking people to dress in a particular way. Not wearing black is only a very small restriction, where as telling people what they should wear is much more defining and potentially uncomfortable.

I don't see any problem with requesting a dress code if it matters to you. You are the host and surely those who care about you will not be wanting to come dressed in a way that will irritate you. By telling people what you would like you give them the opportunity respond, where as without the dress code they would have no idea that you didn't want people wearing black at your wedding. Giving people the knowledge gives people the opportunity to say either "yes, I'd like to do what will contribute to the happiness of the day" or to say "stuff that, even though it's her wedding it's more important to me that I get to wear what I like". However you may want to reconsider including people in the latter group on your guest list...

[ 02. July 2014, 10:28: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meant to add; missed edit windo: Just as a thought experiment, how would you feel if you received a wedding invitation from a pair of heavy metal fans who insisted that everyone come in either cargo shorts or tight black jeans, and a T-shirt either black or emblazoned with the name of a rock band? I'm just sort of trying to see how far the "ultimately up to the couple themselves" goes [Biased]

In that case there is another alternative: don't go.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"Dear friends and family, we are getting married by the Archdruid of Britain on the top of Glastonbury Tor at sunrise on June 21st 2015. Dress: skyclad."

I'll be there. Expect cloudy skies.

Karl - it's semiotics. All about signs and what people are signalling to each other. Usually dress codes can be pretty arbitrary, but that's just because they are intended to block off the more enthusiastic signallers from doing something others deem inappropriate. And that can be for perfectly valid reasons such as safety.

Conversely, some people either refuse to do any such signalling, or the whole thing is lost on them. Maybe this describes you? I can't see it being problematic unless you expect everyone else to be like you which sounds unlikely.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"Dear friends and family, we are getting married by the Archdruid of Britain on the top of Glastonbury Tor at sunrise on June 21st 2015. Dress: skyclad."

I'll be there. Expect cloudy skies.

Karl - it's semiotics. All about signs and what people are signalling to each other. Usually dress codes can be pretty arbitrary, but that's just because they are intended to block off the more enthusiastic signallers from doing something others deem inappropriate. And that can be for perfectly valid reasons such as safety.

Conversely, some people either refuse to do any such signalling, or the whole thing is lost on them. Maybe this describes you? I can't see it being problematic unless you expect everyone else to be like you which sounds unlikely.

Your third paragraph probably does describe me, in the "lost on them" category. Your second appears to be using English words but conveys very little. Could you unpack it? What would be "inappropriate"? Why does wearing particular clothes stop it happening? What's being signalled? It's like another world...
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
I think you are well within your rights to specify a dress code. If you were requesting something decidedly out of the ordinary, then perhaps you would want to think twice. Specifying no black, however, is merely explicitly stating what is normally inferred with such a dress code.

In my experience, guests often appreciate this sort of clear direction. It is far worse to have them attempt to guess what they should wear. Furthermore, if you do have certain expectations regarding attire, this preempts your otherwise disappointment when someone shows up in something completely inappropriate.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Meant to add; missed edit windo: Just as a thought experiment, how would you feel if you received a wedding invitation from a pair of heavy metal fans who insisted that everyone come in either cargo shorts or tight black jeans, and a T-shirt either black or emblazoned with the name of a rock band? I'm just sort of trying to see how far the "ultimately up to the couple themselves" goes [Biased]

Personally, I'd probably roll my eyes somewhat but I'd give it a go if that was what they really wanted (as long as I didn't feel indecently dressed in what was being requested). After all I probably wouldn't be the only one feeling a bit daft in such a get up but for me I would just have to think of it as "fancy dress"!
That's how I cope with having to wear a suit. I hope that doesn't happen in the near future as I'm not sure I currently own one.

DJs and bats around throats is whole other level of "why does anyone want to wear this, and why are you trying to make me do so?"...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Having just been to a couple of weddings after a very long gap (friends are either already married or not looking to get married), dress code may well read "Men: suits. Women: something that isn't going to put the vicar's eye out." I don't know. Formalwear seems to have changed from when I was a lad...

But less tongue-in-cheek: I've been to a couple of funerals recently that did say, "wear something colourful", which I was happy to do. But my mother wore black to my wedding, and meh, it's not like anyone was looking at her (or me, for that matter). All I had to remember to do was turn up and make sure the label wasn't still stuck to the bottom of my shoes.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Karl:
quote:
Just as a thought experiment, how would you feel if you received a wedding invitation from a pair of heavy metal fans who insisted that everyone come in either cargo shorts or tight black jeans, and a T-shirt either black or emblazoned with the name of a rock band?
I think la vie en rouge already covered this situation in the OP, when she said:
quote:
If I was specifically asked to dress in black for a wedding, I would bite my tongue and do it, even though I personally don’t like it.
Doc Tor, nobody in their right mind would get married at sunrise without any clothes on in the UK. Not even in summer. Have you ever been awake that early? They'd catch their death of cold.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I was at a funeral recently and I was shocked at what people wore. The family of the deceased wore black, myself and the friends I went with wore black but everyone else just seemed to wear whatever. This included someone who wore trackie bottoms and a tshirt. Surely its not hard to follow the general rules and wear black to a funeral? (That's unless the family specifically ask for something else which is fine). To turn up in any old thing seems disrespectful.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Dress codes are a kind of social literacy. They say: 'I know about these people/this situation - the expectations and customs. I can manage my interaction gracefully.'

The tension sets in because of the move, in the last 100 years, from the primacy of social conformity to that of individual choice. You get those people who are black affronted at any suggestion that that infringes their sacred right to Be Themselves right through to those for whom a misplaced button identifies you as a social dreg to be despised.

To my mind, the aim is always to wear what makes me feel good in the situation - which may include a calculation of what will please the company I am with. So LVER's invite would not bother me in the least - though is she wanted to spin it slightly, she could word it as 'I would love my wedding to be a colourful affair - wear your brightest and best and, please, no black dresses!'
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


Requesting people not to wear black seems fair, but could be seen as a negative comment. I would have suggested that a more positive wording - so maybe request that men requested to wear something green, and women something orange* (if appropriate). It makes it a positive request, and can be understood as a way of getting interesting and consistent photos. It seems like a fun and interesting thing to do, rather than a restriction, although the effect is the same.

It isn't the same, though. Saying people shouldn't wear black, when you know all the guests possess non-black clothes, isn't placing an imposition on anyone, because everyone can follow that prohibition without incurring expense.

Conversely, saying everyone must wear green forces people to buy green clothes if they don't have any.
 
Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
I've been reading the thread in All saints but didn't feel I had much to add to the conversation whilst it was in that location.

I'm someone who wears black, pretty much predominantly. A combination of shocking colour sense (with regard to what goes with what), a hatred of shopping (which means a small wardrobe asking that everything must go with everything else) and being an ex goth caused this.

My smart dress (yes, singular) is black. I have worn it to weddings. I have always checked with the bride first and this never seems to have been a problem, but they were probably just being polite.

If I got a wedding invite which asked me not to wear black, I'd do similar, LVER, roll my eyes and get on with it. If I was asked to wear something I very much objected to (Skyclad would probably fall into this category) I may choose not to attend - but obviously this wouldn't be a decision I'd make lightly, and probably only after a discussion with the bride and groom.

Although 'Don't wear black' would make me unhappy and uncomfortable, if its not my do, it's not my choice. At our wedding there was no dress code, The only people I cared about the dress of was me, the bridesmaids, the groom and groomsmen - everyone else could wear what they damn well pleased, but that was my wedding and my choice.

I think a similar issue is that of whether you allow children at your wedding. A few people I know chose not to have children at their wedding as it didn't fit what they wanted for the day. This, obviously, didn't bother some people but made attending the wedding difficult for others. I know people were offended as well ('but my little Timmy is so well behaved...' etc)

My point, I guess, is that creating rules (be they dress code, whether you can take your kids or not, or whatever) will potentially limit who can, or wants to, attend your wedding (or do of any kind). In the end, you may find you need to make a decision about what matters more: that your friend/family member is there or that they're dressed right.

Jen
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Karl wrote-
quote:
...Your second appears to be using English words but conveys very little. Could you unpack it? What would be "inappropriate"? Why does wearing particular clothes stop it happening? What's being signalled? It's like another world...
I'll try and give it a go, Karl, but it will take more time than I've got immediately. Maybe later this pm (I hope)?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Plenty of people ask for 'no black' at funerals, so why not weddings too.

It would be fine by me.

Mr Boogs golf club has dreadful dress codes, follow them and you look a right prat! His mates and him are mounting a take over of the board - then the dress codes will be changed completely! (For example, if you wear sandals you have to wear socks - bleugh!)
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Given I'm in my early 30s and seem to spend every weekend going to weddings can I interject and say that I now own my own morning dress - that being the specified male dress on the majority of wedding invites I receive.

I don't know if it's because tradition is back in a big way (could be, the "suit" weddings were a couple of years ago), or just the people I know.

I was spending a fortune at Moss Bros on hiring before I cracked.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What would be "inappropriate"? Why does wearing particular clothes stop it happening? What's being signalled? It's like another world...

LVER expressed this in her OP.
quote:

My reason for not wanting black dress is simple: I’m old-fashioned. I was brought up to think that black is for funerals. Turning up at a wedding dressed in black = saying “I’m as happy about this event as I would be if you were dead” and is consequently Rude™.

So in fact this is all about signalling. She has not said she dislikes black clothing in all situations. However because of her cultural background, to LVER black dress signals funeral and mourning in particular settings, perhaps particularly in a church setting. This is inappropriate because for her the signal says "I am not happy about this event". She may well know that is not the intent of the person but our reactions to signals are not always at the rational level, in fact I suspect they often aren't.

You could say the same about dress code requirements in some work places. For some people someone being dressed a certain way, and neatly presented signals "I can make an effort, I can give attention to detail, I am willing to do what is asked of me" all of which may be signals of things which are valued in that workplace situation. In other workplaces where there is no particular dress code it may be that creativity and individuality are more valued and are signaled by more individual choices of clothes.

Many people do sub-consciously pick up on signals from dress, body language and behaviour which are incorporated into how they react to events and people. These reactions are probably based on a combination of our prior experiences and inbuilt instincts. But there are some people who do not seem to pick up on these signals so much (and for some it creates social difficulties because they are missing the unspoken clues). I guess for those who do not have the same reactions to these signals it must seem rather strange.
 
Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :
 
Reading "no black" on an invitation is like a red rag to a bull for me - suddenly the only decent item of clothing I could possibly wear would be black.

So I go with Schroedinger's cat on this one - state the request with a positive twist (something colourful or happy) and it might get the creativity going.

As a back-up, might it be possible to provide really bright corsages (or similar, maybe colourful shawls?) for anyone arriving in the forbidden colour?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Given I'm in my early 30s and seem to spend every weekend going to weddings can I interject and say that I now own my own morning dress - that being the specified male dress on the majority of wedding invites I receive.

I don't know if it's because tradition is back in a big way (could be, the "suit" weddings were a couple of years ago), or just the people I know.

I was spending a fortune at Moss Bros on hiring before I cracked.

You see, what seems rude and inconsiderate to me is expecting guests to spend a fortune on hiring or buying expensive formal clothing.

But I'm weird, it seems.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:

You could say the same about dress code requirements in some work places. For some people someone being dressed a certain way, and neatly presented signals "I can make an effort, I can give attention to detail, I am willing to do what is asked of me" ...I guess for those who do not have the same reactions to these signals it must seem rather strange.

Indeed. What I pick up from being dressed in a suit and so on is "I am ambitious, superior and think I'm more important than you scruffy low life and I'll ingratiate myself with you just enough to screw you, you unimportant little person."

Again, through my life experiences and so on.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisydaisy:
Reading "no black" on an invitation is like a red rag to a bull for me - suddenly the only decent item of clothing I could possibly wear would be black.

So I go with Schroedinger's cat on this one - state the request with a positive twist (something colourful or happy) and it might get the creativity going.

As a back-up, might it be possible to provide really bright corsages (or similar, maybe colourful shawls?) for anyone arriving in the forbidden colour?

Exactly why would you feel the compulsion to do the complete opposite of what the inviter has requested? If you are that offended, then politely decline the invitation. Otherwise, that is just petty behavior.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Given I'm in my early 30s and seem to spend every weekend going to weddings can I interject and say that I now own my own morning dress - that being the specified male dress on the majority of wedding invites I receive.

I don't know if it's because tradition is back in a big way (could be, the "suit" weddings were a couple of years ago), or just the people I know.

I was spending a fortune at Moss Bros on hiring before I cracked.

You see, what seems rude and inconsiderate to me is expecting guests to spend a fortune on hiring or buying expensive formal clothing.

But I'm weird, it seems.

I suppose you also object to expecting guests to pay for wedding gifts or travel expenses as well?
 
Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by daisydaisy:
Reading "no black" on an invitation is like a red rag to a bull for me - suddenly the only decent item of clothing I could possibly wear would be black.

So I go with Schroedinger's cat on this one - state the request with a positive twist (something colourful or happy) and it might get the creativity going.

As a back-up, might it be possible to provide really bright corsages (or similar, maybe colourful shawls?) for anyone arriving in the forbidden colour?

Exactly why would you feel the compulsion to do the complete opposite of what the inviter has requested? If you are that offended, then politely decline the invitation. Otherwise, that is just petty behavior.
Purely rebellion - I love wearing colour. I would, of course, be as colourful as the invitation requested.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Good grief. Your friends have been kind enough to invite you to join them to celebrate possibly the biggest day of their lives. Do them the honour of this simple thing, complying with what they want by way of dress. If it would put you in severe financial embarrassment, then talk to them about it. All parties will find out just how great their friendship is.

If you really can't bear to wear something you wouldn't usually, then, as GCabot says, politely decline to attend. I'm sure they will bear your absence with equanimity.

M.
 
Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on :
 
As I said, I love wearing colour and would, of course, be as colourful as the invitation requested.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Given I'm in my early 30s and seem to spend every weekend going to weddings can I interject and say that I now own my own morning dress - that being the specified male dress on the majority of wedding invites I receive.

I don't know if it's because tradition is back in a big way (could be, the "suit" weddings were a couple of years ago), or just the people I know.

I was spending a fortune at Moss Bros on hiring before I cracked.

You see, what seems rude and inconsiderate to me is expecting guests to spend a fortune on hiring or buying expensive formal clothing.

But I'm weird, it seems.

I suppose you also object to expecting guests to pay for wedding gifts or travel expenses as well?
Wedding gifts can be tailored according to the pocket of the guest; travel expenses are unavoidable. Being required to spend a fortune at Moss Bros is completely unnecessary.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
FWIW, I'm not sure anyone here's saying they wouldn't comply. There are just some of us who don't grep why someone would want these restrictions. I know LVER has explained her reasoning, but there's a real gut level on which I just don't "get" it.
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
It's only really acceptable to specify Morning Dress/Uniforms, Evening Dress, medals/decorations - tell me much else, I probably wouldn't come.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FWIW, I'm not sure anyone here's saying they wouldn't comply. There are just some of us who don't grep why someone would want these restrictions. I know LVER has explained her reasoning, but there's a real gut level on which I just don't "get" it.

One of my cousins decided to get married on a Pacific island, even though pretty much all of our family lives in the States. One of my friend's wedding registry was completely full of junk I would never otherwise have thought of buying for someone in a million years. In both cases, I certainly did not "get" their decisions. That, however, is not the point. The wedding is the couple's day and one should try and respect their wishes. A dress code is no different.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FWIW, I'm not sure anyone here's saying they wouldn't comply. There are just some of us who don't grep why someone would want these restrictions. I know LVER has explained her reasoning, but there's a real gut level on which I just don't "get" it.

One of my cousins decided to get married on a Pacific island, even though pretty much all of our family lives in the States. One of my friend's wedding registry was completely full of junk I would never otherwise have thought of buying for someone in a million years. In both cases, I certainly did not "get" their decisions. That, however, is not the point. The wedding is the couple's day and one should try and respect their wishes. A dress code is no different.
Well yes and all that, but aren't you at least curious as to what makes some people tick when it's so alien to the way you think? And isn't it merely human to get a bit frustrated at requirements that make as much sense to you as "Oh, and come with a kipper hanging from your codpiece. You are all wearing codpieces, of course."

We wanted a mediaeval banquet for our reception. We didn't because we thought it unreasonable and inconsiderate to put everyone to the expense and/or inconvenience of obtaining mediaeval dress, not to mention making them feel silly.

[ 02. July 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it might be what you'd mean if you wore black, but it isn't what they mean, and therefore I cannot see how it's in any way rude. Rudeness is intentional.

I don't think that's true. I occasionally while in the depths of thought walk through a door someone else is holding open without registering that's what happening. Intentional? No. Rude? Absolutely. I'm quite in the wrong.

Rudeness is not caring about other people's reactions. Whether that's through negligence, weakness, or someone's own deliberate fault, it's still not caring.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
The bit I don't really get about the OP is the idea that you'll particularly notice on your wedding day what anyone except you and your beloved and maybe some of the wedding party are wearing - unless someone really does come in fancy dress, which seems unlikely.

Clothing memories from my wedding:
- my dad is an individualist, so his morning dress didn't match anyone else's - he had a blue waistcoat with gold fleur de lys on, and a bright yellow buttonhole. But then, he was paying for it, and he looked great.
my brother's and his best mate's trousers had been adjusted to the wrong lengths, so we had to put them right the night before.
- my brother's girlfriend had shortened her dress, but had guesstimated a couple of inches too short; when she and my brother stood up to read the bidding prayers they looked more like they were about to announce the Oscars.
- my mother in-law wore a lovely peacock green - she had to ask my father in law to *paint* her white shoes in order to match the colour.
- one well-to-do friend wore *his own* morning dress!

Apart from that....there might have been some elaborate saris and shalwars, but I really don't remember.

Oh yeah - I looked fantastic.

It was a great day. Does it really matter?
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I think I would be a bit shocked to receive such an invitation. Surely it doesn't matter if a few ladies turn up wearing black. In my experience, only two or three will anyway unless they are all Greek widows. I would be more offended if someone turned up looking as they they had just been painting the house or weeding the garden. There is a certain customary expectation that people will make an effort to appeared tidily dressed for a special occasion. I would much rather someone came to the wedding in a smart black dress than in dirty torn jeans and a plunging neckline.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
It's only really acceptable to specify Morning Dress/Uniforms, Evening Dress, medals/decorations.

Exactly. This is actually also "old fashioned" etiquette. In the good old days everyone knew women didn't wear black (or white) to weddings. And everyone knew that one didn't put dress codes (other than the above) in invitations. It Wasn't Done. So you didn't do it.

I guess if the whole world has thrown out their old copies of Emily Post, so can you, la vie en rouge. It's an etiquette stand-off.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it might be what you'd mean if you wore black, but it isn't what they mean, and therefore I cannot see how it's in any way rude. Rudeness is intentional.

I don't think that's true. I occasionally while in the depths of thought walk through a door someone else is holding open without registering that's what happening. Intentional? No. Rude? Absolutely. I'm quite in the wrong.
I'm not sure you are. It's just something that happens. I certainly wouldn't be offended if I thought someone just hadn't noticed.

quote:
Rudeness is not caring about other people's reactions. Whether that's through negligence, weakness, or someone's own deliberate fault, it's still not caring.
I'm not sure there's a "not caring" going on here; it'd not even cross my mind that (were I a woman and wore frocks to weddings) that'd they'd put LVER's interpretation on it, so there would not be in my mind anything for me to care about. I think rudeness requires a bit more than that. If I said "well, they might not like black but I don't care", that'd be one thing. But somehow thinking I should know and therefore be in a position to care is quite another.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Erroneous Monk:
quote:
The bit I don't really get about the OP is the idea that you'll particularly notice on your wedding day what anyone except you and your beloved and maybe some of the wedding party are wearing - unless someone really does come in fancy dress, which seems unlikely.

It's probably more about the wedding pictures, I'd think.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FWIW, I'm not sure anyone here's saying they wouldn't comply. There are just some of us who don't grep why someone would want these restrictions. I know LVER has explained her reasoning, but there's a real gut level on which I just don't "get" it.

You don't have to. You just have to comply.

I've been to plenty of events with dress codes, although I'd say there were more of them when I was younger. I've had it at birthdays reasonably frequently, and in fact I have a feeling I may have said something like 'smart casual' for my 21st.

I see no reason why you can't have it at a wedding. Whether they like it or not, in one sense guests are part of the decor. And if the bride and groom spend lots of time on choosing venues and the flowers and the table settings and all of that, I can't see why they can't express a preference as to the dressing style of the guests.

[ 02. July 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
FWIW, I'm not sure anyone here's saying they wouldn't comply. There are just some of us who don't grep why someone would want these restrictions. I know LVER has explained her reasoning, but there's a real gut level on which I just don't "get" it.

You don't have to. You just have to comply.

I've been to plenty of events with dress codes, although I'd say there were more of them when I was younger. I've had it at birthdays reasonably frequently, and in fact I have a feeling I may have said something like 'smart casual' for my 21st.

I see no reason why you can't have it at a wedding. Whether they like it or not, in one sense guests are part of the decor. And if the bride and groom spend lots of time on the flowers and the table settings and all of that, I can't see why they can't express a preference as to the dressing style of the guests.

I know I don't have to "get" it. But I want to. It irks me.

But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?
 
Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :
 
I'm with LVER on this one.

We have in the past hosted 'themed' evenings with appropriate food and drink and costume - Indian, Greek, whatever - and invited our vicar and his wife to the Caribbean one. Mrs Vicar, a reader in her own write who was not awfully comfortable with the idea of fancy dress, came in a long dress with a flower in her hair, and wore a lei (garland of artificial flowers) round her neck. Job done.

In a sermon later, she alluded to this event as parallel with the parable of the wedding feast - 'these people have been to a lot of trouble, laid on a feast and entertainment, and all they ask of me is that I make an effort to dress appropriately'.

I think it's a shame when guests turn up to a wedding wearing what they picked up off the bedroom floor that morning, or in my MiL's immortal words, 'looking like a bundle of bagwash'. Whether the wedding is expensive or not, the couple will have been to a lot of trouble over it, and it behoves their guests to dress to suit the occasion. In this case, not in black. Is that such a big deal?

Mrs. S, thinking 'he who pays the piper ...'
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

You were entirely free to insist on it. And people were entirely free to send their apologies that they would not be able to attend the blessed event. It's naive of you to think that the attendance at your wedding would have been exactly the same if you'd put everyone else to almost certain expense and inconvenience. People do weigh up the pros and cons of accepting invitations, you know.*

The odds that asking women not to wear black is going to put them to expense and inconvenience is, I would suggest, considerably lower.

*EDIT: The alternative is that large numbers of your guests would have consulted with other guests as to what they were doing in response to such an outlandish request, and would have colluded with each other to all turn up in normal clothes, confident that they had safety in numbers and wouldn't be singled out for ignoring you.

[ 02. July 2014, 13:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
And I don't think anyone's denied that; I think I have two points - 1. don't expect that everyone will understand why it matters to you, and 2. don't ascribe the "rudeness" that you'd be signalling (if I understand the concept correctly) by wearing black to other people who would wear black, because they're not trying to be rude at all and it's unfair to suggest they are.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

You were entirely free to insist on it.
But that's the point. I didn't think we were. It seemed rude and inconsiderate, so we didn't do it.

I shall never understand this stuff as long as a live, I swear.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I don't think anyone's denied that; I think I have two points - 1. don't expect that everyone will understand why it matters to you, and 2. don't ascribe the "rudeness" that you'd be signalling (if I understand the concept correctly) by wearing black to other people who would wear black, because they're not trying to be rude at all and it's unfair to suggest they are.

Given that the OP was very much framed in terms of "I think" and "This is my opinion", your points seem a little moot.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erroneous Monk:
quote:
The bit I don't really get about the OP is the idea that you'll particularly notice on your wedding day what anyone except you and your beloved and maybe some of the wedding party are wearing - unless someone really does come in fancy dress, which seems unlikely.

It's probably more about the wedding pictures, I'd think.
I'm inclined to think that the more anxiety goes into making it look as perfect as possible, the more likely something is to disappoint, aesthetically speaking. Surely memories are about an awful lot more than perfect pictures?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

You were entirely free to insist on it.
But that's the point. I didn't think we were. It seemed rude and inconsiderate, so we didn't do it.

I shall never understand this stuff as long as a live, I swear.

You certainly won't understand it if you cut off the rest of what I said. Of course it seemed inconsiderate - you knew what the consequences would be for your guests and how your guests might respond. You knew WHY it wasn't a good idea.

There's a world of difference between having the right to do something, and it being a good idea to do. The bit you quoted was directed to whether you had the right to insist on it. It wasn't directed to whether it would lead to people thinking you were inconsiderate nincompoops. Entirely different question, but it was that different question which the rest of my answer - which you decided to cut off - was directed towards.

[ 02. July 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
The conventional etiquette of specifying a basic dress code (morning dress/evening dress/whatever) is from an era when all the people you invited would already own (or would have liked you to think they already owned) the specified outfit, and just needed a steer on what to pull out of the wardrobe for that function.

Now "individuality" rules. If you feel happy turning up at a wedding in jeans and t-shirt, when everyone else is in tails, feel free. You'll be sending a lot of signals about yourself to the other guests, some of which may be an accurate reflection of your personality. Or they may just think you're a scruffy jerk.

I've worn a suit every working day since I was eleven years old. I'd feel very uncomfortable wearing casual clothes in that situation. YMMV, obviously.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

You were entirely free to insist on it.
But that's the point. I didn't think we were. It seemed rude and inconsiderate, so we didn't do it.

I shall never understand this stuff as long as a live, I swear.

It looks like it's you, me and Mr Emerson in the corner marked "Mistrust all enterprises that require new clothes."
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Rudeness is not caring about other people's reactions. Whether that's through negligence, weakness, or someone's own deliberate fault, it's still not caring.
I'm not sure there's a "not caring" going on here; it'd not even cross my mind that (were I a woman and wore frocks to weddings) that'd they'd put LVER's interpretation on it, so there would not be in my mind anything for me to care about. I think rudeness requires a bit more than that. If I said "well, they might not like black but I don't care", that'd be one thing. But somehow thinking I should know and therefore be in a position to care is quite another.
If you had received LVER's invitation you would know.
I don't see that knowing is a prequisite for caring. Caring about someone's feelings can motivate someone to find out what they are. And therefore, contrariwise, not finding out what someone's feelings are when one could do so is a sign of not caring.
This is, to apply the principle to a more serious matter, what is wrong with the missionaries who don't bother to find out anything about the culture they're addressing. Or paternalism in charity in general.

Obviously the extreme opposite position - everyone should be able to read my mind and intuit my most eccentric whims - is untenable. Moralising tends to be result in black and white ascriptions of responsiblity. Actual social interactions tend to have more nuanced ascriptions of responsibility and social failure.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

You were entirely free to insist on it.
But that's the point. I didn't think we were. It seemed rude and inconsiderate, so we didn't do it.

I shall never understand this stuff as long as a live, I swear.

You certainly won't understand it if you cut off the rest of what I said. Of course it seemed inconsiderate - you knew what the consequences would be for your guests and how your guests might respond. You knew WHY it wasn't a good idea.

There's a world of difference between having the right to do something, and it being a good idea to do. The bit you quoted was directed to whether you had the right to insist on it. It wasn't directed to whether it would lead to people thinking you were inconsiderate nincompoops. Entirely different question, but it was that different question which the rest of my answer - which you decided to cut off - was directed towards.

Hmm - you seem to be saying that one has the right to be inconsiderate, but one shouldn't, because it's inconsiderate. That's actually the bit I don't understand. I mean, in one sense, I have the "right", inasmuch as no-one's going to cart me off to a prison somewhere, to ask everyone to bring the moon on a stick. But I thought being inconsiderate was itself a no-no, so in the more restricted sense we're using here, I don't really have that right.

This particular comparison was more about Betjemaniac's comments about being expected to hire expensive formalwear from Moss Bros - that does strike me as inconsiderate and therefore whilst in one sense the couple have the right to require it, they are being inconsiderate, IMV, in doing so. So in another they don't.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:


Obviously the extreme opposite position - everyone should be able to read my mind and intuit my most eccentric whims - is untenable.

Perhaps I'm confused. I read LVER as saying she thought wearing black to a wedding was rude, period, because of the attribution she puts on it. That is, to me, being able to read my mind etc.

quote:
Moralising tends to be result in black and white ascriptions of responsiblity. Actual social interactions tend to have more nuanced ascriptions of responsibility and social failure.
Which some of us seem to find impossible to fathom and seem to give rise to unfair conclusions about people's motivations.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
ADDENDUM: To summarise the logical essence of the exchange...

Karl: "Should I do X?"

Me: "You can do X. This is what might/will happen if you do X".

Perhaps it's just my professional training (in a role where I assist other people implement their policy, not decide policy myself), but to me the best way to answer 'should' questions is to say 'these are the consequences' and leave it up to the questioner to decide whether the consequences are acceptable. Whether I would do X, based on my evaluation of the consequences, really isn't to the point.

Which is exactly why it's not relevant how anybody else would weigh up the strength of their desire for guests to look a certain way against the degree of risk that guests would object to the request. Even with the same request, different people would weigh the importance of the positive and the risk of the negative differently.

[ 02. July 2014, 14:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

Back to my principle of What Exactly Constitutes Winning? The implicit contract for social dos seems to me that Host(s) provide occasion, venue, food, drink that sort of thing, and Guest(s) make a bit of an effort to dress up and bring a bottle.
The outrage sets in when either side is perceived to have unbalanced the level of reciprocity. So while I don't doubt your wedding was enormous fun, guests might have felt that the amount of entertainment available didn't quite equal the trouble of sourcing a wimple and cotehardie at short notice.

So the cost of 'winning' your right to have what you liked comes at the cost of pissing off your friends and rellies. In LVER's case I don't thing the tariff - no black frocks - is so high that the guests will be put off. Unless they're really determined egotists.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm - you seem to be saying that one has the right to be inconsiderate, but one shouldn't, because it's inconsiderate.

No. I'm saying that one has the right to be inconsiderate, but one shouldn't, because there are consequences that arise from being inconsiderate.

EDIT: But if it so happens you're absolutely fine with the consequences, then go ahead and be inconsiderate if you want.

[ 02. July 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I think it's more fraught than that, Orfeo. Suppose I received an invitation like the one that Betjemaniac describes tomorrow.

I wouldn't be weighing it up. I'd be really annoyed that I was asked to choose between missing a friend/relative's important event, or spending lots of money on silly clothes. I wouldn't be particularly happy with either option that I'd been given. I don't like making people unhappy (honest) so I wouldn't do that to someone else, so I'd feel rather miffed that someone had done it to me. It's not just a simple weighing up of cost/benefit.

Indeed, it would feel rather rude.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

But it does appear that Mrs Backslider and I should have insisted on the mediaeval dress we wanted and bugger everyone else's expense and inconvenience. Or am I still not understanding?

Back to my principle of What Exactly Constitutes Winning? The implicit contract for social dos seems to me that Host(s) provide occasion, venue, food, drink that sort of thing, and Guest(s) make a bit of an effort to dress up and bring a bottle.
The outrage sets in when either side is perceived to have unbalanced the level of reciprocity. So while I don't doubt your wedding was enormous fun, guests might have felt that the amount of entertainment available didn't quite equal the trouble of sourcing a wimple and cotehardie at short notice.

So the cost of 'winning' your right to have what you liked comes at the cost of pissing off your friends and rellies. In LVER's case I don't thing the tariff - no black frocks - is so high that the guests will be put off. Unless they're really determined egotists.

Do bear in mind we didn't actually have the mediaeval banquet, for the reasons outlined. And I agree that LVER's request is unlikely to be a major problem. Betjemaniac's example on the other hand of being required to spend an arm and a leg at Moss Bros does to me seem to be well into the taking the piss territory.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
There is, I suppose, no absolute standard of what I call reciprocity.

I recently travelled from Scotland to British Columbia for a wedding - which is a bit of a boat-push by any standards. But the whole experience was as so memorable, I feel it repaid the trouble and expense.

Also, each case differs, does it not? Surely there are some occasions worth any amount of trouble, and others where putting on clean socks seems a bit too much bother?
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
Hiring a suit from Moss Bros will cost £55.
If that's too much trouble, or too much like showing off, middle-class English unspoken convention used to say that a man can turn up in a lounge suit, which he is expected to own as a matter of course. That sounds as though it may no longer be the case.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think it's more fraught than that, Orfeo. Suppose I received an invitation like the one that Betjemaniac describes tomorrow.

I wouldn't be weighing it up. I'd be really annoyed that I was asked to choose between missing a friend/relative's important event, or spending lots of money on silly clothes. I wouldn't be particularly happy with either option that I'd been given. I don't like making people unhappy (honest) so I wouldn't do that to someone else, so I'd feel rather miffed that someone had done it to me. It's not just a simple weighing up of cost/benefit.

Indeed, it would feel rather rude.

But that IS the 'cost' I'm talking about. Making someone feel upset.

We were actually talking about the weighing up done by the person sending the invitation. The weighing up done by the person receiving the invitation is another process.

But is this not precisely what ALL our interactions are made up of? You do something, someone else responds, you respond back to what they've done, they respond to your response etc etc etc. Life is a chain of events. Friendships develop when the back-and-forth is mutually positive. Friendships can break down when the back-and-forth becomes negative in some way.

And you could very well end up with a invitor who is annoyed that their friend didn't comply with/made a fuss about a perfectly reasonable request, and an invitee who is annoyed that their friend put them in the individious position of having to deal with a completely unreasonable request and who thinks/says "I never would have given you such an unreasonable request". It's not as if there's an objective indicator of the relative value of the request and the effort required to comply with it.

But the very stuff of social interaction is trying to guess how your actions will affect others - if you want positive outcomes, you try to behave in a way that will get them. Sometimes, though, we guess wrong.

People who don't care about this back and forth, give and take are, by very definition, sociopaths. All you're really telling me is that you're not a sociopath and that you don't value getting what you want to the total exclusion of its effect on other people.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
for my 2 cents I would greatly appreciate the specific instructions. Perhaps it's my age (don't get so many wedding invites these days) or my geography (Californians seem to have very different definitions of things like "formal attire") but I have found parsing out what to wear to a wedding enormously difficult. In the past year I have attended three weddings, all of which indicated only "formal attire"-- one an evening East Coast (US) wedding at an upscale venue, one a European garden wedding, and one an afternoon wedding here in Calif. All required some degree of consultation to determine what "formal" meant in those circumstances. For the East coast wedding I reluctantly wore the only really fancy attire I have-- which was black. I was indeed uncomfortable about wearing black to a wedding, but turns out my advisors were correct-- color-wise I was spot on-- nearly everyone of both genders wore black. My outfit was not as fancy as most others', but was the fanciest I own so the best I could do after purchasing airfare, hotel room, etc. For the other two I ended up wearing (again, after much consultation) my 2nd fanciest outfit-- a festive dressy (but not at all formal) skirt & light sweater in a pretty bright blue/white pattern with nice jewelry. For the European garden wedding that seemed to be pretty much on target (wide variety of attire but none black), for the California wedding it was a bit overdressed. Yet all three bore the exact same dress code ("formal"). So yeah, in my experience any help you can give in parsing the expectations is greatly appreciated.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
... unspoken convention used to say that a man can turn up in a lounge suit, which he is expected to own as a matter of course ...

Thank God for that. I couldn't get D. to wear a morning coat for ours (26 years ago today [Smile] ), even though he'd worn one for his sister's - she's more bossy than I am - so he wore a dark grey lounge suit, admittedly bought for the occasion, but in those days he wore suits far more than he does now, so he got plenty of wear out of it.

As to wearing black, although I wear lots of black in the general way of things, I do try to avoid it for weddings. I'm currently looking for something to wear for a wedding in September, and generally dismissing anything in black (unless it's got a coloured pattern on it).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Hiring a suit from Moss Bros will cost £55.
If that's too much trouble, or too much like showing off, middle-class English unspoken convention used to say that a man can turn up in a lounge suit, which he is expected to own as a matter of course. That sounds as though it may no longer be the case.

It's not that it's too much trouble, it's that £55 is a lot of money and isn't something I can just spend.

Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit? (What even is a "lounge suit"?)

I asked Mrs LB and she reckons requiring that sort of sartorial expense is off too.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Do I gather correctly that no recent widows are invited to this wedding?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do I gather correctly that no recent widows are invited to this wedding?

Do recent widows still wear black?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
This has generated more interest than I expected [Eek!]

I agree that expense is an issue to be taken into account. That is why I’m not going to say anything about men wearing black, even though it’s not my preference. On the other hand, I know that the women who are liable to turn up in black frocks do own other clothes. I would be very surprised if it would cost them money not to wear black. If they don’t own a coloured dress themselves, I would expect them to be able to borrow one from somewhere. It’s really not putting them to that much extra trouble AFAICT.

No black at weddings is indeed an old-fashioned bit of etiquette. Back in the day it was one of those things that no one did ever unless they really were intentionally trying to be rude. I know that the women I saw dressed in black the other day were doing so because they were ignorant of said etiquette rule but I was brought up with it and that’s why it feels so rude to me. I dislike it intensely. When it’s not my wedding I keep my mouth shut about it, but well, this is my wedding. If anyone of my guests ask me why I am making this request, I am happy to explain it to them (in the culture I grew up it’s a very rude thing to do because black = funeral).

Up to a point, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. I can see that it’s fair enough not to know what a person does and doesn’t find rude. OTOH, once you’ve found out that your host finds a particular thing disrespectful? M. mentioned “within reason”. Depends how you define “reasonable” I suppose.

I think Firenze is right that this is all to do with the social contracts around being invited to a do. There are expectations on both sides, ISTM. These days the nature of the expectations is much fuzzier than once it was, I think, which can make a bit of a minefield.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erroneous Monk:
quote:
The bit I don't really get about the OP is the idea that you'll particularly notice on your wedding day what anyone except you and your beloved and maybe some of the wedding party are wearing - unless someone really does come in fancy dress, which seems unlikely.

It's probably more about the wedding pictures, I'd think.
I'm inclined to think that the more anxiety goes into making it look as perfect as possible, the more likely something is to disappoint, aesthetically speaking. Surely memories are about an awful lot more than perfect pictures?
Oh, I entirely agree. I was just thinking about la vie en rouge's concerns. They wouldn't be mine.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Do I gather correctly that no recent widows are invited to this wedding?

Do recent widows still wear black?
I think traditionally people who were wearing full mourning turned down all social invitations because they were mourning too much to celebrate anything.

[ 02. July 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not that it's too much trouble, it's that £55 is a lot of money and isn't something I can just spend.

Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit?

Throw himself on the mercy of the host? Admit that he is out of his class?
quote:
(What even is a "lounge suit"?)


Lounge suit

[ 02. July 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: Signaller ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I've reached that stage where many friends' children are marrying, plus my own Godchildren are now of an age to tie the knot so I've been to quite a few weddings in the last couple of years.

Generally, dress isn't referred to, although the bride of one Godson did issue invitations which state 'morning dress'.

There were a further two which mentioned dress: in both cases a slip of paper was included with the invitation which stated simply 'This is a church wedding so please would ladies wear something with sleeves for the service - thanks.' I would have been surprised to read this but in recent years it seems to be accepted that a wedding means a strapless dress for the under 35s.

So, LVER, how about something like 'We'd prefer no plain black dresses' or something: so someone with a lovely black and white print won't be debarred from wearing it but the funereal plain dress won't be there to offend.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit? (What even is a "lounge suit"?)...

Surely not hard to find, in a round of your local charity shops or from Oxfam online, a presentable lounge suit (and that is the correct term in this context, at least in the UK) at minimal cost. And if it is from a charity shop you could offset it against other charitable donations until the cost has been recouped.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I'm pretty sure one of my female friends was wearing black at my wedding. And one of our witnesses was in a suit that should have been taken out and shot. Mr Firenze and I were costumed courtesy of the People's Republic of China. And we had gladioli and a bonfire and a lot of champagne.

Other than that, it's a bit of a blur (six years ago: long time).

The main consideration is to have nothing which ever afterwards is a thorn in the memory. We did it by the expedient of being largely unplanned and not giving a damn. Best if you can toss out the No Black thing lightly - and, equally, be undisturbed if some woman does turn up in black* (it can happen: people can be very inattentive to the small print).

*unless it's a thick veil and she spends the service rocking and crying and shrieking out your beloved's name.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


Requesting people not to wear black seems fair, but could be seen as a negative comment. I would have suggested that a more positive wording - so maybe request that men requested to wear something green, and women something orange* (if appropriate). It makes it a positive request, and can be understood as a way of getting interesting and consistent photos. It seems like a fun and interesting thing to do, rather than a restriction, although the effect is the same.

It isn't the same, though. Saying people shouldn't wear black, when you know all the guests possess non-black clothes, isn't placing an imposition on anyone, because everyone can follow that prohibition without incurring expense.

Conversely, saying everyone must wear green forces people to buy green clothes if they don't have any.

But I wasn't saying "You must wear green". I was putting a request that people wear green, accepting that some will not follow the request, but anyone buying for the event (or accessorising) will have some guidance. I think many would find something that would fit in with a green and orange set, so that they would fit in.

In some ways, men have it easier, because a dark suit is the normally expected formal occasion wear (and I would agree with Chive, that casual wear is not appropriate unless this has been explicitly requested). This can be combined with a sombre shirt and tie, or a bright shirt and tie, to cover funerals, and weddings.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erroneous Monk:
quote:
The bit I don't really get about the OP is the idea that you'll particularly notice on your wedding day what anyone except you and your beloved and maybe some of the wedding party are wearing - unless someone really does come in fancy dress, which seems unlikely.

It's probably more about the wedding pictures, I'd think.
Then photoshop them.

Fat ladies already have a hard time finding decent and not super expensive formal wear. They may only have dresses they feel good in that are black. If I was on a more restrictive budget and could only have one formal dress you bet it would be a "little" black dress.

Do you want your friends to be there or do you want the photos to look coordinated?

(This is the generic "you". The OP may well not have any poor and/or fat female friends.)

I have before declined weddings that I thought had too aggravating conditions attached. Frankly they didn't notice me missing on the day and I saved myself the expense of a gift.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit? (What even is a "lounge suit"?)...

Surely not hard to find, in a round of your local charity shops or from Oxfam online, a presentable lounge suit (and that is the correct term in this context, at least in the UK) at minimal cost. And if it is from a charity shop you could offset it against other charitable donations until the cost has been recouped.
I've lost count of the number of things allegedly readily available at charity shops but which I can't get. Maybe, maybe not.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not that it's too much trouble, it's that £55 is a lot of money and isn't something I can just spend.

Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit?

Throw himself on the mercy of the host? Admit that he is out of his class?

I hope you're intentionally trying to be funny. "out of his class" indeed. [Mad] [Mad]

[ 02. July 2014, 17:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, they do always have more women's clothes than men's (probably because we have a more generous view of what constitutes a still wearable garment) so if pushed you might have to do a Grayson Perry.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I do recall needing a DJ for choir performances (why people expect singing penguins I don't know, but they do) - looked for months in charity shops, everyone assuring me there were plenty there. In the end Mrs LB made me one. Did eventually buy one from Matalan for about £60; it looked OK but was very uncomfortable and scratchy.
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
What to wear when is an absolute nightmare nowadays.

My DH hired a morning suit on one occasion, as that was what the bride had specified on the invitation. My dad's thoughts on the subject were highly amusing...basically, he felt that it was pretentious to expect guests to hire their wedding attire, and that the only people who could be expected to west morning dress were those people who already possessed their own. (He did not have his own morning suit, btw.)

A little black dress accessorised with a colourful jacket or pashmina and a pretty hat would not be "unrelieved black" and could well tick all the boxes regarding colour at LVER's wedding while still allowing the wearer to feel comfortable and happy in her wedding outfit.

Just don't get me started on people who wear white to a wedding (unless you are the bride, of course)...

I am at the stage of life where I never get invited to weddings anyway, so what to wear isn't really a problem!
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Ref. the OP, a few simple observations:

a) It's your wedding, so request what you like within reason, but be aware that it may have implications on both who comes, and the graciousness/comfort of those who do.

b) Rather than an outright ban on females in black, a more generic "We would prefer it if guests did not wear black" might get you a better spread of non-black across both sexes, and also leaves the door open for someone who only has a black suit/LBD as their sole piece of smart clothing

c) it's your wedding. Presumably you're inviting people you mostly care about and who care about you. Therefore by and large they will cope. OK, doubtless there are some outlying relatives and compulsory invites who may not, but chances are you'll never see them again anyway, at least not until the next big family event

I would assume that anyone who knows you well will shrug and comply. People who don't know you well but care and are polite will private think "FFS, why ever not?" but smile and comply.

Anyone who's going to pointedly not comply and get the massive hump shouldn't be on the invite list in the first place.

Widening out: on a personal level I'm a lot like Karl. Although I do own a lounge suit (and know what it is) I very, very rarely wear it these days (weddings & funerals, and not always then depending upon the hosts). I look crap in clothes, I don't really care about clothes, and I don't have the money to get well tailored clothes, which I would still look crap in anyway because as a friend once observed "Scruffy is an attitude, and you have it in spades".

But I'll put the effort in for people I care about. I can't imagine being invited to a wedding for someone I didn't care about (or for whom Mrs Snags didn't care, so I do by extension, just with more grumbling). That's just polite.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think traditionally people who were wearing full mourning turned down all social invitations because they were mourning too much to celebrate anything.

Yes, if mourning was for a close relation. In the Victorian era, as a woman you were expected to wear nothing but black for the first year then grey for the second year which was half-mourning. If you went to a wedding in the second year of mourning you could wear grey or purple. You could then also wear a hat, instead of the black mourning veil which marked the first year.

The last time I went to a funeral (about three years ago) people were wearing bright colours, by special request of the deceased. Unfortunately that instruction hadn't percolated through either to me or the people I went with, so we were there, a little solid knot of black-clad ex-colleagues, amidst a sea of bright colours. I dislike black, and wished I'd known.

As for weddings:

"Married in black
Wish yourself back"

goes the old rhyme.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
(My 2p worth as a woman)

Anyone receiving an invite to your wedding is either friends or family.

So they all know you and it won't come as a surprise if you say "No Black Dresses ...please!"

tbh, i wouldn't be offended ....In The Least ....were i to ever receive that kind of an invite.

As for the men and the suits? Who knows.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I very, very rarely wear it these days (weddings & funerals, and not always then depending upon the hosts). I look crap in clothes, I don't really care about clothes, and I don't have the money to get well tailored clothes, which I would still look crap in anyway because as a friend once observed "Scruffy is an attitude, and you have it in spades".

Oh yes. I don't know whether it's an attitude or some face/body shapes or what it is, but there are some people, and I'm one of them, who would look scruffy in the finest Saville Row suit costing more than my car.

quote:
But I'll put the effort in for people I care about. I can't imagine being invited to a wedding for someone I didn't care about (or for whom Mrs Snags didn't care, so I do by extension, just with more grumbling). That's just polite.
Indeed. I'm usually looking for the first clue that it's about to become socially acceptable to remove ties and undo top buttons.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I think it is much ruder to impose a dress code on guests. My smart clothing is all black, and I think nowadays black is associated more with smartness and formality than funerals.

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude. Presents are to be welcomed but not expected. Expecting guests to spend money on new clothes is definitely rude - IMO it means you're putting clothes above spending time with people you love, and expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.

IMO being a good host is putting your guests first - back when formal dress codes were expected, this was part of it, but nowadays insisting on a dress code does more inconvenience than convenience. Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable, and IMO nowadays a dress code does not do that with the exception of very formal events like meeting royalty.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Matthew 22:11-14.

A wedding is not a theatrical performance (no, it really isn't). Invited guests are not cast members who must wear whatever costumes the director orders. Nor are they props to be festooned in whatever manner suits the whims of the bride.

That said, a lady or gentleman dresses appropriately for whatever the occasion, and would never dream of dressing in such as way as to cause offense. To make a fashion statement, yes, but not to cause offense.

Surely in the whirlwind of showers that will precede the happy occasion, the bride-to-be may say to her guests, "Oh, I just hate the new style of wearing black at weddings. To me, black is for funerals. I certainly hope that none of you would do such a thing!" Any lady present would take the hint; anyone so dense as not to is not a lady.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Maybe it's a pond difference, but over here there'd be one hen night, not a "whirlwind of showers", whatever that means other than an unusual meteorological event, which wouldn't include all the women invited to the wedding.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Matthew 22:11-14.

A wedding is not a theatrical performance (no, it really isn't). Invited guests are not cast members who must wear whatever costumes the director orders. Nor are they props to be festooned in whatever manner suits the whims of the bride.

That said, a lady or gentleman dresses appropriately for whatever the occasion, and would never dream of dressing in such as way as to cause offense. To make a fashion statement, yes, but not to cause offense.

Surely in the whirlwind of showers that will precede the happy occasion, the bride-to-be may say to her guests, "Oh, I just hate the new style of wearing black at weddings. To me, black is for funerals. I certainly hope that none of you would do such a thing!" Any lady present would take the hint; anyone so dense as not to is not a lady.

Here, a lady is someone married to a lord. I am not a lady and have never pretended to be one.

And we don't have wedding showers here either.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
I remember a national newspaper (the Mail, probably, in the days when it was still fairly respectable) criticising some Royal for wearing white at a posh wedding, arguing that it must have been a deliberate attempt to upstage the bride.

Another vote for: "We would prefer guests not to wear black."
 
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
I think "our day, our way" is generally the best mantra, provided it is done with sufficient grace and tact to ensure your guests still feel welcome.

I am also planning a wedding, and we do not have any dress code. We weren't even planning on mentioning it, until we realised that some people were worried about being posh enough for the ceremony venue. Most of our guests will be from out of town and so we will be pleased enough if they can come. As hosts we want to ensure people are comfortable, so we've said to dress up as much or little as they like. I'm reasonably confident no-one will turn up in jeans, but even if they do it won't ruin the day, at least they turned up.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I move in arty circles. The gatherings I go to, we are grateful if people are clothed at all, never mind in anything of a standard appearance.
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
Agree with Amanda B. Specific preferences about clothing or gifts should be delivered in person, not in writing.

I would certainly find a specific dress instruction on the invitation to be officious, as opposed to a more general guideline like "Formal" or "Beachwear". Ideally the venue of your wedding should clue your guests in to the range of what's appropriate, and if they wear something wrong, it's their problem and not yours.

La vie, forgive me if I'm wrong but I get the sense from previous posts of yours that you're a pretty visual person, and also fairly fashion-aware. I think if you're gifted in these areas you may have to accept that other people are often going to fall short of your standards. (Certainly musicians and foodies have to put up with inferior products at weddings too- I don't mean to single out fashion here.)

The important thing is that your loved ones and your community are there to support you, not what color frock they wear while doing so (as long as they're not deliberately being rude). Better not to be controlling over a fairly minor detail.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
As one who has officiated at numerous weddings and seen far too many fashion disasters, LVER's request is not that big a deal. As far as "Bridezillas I Have Known" go, LVER is not even on the scale. If friends or family get huffy over such a simple request, then that really is their problem.

Like others, I think it would be best given in a positive direction, pointing people towards colour, rather than a purely negative "no black".

In my experience, friends and family enjoy entering into a wedding where the couple have a clear idea of what they want, which expresses who they are. If a couple really ARE into punk or Goth, it is amazing how far friends will go to make the day special and fun. But equally, it is good not to be too specific or controlling - to leave space for each guest to express his or her own individuality and character.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Again, for myself, the more help parsing these rather vague terms "formal", "dressy", etc., the better. That being said, and taking into consideration the huge geographic and generational differences in the way these terms are understood, for my social location anyway, it might be easier to comply with the colorful request if you say something like "dressy" rather than "formal". In my generation & lifestage, anyway, I'm unlikely to have anything that is truly "formal" and if I do, it would be black. Far easier to comply with colorful dressy clothes-- a pretty print dress or skirt that can be dressed up with nice jewelry and accessories.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I've worn a suit every working day since I was eleven years old. I'd feel very uncomfortable wearing casual clothes in that situation. YMMV, obviously.

Wait, you have been working since you were eleven-years-old? Is that not slightly illegal?

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think it is much ruder to impose a dress code on guests. My smart clothing is all black, and I think nowadays black is associated more with smartness and formality than funerals.

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude. Presents are to be welcomed but not expected. Expecting guests to spend money on new clothes is definitely rude - IMO it means you're putting clothes above spending time with people you love, and expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.

IMO being a good host is putting your guests first - back when formal dress codes were expected, this was part of it, but nowadays insisting on a dress code does more inconvenience than convenience. Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable, and IMO nowadays a dress code does not do that with the exception of very formal events like meeting royalty.

This is pure nonsense. The social convention for weddings is quite clear, of which your notions are the antithesis. If you are so offended at the idea of having to spend anything on attending another's wedding, then just do not go. The wedding is about the couple getting married; it is not about you. The couple should not have to tailor their plans around your personal convenience, if that was even a tenable solution for every guest. You do understand that throwing a wedding itself is expensive, right? To expect the couple to pay for the entire wedding, all the personal expenses of the guests, and generally work their plans around your personal whims, is not only rude, it is downright arrogant, selfish, and offensive. Do you really think that little of your friends and family?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
This sort of came up for me last summer. I received a wedding invitation and knew I would have to buy something, as I had zero dressy clothes in my closet. I had no dresses at all and mainly black wool trousers and nice tops for church, jeans and sweaters for the rest of the time.

I went shopping in the only nice department store in town. They had one rack of "dressy," outfits in the back of a rather large store. It held a few floor length gowns in loud colors and a few dressy pant suits. The only thing that fit me was this: Black silk pants with coordinated gray silk jacket trimmed in shiny black, over a silver knit shell.

I told the clerk it was for a wedding, so maybe it shouldn't be black? He, as well as some shoppers standing around, said it would be perfect and that the "no black at weddings," thing went out fifty years ago. I bought it, wore it, and noted that more than half the women there were wearing either black pants or skirts. I think it stems from the fact that black is so slimming and only the very young and thin think they look nice in pastels. It certainly didn't mean anyone was wishing bad luck on the wedding.

This outfit, plus shoes to match, came to about a hundred dollars. I could have driven to another town and shopped for something I would never have worn again, but it would have been hard and I had already gone out of town to find a gift where the bride had registered and spent about a hundred dollars there.

If the invitation had requested "no black," I would have complied, just as I go along with the relatively new custom of the bride telling people what gifts to buy her through the registry. It just seems a bit bossy to me.

The guests are there to witness the vows and wish the couple well. They are not really part of the bride's perfect stage production with herself as the star and all colors of the set and costumes fading toward her gleaming white presence. That's what the bridesmaids are for.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Here, a lady is someone married to a lord. I am not a lady and have never pretended to be one.

And we don't have wedding showers here either.

That may all be true in Northampton (which I've never visited so I couldn't say), but not necessarily the rest of the UK.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
Hiring a suit from Moss Bros will cost £55.
If that's too much trouble, or too much like showing off, middle-class English unspoken convention used to say that a man can turn up in a lounge suit, which he is expected to own as a matter of course. That sounds as though it may no longer be the case.

It's not that it's too much trouble, it's that £55 is a lot of money and isn't something I can just spend.

Does convention say what a man is allowed to do if he doesn't have £55 to throw away on one day's wear of a suit (I mean, that's half what a suit I get to keep for ever would cost!) and doesn't own a lounge suit? (What even is a "lounge suit"?)

I asked Mrs LB and she reckons requiring that sort of sartorial expense is off too.

Oxfam or borrow ?

(I am not sure why la vie thinks it is worse to ask women to borrow than men [Confused] )
 
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I've worn a suit every working day since I was eleven years old. I'd feel very uncomfortable wearing casual clothes in that situation. YMMV, obviously.

Wait, you have been working since you were eleven-years-old? Is that not slightly illegal?

My school uniform was a grey suit. School = work. Must have been habit-forming (insert joke about monks, if required).
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
In a similar vein when Mr Cathscats and I were married it was during the Balkan war. We didn't need a lot of furnishing or kitchenware, and we couldn't see others suffer while we got stuff we didn't want, so we asked the guests that if they were going to give a gifts, to make a donation to Bosnia instead. All of our friends got it and agreed, but a couple of my mothers friends (who were not invited, but wanted to give anyway) were very cross at the idea that anyone should suggest to them how they did their charitable giving..... They gave us silver photograph frames which we have never found a use for.
I would think that LVER should know her own friends well enough to know if her request is going to offend them!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

But I'll put the effort in for people I care about. I can't imagine being invited to a wedding for someone I didn't care about (or for whom Mrs Snags didn't care, so I do by extension, just with more grumbling). That's just polite.

The thing is, buying or hiring a lounge suit isn't "making an effort", it's just spending money.

FWIW I think there is a qualitative difference between requesting no black, which shouldn't be an imposition on anyone, and specifying that you have to wear a lounge suit, which is insisting people spend money that doesn't even do anything to offset the cost of the wedding.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude.

That was our instinct when we got married but the problem is that people actually *want* to give gifts, and given that we had around eighty guests people were also justifiably afraid of duplication. The wedding list is as much about your guests' convenience as your own rapaciousness.

(Although full disclosure, we were not actually organised enough to produce a list and just asked people for John Lewis vouchers. Also we got married on the cheap by virtue of hiring a church hall and importing huge amounts of stuff from Costco, so large presents were a little bit embarrassing insofar as they entailed making a profit on the guests.)

quote:
expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.
[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] Unless you are thinking about people who get married on the beach in Mexico or Mauritius or wherever, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is selfish.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IMO being a good host is putting your guests first [...] Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable

You see, this is precisely what I disagree with, at least if it's not balanced with something along the lines of "etiquette is respecting the sensibilities of the person hosting you". As I said before, I think these kinds of social events are not only for the benefit of the guests, who should have license to do as they like. They are a social contract, and there are expectations on both sides. There is such a thing as a good host, and there is also such a thing as a good guest.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I've worn a suit every working day since I was eleven years old. I'd feel very uncomfortable wearing casual clothes in that situation. YMMV, obviously.

Wait, you have been working since you were eleven-years-old? Is that not slightly illegal?

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think it is much ruder to impose a dress code on guests. My smart clothing is all black, and I think nowadays black is associated more with smartness and formality than funerals.

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude. Presents are to be welcomed but not expected. Expecting guests to spend money on new clothes is definitely rude - IMO it means you're putting clothes above spending time with people you love, and expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.

IMO being a good host is putting your guests first - back when formal dress codes were expected, this was part of it, but nowadays insisting on a dress code does more inconvenience than convenience. Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable, and IMO nowadays a dress code does not do that with the exception of very formal events like meeting royalty.

This is pure nonsense. The social convention for weddings is quite clear, of which your notions are the antithesis. If you are so offended at the idea of having to spend anything on attending another's wedding, then just do not go. The wedding is about the couple getting married; it is not about you. The couple should not have to tailor their plans around your personal convenience, if that was even a tenable solution for every guest. You do understand that throwing a wedding itself is expensive, right? To expect the couple to pay for the entire wedding, all the personal expenses of the guests, and generally work their plans around your personal whims, is not only rude, it is downright arrogant, selfish, and offensive. Do you really think that little of your friends and family?

I am not offended at spending money on someone's wedding - it's forcing that spending of money that is rude.

Again, being a good host is about putting your guests first - and the bride and groom are hosts (or sometimes their parents). Yes, weddings can be expensive (though they don't need to be - a registery office ceremony followed by the pub is still a wedding), but if you want to invite guests then make sure you can afford to meet their needs. Inviting people without making sure that the wedding is accessible for them (physically and financially) is incredibly rude. I'm not talking about the hosts doing every single thing for the guests - simply that guests are properly catered for, and this includes avoiding things like dress codes that could cause problems.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude.

That was our instinct when we got married but the problem is that people actually *want* to give gifts, and given that we had around eighty guests people were also justifiably afraid of duplication. The wedding list is as much about your guests' convenience as your own rapaciousness.

(Although full disclosure, we were not actually organised enough to produce a list and just asked people for John Lewis vouchers. Also we got married on the cheap by virtue of hiring a church hall and importing huge amounts of stuff from Costco, so large presents were a little bit embarrassing insofar as they entailed making a profit on the guests.)

quote:
expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.
[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] Unless you are thinking about people who get married on the beach in Mexico or Mauritius or wherever, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is selfish.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - by hotel rooms for guests travelling long-distance, I meant destination weddings eg a beach wedding in Mexico. Not just travelling from say Birmingham to Brighton. Hotel rooms would be necessary for travelling from say, NYC to LA I should imagine.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IMO being a good host is putting your guests first [...] Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable

You see, this is precisely what I disagree with, at least if it's not balanced with something along the lines of "etiquette is respecting the sensibilities of the person hosting you". As I said before, I think these kinds of social events are not only for the benefit of the guests, who should have license to do as they like. They are a social contract, and there are expectations on both sides. There is such a thing as a good host, and there is also such a thing as a good guest.
This is a surprisingly interesting discussion.

I think you're both right. I think that a host's responsibility is entirely to put their guests first. I think a guest's responsibility is to behave appropriately towards their host, which at a wedding means remembering that you are there for them and to celebrate with them. If you have an idea about what they might like you not to wear, you would probably want to please them in that way.

I think, though, that each side simply has to trust the other and not try to manage them. I really dislike wedding present lists. I've never been told what I should wear, and even though I've worn a suit to every wedding I've ever attended, it would put my back up to get instructions about this.

Wearing morning suits at a wedding, if it's not something you wear from time to time on other occasions (and I don't know even one person who does), just seems like a rather sad aping of the rich. We who do not have servants and who have had to buy our own furniture should have a little more pride in ourselves and show who we are in the way we dress.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I think I've worn black suit/jacket to weddings a few times, but with coloured top so to me that didn't register as black. A recent wedding I attended I wore something which was basically black with a bit of green. I did consider whether this was too much and then thought the bride and groom are goths-they are unlikely to be offended by black at a wedding! Can't remembere what I wore the the two weddings I've attended this year. Next one, I'm being an usher and am being provided with a pashmina or stole in wedding colour, so may well wear that over something basically black as that will go well with what the male ushers are likely to be wearing. Bride and groom seemed happy with this when I discussed it with them.

Weddings seem fraught with issues like this because they bring together people from a variety of social groups with different expectations, so relatives may well have different interpretations of clothing to friends etc. With geographic and social mobility customs are less likely to be shared.

Carys
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
I travelled from the UK back home to Australia for a friend's wedding, and he told me that I was not expected to bring a gift. I replied, "Don't worry, I had no intention of doing so!". I did take the groom out to dinner a few days before though - on the actual day he would certainly be too busy for us to have a proper catch-up.

I wore a cotton white/flowery summery dress that was just over £100 from Monsoon - initially bought for a major birthday several years earlier. I also wore a giant fascinator that was part of my outfit. It was only halfway through the service that I realised I was the only person in the church with something on my head, apart from the Bride.

We don't do headgear in Australia for wedding guests. Not even the Mother of the Bride was wearing a hat... After 6 years in the UK I had forgotten this!
 
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
Out in rural and remote Australia, i do country weddings.
Folk wear anything really, except hats!
The emphasis is on having a really good time....

So we do.
We are so unsophisticated.

Not rude. Just practical.

Try telling a farmer and his family, after decades of drought, and the recent terrible fires, that finding money for new clothes, as per the bride request, is a prerequisite for attending, and you would be booted out of town.
Many folk have no charity shops within four hours drive anyway.

[ 02. July 2014, 23:25: Message edited by: Rowen ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
All a bunch of you are saying is that you're not in the same millieu as our current bride, and that something wouldn't work in your context.

That seems obvious.

It also doesn't seem very relevant. Although I suppose, on one level, a thread like this is basically inviting "what would YOU do" responses. But to me it's just demonstrating that we are all over the place in terms of geographical location, age, what we were taught growing up, financial situation, social strata etc etc etc.

All of which affects how this request would be received and therefore whether it would be made. Ask a group of friends all of the same circle, rather than a bunch of people brought together by the internet, and you'd be far more likely to get a consistent response as to whether the request would be fine or a problem.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wedding gifts can be tailored according to the pocket of the guest; travel expenses are unavoidable. Being required to spend a fortune at Moss Bros is completely unnecessary.

When Mrs. C and I were married, we didn't even think about specifying a dress code, although the style of the invitation carries some clues about the level of formality which will be the norm.

Lots of men wore morning dress, most of the rest wore lounge suits, and a couple wore a tie and sports jacket. I would have been surprised if anyone had turned up in jeans and a t-shirt, but wouldn't have thrown them out. I don't think most people bought or hired something new - I think most people selected the most appropriate wear from their existing wardrobes.

Of the women, most wore dresses (probably 50-50 with and without hats), a couple wore blouses and skirts, and a couple wore trouser suits. I think there were one or two black dresses in the mix.

As far as La vie's original question goes, I have no problem at all with a "ladies, no black please" request. I'd probably choose to phrase it as more of a preference, so as to allow the poor student who owns precisely one smart item of clothing (a little black dress) to feel comfortable.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable, and IMO nowadays a dress code does not do that with the exception of very formal events like meeting royalty.

That's an interesting point of view, because I almost feel the opposite. Some kind of dress code, whether explicit or tacit, is helpful for me, because it tells me what I should wear. I don't really want to turn up in jeans and a t-shirt to an event where everyone else is wearing a suit and tie, and nor do I particularly want to be the single suit-wearer at the barbecue. I'll feel more comfortable if my clothes don't stand out.

Usually, I just call the host and ask, unless it's obvious, and once we get past the usual "wear what you like, we just want you to be there" discussion, I ask what the host will be wearing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Etiquette may well be about making guests feel comfortable at a general party, but it isn't about that at all when gathering for a specific event such as a wedding or even a birthday. The very point of such gatherings is that the focus is on a particular person.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I was at a funeral recently and I was shocked at what people wore. The family of the deceased wore black, myself and the friends I went with wore black but everyone else just seemed to wear whatever. This included someone who wore trackie bottoms and a tshirt. Surely its not hard to follow the general rules and wear black to a funeral? (That's unless the family specifically ask for something else which is fine). To turn up in any old thing seems disrespectful.

I can either wear jeans and a black tshirt, in which I'll look ratty, a black skirt and tshirt, in which I'll look goth, or a neat, semi-formal outfit with a coloured shirt. At funerals, I think the third option is usually the most appropriate.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
I've worn a suit every working day since I was eleven years old. I'd feel very uncomfortable wearing casual clothes in that situation. YMMV, obviously.

Wait, you have been working since you were eleven-years-old? Is that not slightly illegal?

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think it is much ruder to impose a dress code on guests. My smart clothing is all black, and I think nowadays black is associated more with smartness and formality than funerals.

Similarly, I was always taught that wedding lists or other gift requests were rude. Presents are to be welcomed but not expected. Expecting guests to spend money on new clothes is definitely rude - IMO it means you're putting clothes above spending time with people you love, and expecting guests to spend lots of money on travel without paying for a hotel room for them is also rude.

IMO being a good host is putting your guests first - back when formal dress codes were expected, this was part of it, but nowadays insisting on a dress code does more inconvenience than convenience. Etiquette is all about making guests feel comfortable, and IMO nowadays a dress code does not do that with the exception of very formal events like meeting royalty.

This is pure nonsense. The social convention for weddings is quite clear, of which your notions are the antithesis. If you are so offended at the idea of having to spend anything on attending another's wedding, then just do not go. The wedding is about the couple getting married; it is not about you. The couple should not have to tailor their plans around your personal convenience, if that was even a tenable solution for every guest. You do understand that throwing a wedding itself is expensive, right? To expect the couple to pay for the entire wedding, all the personal expenses of the guests, and generally work their plans around your personal whims, is not only rude, it is downright arrogant, selfish, and offensive. Do you really think that little of your friends and family?

I am not offended at spending money on someone's wedding - it's forcing that spending of money that is rude.

Again, being a good host is about putting your guests first - and the bride and groom are hosts (or sometimes their parents). Yes, weddings can be expensive (though they don't need to be - a registery office ceremony followed by the pub is still a wedding), but if you want to invite guests then make sure you can afford to meet their needs. Inviting people without making sure that the wedding is accessible for them (physically and financially) is incredibly rude. I'm not talking about the hosts doing every single thing for the guests - simply that guests are properly catered for, and this includes avoiding things like dress codes that could cause problems.

It is one thing if the couple decide to hold their wedding at some exotic locale. For the vast majority of weddings, however, the venue is either near where the couple lives, or near where the parents of the bride or groom live. Asking the couple to design their wedding plans around the needs of specific guests, is utterly unreasonable, in my opinion.

Similarly, unless the dress code dictates that everyone must wear haute couture, or something to that effect, any normal dress code for such an occasion is within the bounds of reasonability.

When one throws a dinner party, the focus is on the guests. A wedding is a significantly different affair, however. The focus of a wedding is squarely on the couple themselves. More leeway needs to be given to them than what one might otherwise give. Why do you think people put up with bridezilla behavior when such behavior would otherwise not be tolerated?

Finally, no one can "force" you to spend money you do not want to. If you are unwilling or unable to afford what is asked, then you should let the couple know and decline the invitation. If it is only the dress code that is problematic, then proffer your concerns to the couple. In all likelihood, they will not begrudge you wearing something else as long as you are polite enough to explain your situation.
 
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
My problem with funeral clothes....
As a minister, I can sense the thought processes and assumptions therein!


Friends/family know you should wear black.
Fair enough.
Many young women own black dresses. The kind you wear clubbing.
So, they wear their best black to the funeral. With accessories... Fishnet tights and so on.
All most unsuitable for a funeral.

Sigh.

[ 03. July 2014, 05:15: Message edited by: Rowen ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

Similarly, unless the dress code dictates that everyone must wear haute couture, or something to that effect, any normal dress code for such an occasion is within the bounds of reasonability.

That is my personal experience but there are a few posters here saying it's common for happy couples to insist on the guests wearing morning suits, which does seem unreasonable in my view.

(And I agree with Karl about charity shops here.)
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to wear morning coats. At ours and I think at most of the weddings that I went to in my late 20s/ early 30s, those who had them wore them, and those who didn't, didn't. Mind you, at my sister's wedding I (not an usher or anything) was made to wear a hired morning coat even though I had a perfectly respectable one of my own, of the same colour and essentially the same pattern as the hired ones. That still seems daft to me.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to wear morning coats. At ours and I think at most of the weddings that I went to in my late 20s/ early 30s, those who had them wore them, and those who didn't, didn't. Mind you, at my sister's wedding I (not an usher or anything) was made to wear a hired morning coat even though I had a perfectly respectable one of my own, of the same colour and essentially the same pattern as the hired ones. That still seems daft to me.

In my experience, when attire is suggested that the couple should know that most people would not have easy access to, it is usually restricted to the wedding party. Certainly in the U.S., specifying morning dress, especially for every invitee, would be unreasonable in most areas of the country; I doubt it would even be available in a lot of places.

Obviously, common sense and local custom needs to be taken into account if one provides a dress code for wedding guests. I never meant to imply otherwise.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rowen:
Many young women own black dresses. The kind you wear clubbing.
So, they wear their best black to the funeral. With accessories... Fishnet tights and so on.
All most unsuitable for a funeral.

To be brutally honest, and given the number of funerals I've had to attend recently, any distraction is gratefully received.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Some kind of dress code, whether explicit or tacit, is helpful for me, because it tells me what I should wear.
This is more or less how I feel about it too. There's a very wide range of options available to women; some idea of how to narrow the range is useful. One of the cousins at my wedding was wearing a formal cocktail dress (with hat) and all the other women were in ordinary (light-coloured) summer dresses. If it had been me who was overdressed compared to everyone else I'd have spent the whole day feeling uncomfortable because I'd got it wrong (my cousin, on the other hand, carried it off with great aplomb).

A lot of these customs associated with weddings (only some to do with clothes) are really superstition, attempts to get the marriage off to an auspicious start; so do you respect the wedding couple's wishes (despite the fact that you don't share their beliefs) or turn up dressed from head to toe in black with a gift-wrapped set of knives, treat them to a lecture about being Free in Christ and exhort them to cast off the chains of superstition?

And would your answer to this question depend on whether you were being invited to a 'Western' wedding or a wedding of a couple from another culture/religion (eg a Hindu or Chinese wedding)?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All a bunch of you are saying is that you're not in the same millieu as our current bride, and that something wouldn't work in your context.

Quite. Most of my guests are not rural Australians. They are (native or adopted) Parisians, i.e. considerably more fashion-conscious than the average human being. Compared to the outback, let’s say that they have a whole other approach to style and clothes. I forget what percentage of Parisians work in the fashion industry, but it’s not negligible. As I said, best friend en rouge is a full time fashionista, and consequently the messages we send through clothes are a big deal to her. She feels even more strongly than I do about black being inappropriate at weddings. Saying “But what if they own nothing black?” is also irrelevant. I’ve said that I know these people own suitable non-black clothes. The question is more about whether I have the right to squash their right to do as they please and individuality by requesting that they wear said non-black clothes.

A while ago I heard an interview on the radio with a wedding planner, who said something I found extremely wise. She said that organising a wedding is basically an exercise in *managing expectations*. Everyone involved has expectations – the couple, their families, the guests. It’s unreasonable to think that you’re going to meet all of everybody’s expectations, and to some degree you have to decide a) whose expectations you put first b) which of your own expectations are most important to you and c) who you are and aren’t prepared to offend/disappoint. For example, some of our family members may be expecting hard alcohol. Too bad for them, there won’t be anything stronger than wine because we frankly don’t trust them to behave if they are served spirits.

What bothers me about Jade’s position (it’s all about making everything as easy and enjoyable as possible for guests) is that ISTM that the couple may be asked unfairly to sacrifice too many of their own expectations. To take a generalised expectation of just about all concerned for a French wedding: there will be a very nice - and extremely lengthy - dinner. This dinner is expensive, eye-poppingly so if you organise it in Paris. Were we getting married in Paris we would be looking at 100€ a head. Consequently we are getting married some considerable distance away in the South West, where the price is about half that. While we are going to do our best to minimise the cost for people (car sharing, staying with family, allowing people to put up their tent in the back garden if they don’t want to pay for the hotel), there is definitely going to be expense involved for the people who have to travel. The alternative is not to invite them and have a dinner in Paris with considerably less people. Jade says we could go to the pub, but that fits with no one’s expectations, including ours. It isn’t a zero-sum game. I also don’t think you should sacrifice all of your expectations on one of the most important days of your life. Some of them, certainly. The question is which ones.

[ 03. July 2014, 09:44: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
la vie en rouge said:
quote:
Most of my guests are not rural Australians. They are (native or adopted) Parisians, i.e. considerably more fashion-conscious than the average human being.
I think this is the basic problem. People assume, if they are being invited to a 'Western' wedding, that they know what is expected of them and (more or less) what is going to happen; but there are huge variations in so-called 'Western culture'. The differences between British and French culture are particularly significant.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
End of the day, it's your wedding so your rules. But I happen to think that your dress code is kinda rude, in the same way that you think wearing black to a wedding is rude.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All a bunch of you are saying is that you're not in the same millieu as our current bride, and that something wouldn't work in your context.

Quite. Most of my guests are not rural Australians. They are (native or adopted) Parisians, i.e. considerably more fashion-conscious than the average human being.
Why even ask us about it then? Surely such superior people as your guests will all turn up in palest haute couture without your needing to instruct them.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The question is more about whether I have the right to squash their right to do as they please and individuality by requesting that they wear said non-black clothes.

It's not about rights it's about relationships. You can be "in the right" and still piss off a good friend, just as they could you if they chose to wear black knowing your wishes. It then becomes a question of how much grace there is in the relationship to cover such offence.

A thought occurs that by not making the request in the invitation you leave room to believe the best of each other whereas making it explicit in writing forces the issue and potentially makes it a bigger deal.
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
Even if not in clericals, I would only dress formally in black - the tie would be bright, though. I might be happy if it's specified "informal dress, please" - then it would be jeans & an open shirt.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All a bunch of you are saying is that you're not in the same millieu as our current bride, and that something wouldn't work in your context.

Quite. Most of my guests are not rural Australians. They are (native or adopted) Parisians, i.e. considerably more fashion-conscious than the average human being. Compared to the outback, let’s say that they have a whole other approach to style and clothes. I forget what percentage of Parisians work in the fashion industry, but it’s not negligible. As I said, best friend en rouge is a full time fashionista, and consequently the messages we send through clothes are a big deal to her. She feels even more strongly than I do about black being inappropriate at weddings. Saying “But what if they own nothing black?” is also irrelevant. I’ve said that I know these people own suitable non-black clothes. The question is more about whether I have the right to squash their right to do as they please and individuality by requesting that they wear said non-black clothes.

A while ago I heard an interview on the radio with a wedding planner, who said something I found extremely wise. She said that organising a wedding is basically an exercise in *managing expectations*. Everyone involved has expectations – the couple, their families, the guests. It’s unreasonable to think that you’re going to meet all of everybody’s expectations, and to some degree you have to decide a) whose expectations you put first b) which of your own expectations are most important to you and c) who you are and aren’t prepared to offend/disappoint. For example, some of our family members may be expecting hard alcohol. Too bad for them, there won’t be anything stronger than wine because we frankly don’t trust them to behave if they are served spirits.

What bothers me about Jade’s position (it’s all about making everything as easy and enjoyable as possible for guests) is that ISTM that the couple may be asked unfairly to sacrifice too many of their own expectations. To take a generalised expectation of just about all concerned for a French wedding: there will be a very nice - and extremely lengthy - dinner. This dinner is expensive, eye-poppingly so if you organise it in Paris. Were we getting married in Paris we would be looking at 100€ a head. Consequently we are getting married some considerable distance away in the South West, where the price is about half that. While we are going to do our best to minimise the cost for people (car sharing, staying with family, allowing people to put up their tent in the back garden if they don’t want to pay for the hotel), there is definitely going to be expense involved for the people who have to travel. The alternative is not to invite them and have a dinner in Paris with considerably less people. Jade says we could go to the pub, but that fits with no one’s expectations, including ours. It isn’t a zero-sum game. I also don’t think you should sacrifice all of your expectations on one of the most important days of your life. Some of them, certainly. The question is which ones.

I'd agree with this. Hospitality is a two way street.

I don't see the harm in just putting a light hearted note in the invites that says you want as colourful a day as possible so no black dresses or suits if possible. (My emphasis). The italics gives you an out as there will always be one person who rocks up in black. Some may do it on purpose - No one's telling me what to wear, I'm an indivdual! - whilst others may not have anything else that will do.

Have a wonderful day and all the best to you both for your new life together btw!

Tubbs
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
I'm not married, but for a while I was intending to be. And I fully intended for all my wedding expectations to be fulfilled - maybe I just had low expectations!!
 
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :
 
Is it for the photographs, or something? I honestly didn't notice what other people wore at my wedding - but would have been glad to know they dressed as they felt was their best.
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

What bothers me about Jade’s position (it’s all about making everything as easy and enjoyable as possible for guests) is that ISTM that the couple may be asked unfairly to sacrifice too many of their own expectations. To take a generalised expectation of just about all concerned for a French wedding: there will be a very nice - and extremely lengthy - dinner. This dinner is expensive, eye-poppingly so if you organise it in Paris. Were we getting married in Paris we would be looking at 100€ a head. Consequently we are getting married some considerable distance away in the South West, where the price is about half that. While we are going to do our best to minimise the cost for people (car sharing, staying with family, allowing people to put up their tent in the back garden if they don’t want to pay for the hotel), there is definitely going to be expense involved for the people who have to travel. The alternative is not to invite them and have a dinner in Paris with considerably less people. Jade says we could go to the pub, but that fits with no one’s expectations, including ours. It isn’t a zero-sum game. I also don’t think you should sacrifice all of your expectations on one of the most important days of your life. Some of them, certainly. The question is which ones.

I think that is a very good point. If I and my boyfriend were to get married in the city in which we both live then it's extremely unlikely that my parents would be able to be there easily. My mother is in a wheelchair, they're both getting on a bit and I live in London whilst they're in the Highlands. As a result, if this hypothetical wedding were to take place then I'm faced with either making my parents lives extremely difficult or costing my friends a fair bit of money. Making life easy for my guests, several of whom may well be friends who live in London, would quite possibly preclude my parents from attending. Hypothetical wedding therefore likely to be in the Highlands, with a note on the invitation to say that we appreciate the time/effort/expense of guests to get there and presents extremely unnecessary, but potential list available. If I were to be making it as easy as possible for my hypothetical guests, who do you propose I leave off the guest list?

I also had a friend tell me that if i wore black to her wedding she would stop on the way down to aisle to suggest I leave. I wore blue. She expressed her wishes (more forcefully than LVER has!) and I complied.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Is it for the photographs, or something? I honestly didn't notice what other people wore at my wedding - but would have been glad to know they dressed as they felt was their best.

I didn't care a jot either, but surely it's not confusing that some people do care about such things. I think this makes the most sense if you remember it's about feelings and what is offensive not really clothes. I'm told that one of my relatives got rather smashed at my wedding. I didn't notice that either, and I don't really care, but I gather some people would be offended by a relative who got drunk at their wedding too. (While others would be more annoyed at a relative who wasn't drinking.) I agree though that putting it in a more positive way would be more stylish.

And my two cents says knock the gender part. Either black is objectionable or it's not. If it is, then don't let the men do it either. I'm so bloody tired of dress codes for women and not men. I very much doubt that LVeR thinks of women as fashion plates to be stared at, but I think that's where the tradition of more dress codes for women than men comes from. And it bites. If the women can be bothered not to wear their precious little black dress, the men can damn well wear blue, brown, grey or whatever else may suit!
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The alternative is not to invite them and have a dinner in Paris with considerably less people. Jade says we could go to the pub, but that fits with no one’s expectations, including ours.

Miss Manners sez first make the guest list and then decide how much wedding you can afford (even if only punch and cookies in someone's back yard). This is in an American context, though.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Good advice, though, if you value your people more than your stuff.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

I don't see the harm in just putting a light hearted note in the invites that says you want as colourful a day as possible so no black dresses or suits if possible. (My emphasis). The italics gives you an out as there will always be one person who rocks up in black. Some may do it on purpose - No one's telling me what to wear, I'm an indivdual! - whilst others may not have anything else that will do.


Tubbs

Several people have suggested this "if possible," position and I just can't picture anyone showing up in black if the bride had taken the trouble to state her preference on the invitation. IMO that really would be rude. The person who says to themselves, "Well black is all I have and I can't afford anything new so I'll just wear this," is going to be looked at with either pity or scorn by everyone there.

Others here have suggested the, "Just don't go," option which I also find unrealistic. Once one is over forty most wedding invitation are for the children of friends or relatives. The last dozen or so weddings I've been to had brides and grooms I wouldn't have recognized on the street, but I would have been in big trouble with my friends/relatives if I hadn't gone.

For what it's worth, I searched Miss Manner's site for this and found someone saying she had received an invitation requesting guests wear "fall colors," to match her autumn themed wedding.

Miss Manners answered that this was wrong, the guests are not part of the color scheme of the wedding but that guests should know not to wear, "white, black or red."
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I think it depends what is important to you at your wedding. To me a wedding is about the pledging of lives of two people in the presence of family and friends. It is not about important celebrities in attendance or who wore what. My own wedding over 40 years ago is memorable for me about the wonderful people there and the happiness of the occasion. I have no memory of what anybody wore except for the bridal party for which I have photographs to remind me.
Incidentally, a recent wedding I attended was a totally black/white affair and the bridesmaids looked stunning.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
My usual expectations in the UK are that if morning dress is specified, then it's usually only for immediate family and attendants - not for all guests. Only my s-in-law had a morning dress wedding, and knowing our finances was happy to stump up for hire, so I opted for full highland with family tartan which came in at the same price, and which she was v. happy with.

I'm with Tubbs about lightening the request for non-black so that it expresses a preference rather than telling people what to wear. In England in English I might say something like "We're trying for a colourful wedding, so avoid black if you can." If something like that works linguistically and culturally in French then great. If black with good colour is acceptable then you could add, "or glam up your black" or something like that.

IME, for men, jacket and tie is the minimum expectation at a wedding (often w'out jacket in the summer - if we have one). In my observation, lounge suit is the norm, anything more formal than that needs to be specified. I have v. rarely worn suits for the last 20+ years, so the one I bought for my wedding is still OK (classic styling), but I shall probably invest in a new tie for my niece's wedding in August.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Scots lass, I have two friends with daughters getting married this year in other parts of the United States (both sets of parents live here). Both families are having the actual weddings where their respective daughters live and then receptions here for the parents' friends and people who knew the brides when they were growing up. The opposite situation would work as well (wedding in parents' home town, receptions where bride and groom currently live).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All a bunch of you are saying is that you're not in the same millieu as our current bride, and that something wouldn't work in your context.

Quite. Most of my guests are not rural Australians. They are (native or adopted) Parisians, i.e. considerably more fashion-conscious than the average human being.
Why even ask us about it then? Surely such superior people as your guests will all turn up in palest haute couture without your needing to instruct them.
But then you may have the rare outlier-- which, in all three of the weddings I described earlier that I attended last year, was me. [Hot and Hormonal] For a happily related-but socially isolated-outlier like me, the dress "code" ("suggestion" might be a nicer way to put it) is an act of mercy, all the more so if the vast majority of the guests are in similar social/cultural strata. Making it a blanket statement may be unnecessary, but is a bit gentler than calling out the outliers individually to let us know we're such fashion boors it's completely obvious that we need remedial instruction (we are, but kind of you not to point it out).
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
I have never noticed a black dress at a wedding, and I conduct 15 a year on average. Paris must be a strange place.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
I have never noticed a black dress at a wedding, and I conduct 15 a year on average. Paris must be a strange place.

Quite common in the US among certain circles, particularly if the dress is formal. But wide variation among locales & generations, as noted in my examples above.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I too was brought up to think wedding guests should never wear white because that was for the bride and we would have never thought of wearing black to a wedding as that was too miserable.
However I was at a wedding last year where the bride told people they must wear black, and I don’t own any black it’s just not a colour I wear I look ill in it…. The bridesmaids wore black and she had a white dress covered in black net, the men black ties too. I must say there where quite a few of us who said it looked like a funeral not a wedding.

A few years ago I knew a bride who had a fear of black and she was marrying in a Methodist church where the minister’s usual garb was a black cassock. She explained to him and he took it in good part and borrowed a surplice to cover it.

Some people want wedding present lists to guide them with what to buy others don’t. A million years ago when we married we compromised and had a list but only gave it to anybody who asked for one, not as has happened to me on more than one occasion with a list being included in the invitation .

The last few funerals I have been at, there have been quite a few people wearing work gear and jeans etc By and large they were working people who took an hour off to pay their respects, (there was even somebody wearing a united utilities uniform) so their clothing wasn’t an issue, the family were please they had made the effort to get there.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I missed my Goddaughter’s 21st because of a dress code - it was fancy dress and none of my family would go with me.

They said they found fancy dress ridiculous and the very idea made them feel foolish and so there was no way that they were doing it. I must say as a complete introvert I wasn’t very happy with the thought myself but I would have done it because of the occasion that it was but there was no way I was going on my own.

The hiring of so many fancy dress outfits would have cost us a small fortune so we were glad to save the money..
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
That's a pity. The whole fun of fancy dress is the concept, as much as the execution. If you had had any black clothes, you could have worn them, clutched a hot water bottle and come as Death Warmed Up. Or a floaty dress and a bunch of onions (The Lady of Shallott). Or - well, you get the idea.

Which is another thing: besides all the semiotics and etiquette and managed expectations, clothes for a celebratory occasion out to be part of the enjoyment. I love an excuse to wear colours and fabrics that are not 'everyday' - not to mention stonking great bits of jewellery (what's known in the trade as 'statement pieces').
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Oh, yeah, much more fun to make your own fancy dress! We have some friends who went to a Titanic party in bin bags with cotton wall balls glued on - they were flies on the wall.

M.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Oh, yeah, much more fun to make your own fancy dress! We have some friends who went to a Titanic party in bin bags with cotton wall balls glued on - they were flies on the wall.

M.

There’s a flaw in that plan – I have no imagination and I’m not creative at all, so even a fancy dress for the children when they were little was enough to send me into anxiety attacks.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
My usual expectations in the UK are that if morning dress is specified, then it's usually only for immediate family and attendants - not for all guests. Only my s-in-law had a morning dress wedding, and knowing our finances was happy to stump up for hire, so I opted for full highland with family tartan which came in at the same price, and which she was v. happy with.

If you actually specified "Morning Dress" on the invitation, then it must apply to all guests. As others have mentioned, it is widely accepted that those without morning dress may wear lounge suits without giving offense. It is worth pointing out that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge specified "Uniform, Morning Coat, or Lounge Suit".

It is, I agree, a fairly common practice to hire morning dress for the wedding party and immediate family and expect the rest of the guests to wear suits, but there would be no need to specify this on the invitation.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I’ve been reminded that a friend was invited to a wedding last year with a vintage theme.

1940’s was specified and guests were expected to dress as they might have done then. She found it a nightmare to find the right sort of clothes. Vintage clothes were too small for her and she had to traipse high and low to find anything modern that was adaptable.

She even had to buy new make up that fitted the era.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is worth pointing out that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge specified "Uniform, Morning Coat, or Lounge Suit".

Yeah, I remember looking at that and thinking: I haven't got any of those - I'll not bother going.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

1940’s was specified and guests were expected to dress as they might have done then.

I would have come as Rosie the Riveter ....
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Etiquette is in my experience a bit of a minefield and can induce sheer panic in me...I grew up in the UK from the age of 10 but a lot of my social understanding was influenced by my East Coast USA family.
So an instruction on an invitation may be irritating but it can also be comforting...or it can be neither, which brings me on to my current dilemma
We have been invited to a "black tie" do back in the UK when we return for our leave. Husband is sorted as his DJ still fits. But things appear to have changed in recent years on the etiquette front and I haven't got a clue what I should wear and that's really stressful.I also look awful in black.I'd prefer not to my choices prescribed but I hate doing the wrong thing so where's my instruction on the invitation so I don't cause offence?!
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
That would be evening dress IMO. In the event that the little thing you wore to the Oscars is at the dry cleaners, a long skirt and top (in the silky/satiny/velvety range) would fit the bill.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

1940’s was specified and guests were expected to dress as they might have done then.

I would have come as Rosie the Riveter ....
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
That would be evening dress IMO. In the event that the little thing you wore to the Oscars is at the dry cleaners, a long skirt and top (in the silky/satiny/velvety range) would fit the bill.

A pedant writes...

that's the etiquette minefield right there though - evening dress does not mean black tie or female equivalent (I go to far too many hunt balls*, clearly)

evening dress = white tie and tails for gents, floor length dress with covered shoulders and gloves to the elbow (tiara if they have one) for the ladies

black tie = black tie (fairly obviously) for the gents and pretty much anything goes for the ladies, although a skirt to just below the knee is more usual, and shoulders are covered during any meal. Backless these days is ok for black tie, although *not* under any circumstances for evening dress.

For most "evening dress" functions, eg Northern Meeting, Oban ball, etc, the impracticality of tails and gloves is ok because it is assumed that you're not going to be dining - you're there after a dinner/house party (when you may well have worn black tie before changing) to dance (until dawn generally IME).

Dining functions (stand fast state banquets and hunts balls) are almost default black tie rather than evening dress. State functions because they can, and hunt balls because the countryside waas as ever a good 100 years behind the curve and people simply didn't have dinner jackets but would have the older white tie stuff. These days, it's just a hangover of do-different.

The balls of the Scottish season are white tie for the Englishmen, highland dress (trews verboten) for the gents, ladies as south of the border but with a sash in the tartan of their father's clan.

*some hunt balls are sketchier than others - one of my regulars is white tie, 5 course meal, and reeling, another is black tie and reeling, and a third is a black tie knees-up in a tent. All, in their own ways, are great.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Sorry Firenze,

I forgot to say in all that, and missed the edit window, that the whole point of black tie is to make the men a uniform canvas to show off the ladies (in all seriousness)- consequently, it doesn't mean you have to wear black, you can wear whatever colour you like. Within the bounds I suggested above if it's a really strict do, and with much more leeway if it isn't, you have full permission by a black tie dress code to wear whatever colour/style you like.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
sorry Hosts, I am aware this is (potentially, unless this crossposts with someone) a triple post and won't do it again - for the sake of clarity I meant MrsBeaky not Firenze!

Obviously not going well today, I will retire to write out 100 times "I must always use the preview post function, never busk it because I think what I've written's ok"

Lesson learned.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Bloody hell. I'm rather relieved that in my social circles I never get invited to these things anyway; I'd not have a clue.

And I hate wearing ties of any kind. Perhaps this is why dress codes rankle me - I'm already compromising a great deal in wearing trousers and a strangulation device. Requiring particular types of trousers, jackets as well (which always make me too hot unless it's January) and particular ties just seems to add insult to injury [Biased]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm already compromising a great deal in wearing trousers and a strangulation device.

So. Preferred mode of dress - kilt? Djellaba? Thin coating of woad?
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Mrs Beaky, I go to a few black-tie events (not so many evening dress ones, alas), and I would say think cocktail dress, although long frocks also often seen.

M.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm already compromising a great deal in wearing trousers and a strangulation device.

So. Preferred mode of dress - kilt? Djellaba? Thin coating of woad?
Jeans.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I hate wearing ties of any kind. Perhaps this is why dress codes rankle me - I'm already compromising a great deal in wearing trousers and a strangulation device.

My good fellow, if your tie is strangling you, you have tied it too tightly.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is worth pointing out that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge specified "Uniform, Morning Coat, or Lounge Suit".

Yeah, I remember looking at that and thinking: I haven't got any of those - I'll not bother going.
That's not very enterprising - you could have worn your French Maid's uniform.

As a singer, dress codes can be a bit of a minefield. Fortunately, you are only likely to have to wear white tie kit if you are a principal soloist at a pretty spiffy concert. Next tier down is even more difficult to guess. It could be anything from black trousers and black open-necked shirt, to DJ but with a colour-coded bow tie (women's equivalent here was black dress with colour-coded scarf to match the men's ties). You just have to ask for details.

Karl - sorry I promised you a bit on the semiotics of this but haven't. I've got my daughter w/grandson visiting. I'll still try to shell something out if I can.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Are you sure that backless dresses /uncovered shoulders are out for white tie events, Betjemaniac (or are you only referring to highland balls, where the custom may be different)? Pretty sure I've seen plenty of pics of people who ought to know, in backless/ shoulderless full evening dresses. (Mind you, the one that I seem to be thinking of is of Margaret Duchess of Argyll, who was hardly a guide to good form in any matter.)
Oh, and I've heard that white tie with highland evening dress is OK if you are from Perthshire- is that right?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Are you sure that backless dresses /uncovered shoulders are out for white tie events, Betjemaniac (or are you only referring to highland balls, where the custom may be different)? Pretty sure I've seen plenty of pics of people who ought to know, in backless/ shoulderless full evening dresses. (Mind you, the one that I seem to be thinking of is of Margaret Duchess of Argyll, who was hardly a guide to good form in any matter.)
Oh, and I've heard that white tie with highland evening dress is OK if you are from Perthshire- is that right?

Form's form. Re people who ought to know, its often better to assume they ought to know better (and your example, as you say, was er....).

Let's put it this way, one "ought" to have covered shoulders, and, if one needs to ask, that is what one will be told (or, in the sniffier places, handed a shawl). At that sort of thing, if you've got the self confidence to bend the rules,* then you'll get away with it but most don't have that. Equally, if you're pukka top 0.1%, you do what you want anyway.

*NB, bend not break - broken rules do not raise eyebrows so much as bring down tons of bricks (as manifested in your departure in a taxi at worst, and your party host not being allowed to bring a party in future - admittedly this is more for the invitation season balls (free to those that are asked, unavailable to those that aren't) than the charity ones you'd pay to attend)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I hate wearing ties of any kind. Perhaps this is why dress codes rankle me - I'm already compromising a great deal in wearing trousers and a strangulation device.

My good fellow, if your tie is strangling you, you have tied it too tightly.
's psychological. Feel like I'm being strangled as soon as the pointless strip of cloth goes round the neck.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh, I see. By strangulation device you mean a tie. Because you mentioned it in connection with trousers, I assumed you meant some kind of undergarment, probably constructed of straps and rings, which you wore for your own private delectation... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Many threads on the Ship have altered my outlook on their topic. This isn't one of them. The heart of many dress codes is classism and exclusion. Yes, even I will concede to general guidelines,* but in the main it is rubbish.
Full disclosure: I am a great fan of Mr. Strauss' contribution to couture.


* I've seen garments at weddings and funerals more suited to a "gentlemen's" club.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Quentin Crisp said that the difference between manners and etiquette was that manners are inclusive and etiquette is exclusive. So if you provide a dress code to help people decide what to wear and generally feel comfortable by fitting in, but will welcome them if they turn up dressed otherwise, that is inclusive. Similarly, if as a guest you know that your host would really rather that you dressed in a certain way and you do so, against your own inclinations, because you value your host and wish to please them (like me with that hired morning coat), that is inclusive.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I like that, Albertus. It is reasonable and thoughtful.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Quentin Crisp said that the difference between manners and etiquette was that manners are inclusive and etiquette is exclusive. So if you provide a dress code to help people decide what to wear and generally feel comfortable by fitting in, but will welcome them if they turn up dressed otherwise, that is inclusive. Similarly, if as a guest you know that your host would really rather that you dressed in a certain way and you do so, against your own inclinations, because you value your host and wish to please them (like me with that hired morning coat), that is inclusive.

But that also the includes the proviso "and can afford to do so", which means there's still exclusivity there.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Quentin Crisp said that the difference between manners and etiquette was that manners are inclusive and etiquette is exclusive. So if you provide a dress code to help people decide what to wear and generally feel comfortable by fitting in, but will welcome them if they turn up dressed otherwise, that is inclusive. Similarly, if as a guest you know that your host would really rather that you dressed in a certain way and you do so, against your own inclinations, because you value your host and wish to please them (like me with that hired morning coat), that is inclusive.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of that - I've just been following the etiquette tangent because I'm familiar with the answers. Not particularly to defend/extol it.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

What bothers me about Jade’s position (it’s all about making everything as easy and enjoyable as possible for guests) is that ISTM that the couple may be asked unfairly to sacrifice too many of their own expectations. To take a generalised expectation of just about all concerned for a French wedding: there will be a very nice - and extremely lengthy - dinner. This dinner is expensive, eye-poppingly so if you organise it in Paris. Were we getting married in Paris we would be looking at 100€ a head. Consequently we are getting married some considerable distance away in the South West, where the price is about half that. While we are going to do our best to minimise the cost for people (car sharing, staying with family, allowing people to put up their tent in the back garden if they don’t want to pay for the hotel), there is definitely going to be expense involved for the people who have to travel. The alternative is not to invite them and have a dinner in Paris with considerably less people. Jade says we could go to the pub, but that fits with no one’s expectations, including ours. It isn’t a zero-sum game. I also don’t think you should sacrifice all of your expectations on one of the most important days of your life. Some of them, certainly. The question is which ones.

But I think what you are describing is sacrificing the guests' expectation of not having to travel for the guests' expectation of a big dinner. Whereas Jade is describing sacrificing the guests' expectation of limited travel expenses for the sake of the couple's expectation of a beach wedding in the Bahamas, or somewhere similar.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But that also the includes the proviso "and can afford to do so", which means there's still exclusivity there.

Depends on where you are willing to shop. I've a homeless friend who suits up for less than a tenner. Now this would not work for Annabelle's or Whites, but he meets most requirements this way.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But that also the includes the proviso "and can afford to do so", which means there's still exclusivity there.

Depends on where you are willing to shop. I've a homeless friend who suits up for less than a tenner. Now this would not work for Annabelle's or Whites, but he meets most requirements this way.
White's no, Annabelle's, these days, he'd probably be one of the few people in there worth talking to, and no problem getting in with a member.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Annabelle's? Whites? What are these?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Gentlemen's clubs of the non-euphemistic type.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
It's Independence Day here in the USA where most people wear T-Shirts and shorts to the celebratory functions, but I have too many scars on my left leg for shorts, so would probably wear jeans, but I know from experience that a number of people would feel moved to come up to me and say, "Aren't you hot in that?"

This thread has increased my agoraphobia by at least 50%. I shall remain home in morning clothes (bathrobe and slippers)indefinitely.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gentlemen's clubs of the non-euphemistic type.

Annabelle's is a night club. These days full of Russian and Arab oligarchs and hangers-on.

White's is a different kettle of fish, but only because it's still very much members only, and difficult to get into even as a guest. If, for some reason, your friend happened to cross paths with a member then they'd probably get in ok. It's more that there are so few members that the odds of path crossing are quite slim.

Acting on (slight) knowledge/experience of White's and (better) knowledge/experience of Annabelle's I'd be tempted to wager that the number of homeless people to have visited White's a guest is higher than the number that have visited Annabelle's as one, but then that's just a suspicion based on the prejudices of the newer-money set vs the old one. Hypothetically, your friend would have a much better night out in White's I reckon, and dress wouldn't matter so much (provided he had a suit on, provenance really wouldn't matter).

On a tangent off a tangent, one of the St James's clubs with strong links to the armed forces has as it's adopted charity Veterans Aid, and raises a pretty decent amount of money for work with homeless veterans.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Quentin Crisp said that the difference between manners and etiquette was that manners are inclusive and etiquette is exclusive. So if you provide a dress code to help people decide what to wear and generally feel comfortable by fitting in, but will welcome them if they turn up dressed otherwise, that is inclusive. Similarly, if as a guest you know that your host would really rather that you dressed in a certain way and you do so, against your own inclinations, because you value your host and wish to please them (like me with that hired morning coat), that is inclusive.

But that also the includes the proviso "and can afford to do so", which means there's still exclusivity there.
Well, that's where part one of what I said comes in.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, I see. By strangulation device you mean a tie. Because you mentioned it in connection with trousers, I assumed you meant some kind of undergarment, probably constructed of straps and rings, which you wore for your own private delectation... [Big Grin]

*PFOOMPF!*

ChastMastr suddenly appears in a cloud of smoke, as if unexpectedly summoned like a genie.

What the--?? I swear, I was minding my own business, and... look, it's like someone saying "Beetlejuice" three times, or looking in a mirror, saying "Candyman" or "Bloody Mary."

Carry on, then...

*foomp!*
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I have clearly been meddling with forces that i do not understand. [Eek!]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
betjemaniac (and others), thank you for the guidance. To complicate matters further the black tie do is actually a wedding and someone else has told me that apparently at such an occasion other rules apply but no-one quite knows what they are....
Oh well I'll hang on to what Albertussaid about the difference between manners and etiquette.
Hey ho!
 
Posted by Deputy Verger (# 15876) on :
 
… bringing this gently back to the question posed by La Vie en Rouge…

I’m in a similar situation right now, going to a fancy wedding of a friend later this month, and although she didn’t specify a dress code on the invitation, she has told me informally that she knows a few friends and rellies are wearing black and she is in accord with LVeR that it feels a bit funereal and she hopes “not everyone” will trot out the LBD.

Almost all my clothes are black – casual, professional and formal. In the winter I get dressed by feeling the texture of things because I can’t see what’s what! Certainly when one is carrying a few extra pounds/kilos, black is one’s friend. And my problem is compounded by the Perfect Borrowed Hat, in black and cream.

I know the bride won’t really notice many of us beyond the wedding party, but I don’t want to depress her, so I am looking for something to ensure that I am not in, as someone put it, “unrelieved” black.

I tend to agree with the posters who have opined that “no black” is a bit officious and might put people off attending, but something like “Dress code: smart with splashes of colour” would be more encouraging.

I also have to go to a very formal event a month later. I might yet spring for something that will do double-duty. Ideally it would be black-and-some other colour (not pastel, because that doesn’t work for me, and not floral), maybe two-or-three-tone. (It still has to go with the Perfect Hat!)

In my world, and in 2014, wearing black as a wedding guest is nowhere near as wrong as wearing white. Black-and-white, however, as a colour combo, is very much in fashion (ie available) at the moment. I've seen a few weddings recently (as a bellringer) where the majority of female guests wore very nice black and white print dresses. The effect is not remotely funereal.

Sorry if I have just disabused anyone of the idea that I am a bloke.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Am I terribly arrogant in saying that I will wear WTF I like, and if anyone has a problem with that, then that is indeed their problem?

Just to clarify, I tend to wear black (suit/shirt/tie/overcoat/hat) to anything formal e.g. church/wedding/funeral, and jeans/casual shirt/pullover (if it's cold) to everything else.


Ian J.
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
When Mr Shrew and I got married, we had several dress code enquiries. We replied (genuinely meaning it) "whatever you want to wear, there will be children attending and a dance". This seemed to satisfy people who wanted guidance (as long as it wasn't offensive*, we didn't mind).
If I had had a preference, I would have felt it perfectly reasonable to make a request such as in the OP. In planning the day, we put a huge amount of time into making sure everyone would have fun and enjoy it and any requirements were catered for that it seems only fair to be able to make dress code requests.

Otoh I don't know that people listening to them is guaranteed. One of my university friends is a Sikh. For her wedding, at the Gudwara, covering to elbows, knees and not low necklines, plus a scarf available for covering head for ceremony were included in the invitation to all non - Sikh friends, and a supply of spare scarves for heads was available when we arrived.
She took it in good humour when one of our other friends arrived in shorts and t shirt with no head covering, and his girlfriend in hotpants that would have made you blush even on a beach and the tiniest vest you ever saw had no head covering either. I found it astonishingly offensive that he did so, as she had clearly explained the importance of the dress code.

*we are pretty hard to offend-clothes more than underwear and with no outright rude slogans is sufficient
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Am I terribly arrogant in saying that I will wear WTF I like, and if anyone has a problem with that, then that is indeed their problem?.

Maybe not terribly but perhaps a teensy-weensy bit? I speak as someone who is both resistant to conformity and exiled from it insofar as few providers of readymade clothing have fat old women as their target demographic.

Nevertheless, if avoiding a particular colour would gratify a friend, then perhaps one might compromise ones fearless individuality just a little?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I watched an episode of "Doc Martin," the other night where he and Louisa attended an outdoor summer concert followed by an indoor, very posh reception. Louisa wore a black and white dress and all but a few of the women seemed to be wearing black in some part, if not entirely.

It's that sort of thing that makes me think the "black is so funereal," is really just in the heads of a few people these days. It's been over a hundred years since people dressed in black for a long mourning period. Yes, we do still wear black at funerals but we also wear it to picnics and baby christenings and birthday parties.

I know a woman who shudders when anyone wears purple because it's "the color of death." I've heard people say that women over thirty wearing pink are, "mutton dressed as lamb," yellow makes everyone sallow, beige is dull and boring, blue is so depressing it's slang for sad. Red is for harlots and white is for brides only. Could we wear green maybe?
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
Not to a wedding, Twilight - green's unlucky at weddings. [Biased]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Why? It's the color of fertility. [Biased]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Am I terribly arrogant in saying that I will wear WTF I like, and if anyone has a problem with that, then that is indeed their problem?

Yes. And, ref Orfeo's previous post, it suggests you are a misanthrope, which is your problem.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Not to a wedding, Twilight - green's unlucky at weddings. [Biased]

Only for the bride, surely - "Marry in green, shame to be seen."

Green is fine for guests.

I agree with LVER - black is for funerals. However, I think that a scattering of black dresses amongst a larger group of colourful dresses won't look funereal.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Not to a wedding, Twilight - green's unlucky at weddings. [Biased]

Only for the bride, surely - "Marry in green, shame to be seen."

Was this not, at its root, an anti-Irish sentiment? Like the "Red and Green should not be seen ..." one?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I speak as someone who is both resistant to conformity and exiled from it insofar as few providers of readymade clothing have fat old women as their target demographic.

[Killing me]

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

Nevertheless, if avoiding a particular colour would gratify a friend, then perhaps one might compromise ones fearless individuality just a little?

Isn't that kind of compromise what getting on with friends and family is all about? No just as regards dress sense either.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I would think it a bit odd, having never had a wedding invitation that specified 'no black', but it wouldn't bother me. People often have parties where they want people to dress in a certain way - fancy dress, for instance, or formal. As I don't have much idea about social norms regarding clothes, I find a bit of guidance quite handy - although I also don't have a lot of clothes, and my clothes are simple and inexpensive, and I wouldn't go out and buy something just for one occasion. But not wearing black wouldn't fall into that category - I have clothes that are not black.

I don't think wearing black to weddings is rude per se, but if you know a person interprets it as rude, then it is showing consideration to not wear it to their wedding day. Just like you may not be being rude when you use the word 'fuck', but if you know your grandma finds it really offensive, you might avoid saying it in front of her. Or you may not be intending shouting when you use ALL CAPS, but if you know that certain people online interpret it that way, you might choose not to use them (even if you find them easier to read and would prefer to use them).

Much of life is about illogical etiquette rules that are simply accepted codes that society agrees upon. And often certain people have one code and others have another. Being courteous is about understanding this and being able to adapt. I'd far rather someone specified their preference for 'no black' than neglected to specify it and then got all offended that people were rude enough to wear black.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
Funny that you should suggest it is anti-Irish, Boogie - I nearly replied to Miss Amanda to say that it seems to be an Irish thing! I grew up with it, but it didn't seem to be well known outside first or second generation Irish circles. No one without Irish relations in Australia seemed to know it when I moved here, for example. I was beginning to doubt myself until an Irish acquaintance here mentioned it.

I should add - unlucky for guests as well as the bride.

[ 06. July 2014, 09:15: Message edited by: Kittyville ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Green is the colour associated with the fairy folk, but I wasn't aware of any problem with any Irish person wearing Ireland's national colour. Come St Patrick's Day you can usually spot the expatriates or those of Irish descent, even if they're not wearing large clumps of shamrock, silly hats or a badge with a picture of a drunken leprechaun holding a pint and grinning. They'll be the ones wearing something green, and my understanding is that it's regarded as a lucky colour. Certainly I always treat it as such.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Green is the colour associated with the fairies/elves/piskies, as Ariel says. For those who worried about attracting their attention, wearing green was considered unlucky at all times, not just at weddings (if you don't understand why anyone would be worried about the Elves noticing them, try reading Terry Pratchett's 'Lords and Ladies' sometime).

I was once told that the reason for the taboo against wearing red and green together was that jesters were traditionally dressed in red and green, but I don't know how true this is. Or, if it is true, why jesters were dressed in red and green in the first place.

[ 06. July 2014, 09:34: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Sarees are clearly the answer .
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I rather like the salwar kameez myself.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Green is the colour associated with the fairies/elves/piskies, as Ariel says. For those who worried about attracting their attention, wearing green was considered unlucky at all times...

Still is in some parts. I still come across people who, offered something in a choice of colours, won't pick green "because it's unlucky".

Next time you're out, have a look at a) the cars you see on the road, and b) what colours people are wearing. In Britain, blue, black, grey, white and red will very likely be almost everywhere (and pink for little girls), while green will probably only appear occasionally, with only yellow being even less popular and appearing once, um, in a blue moon.

[ 06. July 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
My bridesmaids were in green. We tried to match the green stripe in my husband's kilt, though as it was the 1980s and my bridesmaids were in shiny, shiny satiny material, the match might not have been that obvious. My flowers were white with green ribbons.

My daughter and I were bridesmaids last year, both in green; pale mint green with a jade green inverted pleat for her and jade green with a pale mint green inverted pleat for me.
 
Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
I chose green for my bridesmaids back in 1969 and was warned that this would attract bad luck . We are still married 45 years later - not sure if this proves or disproves the rule! You would have to ask Mr H.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Sarees are clearly the answer .

I got one in bright orange/green/brown for a friend's wedding. I was told by the sari shop lady to not wear any black (including in watch straps and shoes) and when I get there, an Indian lady on my table is in a sari in black with silver accents.

The other forbidden colour combo was red/gold, as that is worn by the bride. It's also getting to be that white is unacceptable, due mainly to western sensibilities.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

Next time you're out, have a look at a) the cars you see on the road, and b) what colours people are wearing. In Britain, blue, black, grey, white and red will very likely be almost everywhere (and pink for little girls), while green will probably only appear occasionally, with only yellow being even less popular and appearing once, um, in a blue moon.

Unless you are in or near Yorkshire this weekend. You can't see for yellow round here!
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Next time you're out, have a look at a) the cars you see on the road, and b) what colours people are wearing. In Britain, blue, black, grey, white and red will very likely be almost everywhere (and pink for little girls), while green will probably only appear occasionally, with only yellow being even less popular and appearing once, um, in a blue moon.

Surely that's more about the colour of coats people wear, given that the weather in Britain generally requires wearing a coat. Coats do seem to be in restricted colours, but clothes in general don't, specially not in summer.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
One of my pet peeves - the colours of winter outerwear. Sludge, drizzle, dun, sleech, dreich and navy. You have the same palette for acres of menswear, for women's trousers, for shoes.

It's not as if we're living in coal-fired cities where you have to wear something that doesn't show the dirt, so why not colours?
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
I prefer having a dark coat, so that it will go with whatever I am wearing. Unless you have several coats, it wouldn't really make sense to have, say, a bright green one. Makes more sense to have a variety of colourful scarves and hats and gloves.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Surely that's more about the colour of coats people wear, given that the weather in Britain generally requires wearing a coat. Coats do seem to be in restricted colours, but clothes in general don't, specially not in summer.

No - I'd say it applies in summer as well. Judging by what I've seen over this weekend, beige can be added to the summerwear palette, but otherwise, it's still blues, greys, whites, reds and blacks. I don't know who does buy the other colours (other than me, I like my colours) but there certainly aren't many of them to be seen on the street.

And speaking of Victorian values, with the exception of red and inclusion of brown which seems less popular these days, these were all considered safe, respectable colours to wear in those days. Only a fast hussy would wear scarlet. You could get away with other colours on a summer dress, but bright colours were considered vulgar and it was better to stick to more muted shades or pastels.

Until, of course, the Aesthetic Movement came along and introduced the wonders of peacock's colours and other things - but that never really became mainstream in clothing. Brighter colours didn't really take off until the Sixties, when there was a kind of explosion of colour - a sort of reaction against the dullness of austerity and the restrictions of wartime, and the excitement of discovering tie-dye and wacky, sometimes lurid Oriental designs.

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
One of my pet peeves - the colours of winter outerwear. Sludge, drizzle, dun, sleech, dreich and navy. You have the same palette for acres of menswear, for women's trousers, for shoes.

It's not as if we're living in coal-fired cities where you have to wear something that doesn't show the dirt, so why not colours?

I agree. In the most dismal, dark, depressing time of year, this is when you need bright colours.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

Until, of course, the Aesthetic Movement came along and introduced the wonders of peacock's colours and other things -

Nyerm.

greenery-yallery, Grosvenor Gallery
Foot-in-the-grave young man


After the discovery of aniline dyes mid-century, later Victorian clothing was fairly strident. The Aesthetes were great ones for the night and the light and the half-light. In one of Margaret Oliphant's novels the heroine is appearing in an 'aesthetic' dress and we are given access to her thoughts about how it's unconventional sad colour is lifted by the gold thread in the accompanying shawl. She's cutting edge fashion and she knows it.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
No - I'd say it applies in summer as well. Judging by what I've seen over this weekend, beige can be added to the summerwear palette, but otherwise, it's still blues, greys, whites, reds and blacks. I don't know who does buy the other colours (other than me, I like my colours) but there certainly aren't many of them to be seen on the street.

Well, I'll have to take a look and see if this applies to where I live. I may be wrong, because I've never purposely looked to see the ratios of people wearing different colours, but it's always seemed to me that people wear all kinds of colourful things in summer, and I'm sure I've noticed this in the past couple of weeks too. Maybe it depends where in the UK you live. And maybe it depends on social class. Or maybe I've just not noticed this focus on blue, grey, white, red and black. Well, black, white and grey, yes, because they are good as base colours, which go with most colours, so it makes sense if you have a pair of trousers for work to have black ones, because they can go with a variety of different coloured tops. But in summer, women often wear colourful skirts and dresses. I will take a look tomorrow when I go into town.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Pale and mint green shades are some of the most fashionable colours for bridesmaid dresses at the moment, along with grey and coral. Softer lavender shades of purple are also popular.

I have winter colouring so wear emerald green a lot, when I can find it, along with scarlet and royal blue. I wear yellow if I can find it in a cooler-toned, lemony yellow rather than mustard (which is often fashionable around autumn/winter).

I am also surprised at the comment about coats not coming in bright colours - I see brightly-coloured coats all the time once it's coat weather, and I own one. I'm also not afraid to colour-block, so happy to wear my red coat with a blue dress for example.
 
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :
 
I'm totally with you on not wearing black to a wedding, and am still surprised and a bit shocked when people do. (At 'conventional' British weddings at least.) Personally I think it's fine to express that on the invite, though it may be worth adding an explanation, as you did in the OP.

This thread is fascinating.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
When I married in the 1980's I was looking at green material for the bridesmaids and was told in the shop that green was unlucky for weddings. So it is an enduring superstition in some circles.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When I married in the 1980's I was looking at green material for the bridesmaids and was told in the shop that green was unlucky for weddings. So it is an enduring superstition in some circles.

I don't think it's the case for modern bridesmaid dresses looking at popular bridesmaid dress colours (very few wedding party dresses being homemade nowadays). Bear in mind that the 80s were 30 years ago now!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yangtze:
I'm totally with you on not wearing black to a wedding, and am still surprised and a bit shocked when people do. (At 'conventional' British weddings at least.) Personally I think it's fine to express that on the invite, though it may be worth adding an explanation, as you did in the OP.

This thread is fascinating.

Speaking personally, as someone who doesn't go to formal events very often, the smartest type of clothing I own is office workwear - and black is the default colour for this. A black shift dress is smarter than a blue sun dress, because it's made from smarter fabric - at least that's how I'd look at it.

For the most recent wedding I went to, I wore a black dress just because it was the smartest dress I own - I didn't have much choice!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Actually, come to think of it Mrs A used to wear a couple of black dresses she'd made herself to (perfectly trad UK middle class) weddings, and was always complimented on them.

[ 06. July 2014, 21:42: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
At the most recent wedding I am close enough to get invited to the hen do, she cut the cake with an axe - I think you could have got away with wearing black to the wedding.

What I find slightly odd is people finding they are repeatedly asked to such dos, without having a suit or non-black or whatever - and I tend to think, well if you'd bought one the first time - you'd be sorted.

Also, for women, non- black is really not hard to get by borrowing, oxfam or primark.

You can get some of these for £12

Personally, I'd go with cobalt.

Actually I'd probably wear smartish trousers and a coloured shirt.

[ 06. July 2014, 21:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
At the most recent wedding I am close enough to get invited to the hen do, she cut the cake with an axe - I think you could have got away with wearing black to the wedding.

What I find slightly odd is people finding they are repeatedly asked to such dos, without having a suit or non-black or whatever - and I tend to think, well if you'd bought one the first time - you'd be sorted.

Also, for women, non- black is really not hard to get by borrowing, oxfam or primark.

You can get some of these for £12

Personally, I'd go with cobalt.

Actually I'd probably wear smartish trousers and a coloured shirt.

Primark does not do my size, tricky to find my size in charity shops. I'm not sure any of those Boohoo clothes are smart enough for a wedding? I wore a skater dress to the last wedding I attended but felt too informal.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I'd have the maxi jersey dress would be fine.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
We could have saved five pages of posts if we still had Ask Sine.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Also, for women, non- black is really not hard to get by borrowing, oxfam or primark.

At the last-wedding-but-one I attended, my dress cost £15 from a charity shop, though I bought a hat from Marks and Spencers for £20 or £25 as well.

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


quote:
Bear in mind that the 80s were 30 years ago now!
If you see my 1980s wedding photos, with the bridesmaids in green shiny satin, it's hard to forget that it was another sartorial age then. Although the men, in kilts, could wear exactly the same outfits today and would look smart and undated.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
NEQ:
quote:
If you see my 1980s wedding photos, with the bridesmaids in green shiny satin, it's hard to forget that it was another sartorial age then. Although the men, in kilts, could wear exactly the same outfits today and would look smart and undated.
My wedding photos don't look too bad. The sleeves on the dresses are a bit OTT to modern eyes (those great big puffy elbow-length sleeves were in then) but apart from that the main differences are hairstyles and glasses. Huge insectoid glasses that covered half your face were fashionable.

My bridesmaids were in green too. Green is my favourite colour and so far, Queen Mab has not made her displeasure known [Two face] I even had a green car a few years ago.

The true purpose of wedding photos is to give your grandchildren a good laugh at the outdated fashions.

[ 07. July 2014, 08:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
If your best dress is black, you could always add a bright-colored scarf.

Moo
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
No - I'd say it applies in summer as well. Judging by what I've seen over this weekend, beige can be added to the summerwear palette, but otherwise, it's still blues, greys, whites, reds and blacks. I don't know who does buy the other colours (other than me, I like my colours) but there certainly aren't many of them to be seen on the street.

Ariel, I looked at what people were wearing when I went shopping in Asda today - a lot of purples, yellows, and peach colour. Much more of those colours than red or blue. I think your observation doesn't apply throughout the whole of the UK.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When I married in the 1980's I was looking at green material for the bridesmaids and was told in the shop that green was unlucky for weddings. So it is an enduring superstition in some circles.

I don't think it's the case for modern bridesmaid dresses looking at popular bridesmaid dress colours (very few wedding party dresses being homemade nowadays). Bear in mind that the 80s were 30 years ago now!
I have heard the superstition recently too, and in any age there are people who don't go with superstition but for many it comes out at times like weddings.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Ariel, I looked at what people were wearing when I went shopping in Asda today - a lot of purples, yellows, and peach colour. Much more of those colours than red or blue. I think your observation doesn't apply throughout the whole of the UK.

I wondered how you'd get on - interesting result. There could be various underlying factors to explain the difference. Football shirts and saris apart, of course.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You know, people bang on about charity shops, but I've yet to find any item of clothing in one that I wanted to buy, formal or otherwise. I understand that they take all the stuff to central warehouses and then distribute it back to the shops where they think it'll sell; clearly Watford, Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham (where I've lived for the last 25 years) are considered too crap to send anything decent to.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Not even jeans ?
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, people bang on about charity shops, but I've yet to find any item of clothing in one that I wanted to buy, formal or otherwise. I understand that they take all the stuff to central warehouses and then distribute it back to the shops where they think it'll sell; clearly Watford, Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham (where I've lived for the last 25 years) are considered too crap to send anything decent to.

Try the Shelter in Broomhill, that used to be good.

I think the problem with men's clothes is that we tend to have fewer clothes and wear them out before turning them into dusters, so they're well and truly past it by the time we get rid of them.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Most of my clothes come from charity shops, and my daughter buys from them, too. But when I've been charity shop shopping with my son, the men's bit has always been very poor, with much less choice. Perhaps women tend to have a clear out and donate more often than men?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, people bang on about charity shops, but I've yet to find any item of clothing in one that I wanted to buy, formal or otherwise. I understand that they take all the stuff to central warehouses and then distribute it back to the shops where they think it'll sell; clearly Watford, Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham (where I've lived for the last 25 years) are considered too crap to send anything decent to.

Try the Shelter in Broomhill, that used to be good.

I think the problem with men's clothes is that we tend to have fewer clothes and wear them out before turning them into dusters, so they're well and truly past it by the time we get rid of them.

There is a chain of second-hand clothing stores in the Atlantic provinces called Frenchy's, and in 1998 I picked up two Brook's Brothers suits there for $150 each. Clothing jobbers cheerfully clear out warehouses of clothing from manufacturers and estate sales; one of the distinct advantages of men's formal clothing is that it does not date easily, and can often be altered to be more current without much cost and trouble.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oxfam online have some good stuff. Easily found through their main website.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Ariel, I looked at what people were wearing when I went shopping in Asda today - a lot of purples, yellows, and peach colour. Much more of those colours than red or blue. I think your observation doesn't apply throughout the whole of the UK.

I wondered how you'd get on - interesting result. There could be various underlying factors to explain the difference. Football shirts and saris apart, of course.
No saris - not much ethnic diversity where I live. I'm sure some people were wearing football shirts, but those weren't the purples, yellows or peach colours I observed. Those were just normal shirts or tee-shirts or vest tops. Most were pastel-y, especially the purples. I think a lot of people wear pastels in summer where I live, now I think about it.

Maybe it depends on whether people are working - people may wear darker colours to work, to look smarter. There's lots of unemployment and people on benefits where I live.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Most of my clothes come from charity shops, and my daughter buys from them, too. But when I've been charity shop shopping with my son, the men's bit has always been very poor, with much less choice. Perhaps women tend to have a clear out and donate more often than men?

I think it takes a keen eye to sort thru the chaff and identify the wheat. When I walk into a charity shop (we call them "thrift stores" in the US) I never see anything worth even pulling off the rack. My daughter, though, has the uncanny ability to walk in and look through a rack filled with misshapen tired old 80s has-beens and pull out the one or two wonderful things that will look incredible on her. It's a gift-- but not one everyone has, so no use saying "just go to a charity shop".
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I do not know all shipmates are in areas where they have consignment shops or second-hand clothing shops which specialize in estate sales. During my working years, when I needed ties and dress shirts, I often found what I needed in Kensington Market in Toronto. Courage My Love was my favourite for years, and women friends often bought the handsewn shirts of dead plutocrats for they were very good quality and, with a bit of tailoring, could make them the best-dressed woman in the room.

Formal dress clothes are often very well-made and last for decades and should you find a good set, will keep you the rest of your life. When I was a student in Ireland in the 1970s, many impoverished students happily wore dinner jackets from the 1920s, courtesy of recently-deceased uncles. Indeed, I knew several students, too skint for meals, who would simply put on dinner jackets and crash corporate, professional, or embassy dinners. Having established themselves as amusing young table companions, they soon found themselves welcomed by organizers, rather than put into the hands of the Gardai. I well recall the enjoyment we had when faced with a photograph on the front page of the Irish Times, with a cheerful medical student dinner crasher meeting the then President of Italy.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, people bang on about charity shops, but I've yet to find any item of clothing in one that I wanted to buy, formal or otherwise.

IME, the best ones are in posh areas. Mind you, they tend to be good or the sort of clothes that I expect you wouldn't want. For example, most of my ties (which I need for my line of work) are 100% silk, from charity shops, and cost me about 2-3 pounds each. I also bought a Crombie winter overcoat, new, for 10 pounds. I bought all those things in shops in flash areas. Where I live isn't flash, and all I find in the local charity shops is a miasmic, musty smell.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
One of my pet peeves - the colours of winter outerwear. Sludge, drizzle, dun, sleech, dreich and navy. You have the same palette for acres of menswear, for women's trousers, for shoes.

I totally agree, which is why the raincoat I had made for me recently is purple. It actually cost about the same price as some of the jackets I've seen in the outdoor wear shops, but has the advantage of fitting me perfectly. Wearing it lifts my spirits on a dull day and it coped very well in a recent hail storm.

I am seriously considering a jacket made by the same woman, which I might have made in green. She does a bright pink too, but that's too much like the high vis fluro that has sprouted up everywhere here since the quakes.

Huia
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not even jeans ?

Only the elasticated waist ones you're allowed to wear after the age of 75.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Cod I have always sworn that there is a special air freshener called 'eau de charity shop' they all smell the same.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Lots of bright coats round here last winter, it prompted me to buy a new one, a lovely orange toned red. Mind you, my spring coat is a clear mustard with a small self coloured acorn brocade and my favourite colour to wear is green (which my bridesmaid also wore) so I'm probably not the most representative of people. I like to express my mania through my clothes...
Re: the wedding, it's your gig so you get to choose, IMO. A relative of mine had a themed black and red wedding with ball gowns and masques [Smile]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
When I worked in a charity shop, anything above a particular size (which was smaller than my size) was just not stocked as it was seen as taking up space that better-selling stock could use. This was a charity shop for a large national charity and got a lot of new/end-of-line stock from places like M&S, with less room for donated goods. If you're an awkward shape or size, charity shops are largely useless for clothes.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When I worked in a charity shop, anything above a particular size (which was smaller than my size) was just not stocked as it was seen as taking up space that better-selling stock could use

Well that explains a lot!!!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
My best charity shop experience was when I had to rush over the width of England when my mother went into hospital, and I hadn't taken much with me as the hospital had said "come now". I am at the higher end of the size range. The shop had a whole set of things that were my size and my style and very good condition - two blouses, one of which I have on now (after 1997), a very good green woollen jacket with the pockets uncut, and there must have been a skirt as well. They looked as though they had all come in from the same person, and I think they had come in that day. Very occasionally I do get the feeling that things have been arranged for me, and am appropriately thankful.

I think that Oxfam has a local distribution system before sending things to their central place, as I have seen my donations in my local shop at times.

On the green front - it is one of my colours. Years ago, in the seventies, I think, I made myself a crochet top in a fine green mohair yarn. It wasn't particularly seethrough, but it did not need white underwear under it, so I sent to the local clothes shop (the old fashioned sort with drawers behind a glass display counter) and asked about green bras. The quite young lady assistant was visibly shocked. "We don't stock those, that would be unlucky!" That was in the Kentish Weald, from whence I thought, as in Kipling, all the phariseeses had flitted.
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"Dear friends and family, we are getting married by the Archdruid of Britain on the top of Glastonbury Tor at sunrise on June 21st 2015. Dress: skyclad."

You realise this actually happens, right?

Well, okay, it wouldn't be sunrise on the Solstice because there wouldn't be room; there are too many other rituals and parties going on there then. I was at them this year myself. And skyclad would be unusual, and it would probably be an ordinary Druid priest rather than actual Rollo Maughfling. But the kind of thing you're sending up absolutely happens. I have some friends who frequently preside over handfastings like these.

Anyway. I love weddings and I'd want to make my friends happy so frankly I'd wear whatever the hell I was asked to, but "no black" would make me grumpy and unhappy and like I was personally being got at on account of being The Only Goth At The Wedding or something and I'd feel both anxious and contrary about it. I wouldn't *do* anything; I'd get on with it and follow orders. But I'd dislike it.

I shall be maid of honour to a dear friend in a few weeks time, and at her behest am wearing black with red accents to compliment her, as she'll be in red with black accents :-)

[ 16. July 2014, 12:08: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I can't speak for Doc Tor, but I am aware that pagan handfasting ceremonies take place; I was merely suggesting that requiring all the guests to come skyclad would be foolhardy in this climate...

I'd have thought Beltane would be a more appropriate date for a handfasting, anyway.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Suppose you do specify "No black clothing, please"? How far will you go to enforce this? Will the ushers turn away those who are dressed in black? I assume this is going to be a "church wedding". You could have black-wearers placed in the back row, like it or not.

I'd rather see a black dress than a tasteless cocktail dress, strapless, backless, and slit up to you-know-where.

L*R mentioned no-white. This was the only regulation I've known. It was the bride's privilege to wear white, with no competition.

"Next Sunday is Pentecost. Wear RED!"
"St. Patrick's Day- Wear GREEN!" Being told this in the church announcements is annoying to me, and just doesn't seem to fit into the reason why people turn up at church. I don't have red, except for something I'd wear to a picnic, or to bed. Ladies don't wear gloves and hats any more. Let 'em wear black. And don't mention attire on your invitation.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Exactly because of this reason, Dutch weddings usually have a 'master of ceremony'. In the modern day this is normally a sister of the bride (when available). She has the task of communicating wishes like this to the guests.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
Thanks to whoever it was asked What IS a lounge suit, anyway?

I assumed it was one of these: Lounge/Leisure suit
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Iirc, a lounge suit is a 'normal' suit, as opposed to a morning suit or tails. It also doesn't have to be worn with a tie. So the kind of suit most men wear to smart occasions now are lounge suits.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc, a lounge suit is a 'normal' suit, as opposed to a morning suit or tails. It also doesn't have to be worn with a tie. So the kind of suit most men wear to smart occasions now are lounge suits.

I agree with Jade.

A lounge suit is an ordinary one, two or three piece.

I'd call one like the ones in the link picture described as a 'leisure suit' a 'safari suit'.

There's also the term 'tropical suit' for a lounge suit made of lightweight cloth, usually, but not essentially, pale in colour. Again, it can be two or three piece.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Here you go - Lounge suits.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc, a lounge suit is a 'normal' suit, as opposed to a morning suit or tails.

Yes. It's informal clothing for lounging around in, rather than formal day or evening wear.

"Informal" by the lights of the upper classes a century ago, natch.

quote:

It also doesn't have to be worn with a tie.

Wearing an open-necked shirt is several degrees more casual than wearing a tie. If the invitation specifies "lounge suit" then a tie is expected (unless you're wearing a Nehru suit or something).

You can, certainly, wear a suit without a tie, and given the right suit, shirt and build of wearer, it can look good. But it's a dressy casual look.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here you go - Lounge suits.

Not to be confused with lounge suites.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
...three-piece or otherwise
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc, a lounge suit is a 'normal' suit, as opposed to a morning suit or tails.

Yes. It's informal clothing for lounging around in, rather than formal day or evening wear.

"Informal" by the lights of the upper classes a century ago, natch.

Whereas here in California what you're picturing would be VERY formal for ANY economic class.

A leisure suit, otoh, is neither formal nor informal-- it's just tacky.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
My dad had several leisure suits in the 70s, and I thought he was in the height of fashion. All I can plead is that he was my dad and I was in junior high.

Feast your eyes on this baby.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
And this one is only $29.95, if anyone is still looking for something to wear for LVER's wedding...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
On the subject of lounge suits, you might find this story amusing.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And this one is only $29.95, if anyone is still looking for something to wear for LVER's wedding...

Perfect! It certainly isn't black. (However, she also specified "elegant.")
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Iirc, a lounge suit is a 'normal' suit, as opposed to a morning suit or tails.

Yes. It's informal clothing for lounging around in, rather than formal day or evening wear.

"Informal" by the lights of the upper classes a century ago, natch.

I was going to say; in my frame of reference an informal suit is an oxymoron.

[ 18. July 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And this one is only $29.95, if anyone is still looking for something to wear for LVER's wedding...

Does the reference to STD in the description mean that's why the vendor is selling? Or is it that wearing it will protect you from getting one? One would imagine wearing such a garment would ensure that a person would fail to 'pull'.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0