CHAPTER THREE

Three Terrible Ideas

THE WEDDING AS “MY DAY”

That people should get married when they are old enough to know what they are doing seems to Miss Manners to be a remarkably good idea. She would think it reasonable to assume that, by that time, they also know enough about themselves, their families, their friends, and human nature, and also about how to entertain, to be able to plan an event that brings all these people together in harmony and delight.

Not necessarily, it seems. Wisdom often deserts even the most level-headed people when it comes to their own weddings. Having presumably learned life’s most important lesson—that other people have feelings that must be taken into consideration—they have been known to regress for this one event.

Never mind that maturity had a lot to do with making them desirable as marriage partners. With the modern form of extended courtship (often extended beyond parental patience), there is ample opportunity to discover before marriage whether someone else is unselfish enough to take an interest in one’s own happiness. It should therefore set off a warning when either one says (or hears), “Ever since I was small, I wanted…” or “This’ll be a good chance to…” or “After all, we’re the people who are getting married, so…”

Only a warning. Miss Manners, who always assumes the best, is ready to hear these openings properly completed:

“Ever since I was small, I wanted to marry someone wonderfully kind.”

“This’ll be a good chance to gather all the people we care about and show them how much they mean to us.”

“After all, we’re the people who are getting married, so we should take the responsibility and see to it that this doesn’t unduly burden our parents.”

Here, for any brides or bridegrooms who are old enough to know better but may have forgotten, is a reminder list of wedding wisdom.

1. Secret fantasies should remain fantasies, if not secret. No good will come of their being acted out in public. Miss Manners has heard from multi-divorced grandmothers who confide that in their latest engagements they see an opportunity to hold the wedding of their childish dreams, designed for nubile brides shyly emerging from their parents’ protection; she has heard from successful business-women who never would have dreamed of going into show business who now want to express themselves in wedding dramas of their own making. She sympathizes with both, provided they get a grip on themselves. Miss Manners believes all weddings should be festive, but one should not depend too heavily on the indulgence even close friends have for the showily inappropriate.
2. Parenthood is not exclusively a financial relationship and thus its privileges cannot be suspended when the payments cease. Grown children cannot reappear demanding that they are owed sponsorship of their weddings, nor can they announce that they plan to ignore their parents’ feelings and opinions on this family occasion, since they themselves are paying the bills.
3. While most people are pleased to hear that their friends or relatives are getting married, few are so moved as to want to mortgage their own futures in order to make all the couple’s dreams come true. Anyway, it is the guests, not the bridal couple, who are supposed to come up with the idea of wedding presents.
4. Guests are guests, and must be treated hospitably, even when the hosts happen to be using the day to get married. “We’re only having foods we like” is the wrong attitude; the right one is, “We’re having special treats that we think everyone will enjoy,” even if this is applied to the same menu.
5. A wedding is not an opportunity to boss other people around, whether this means assigning bridesmaids to buy dresses they hate, or divorced parents to behave as if they were still married. Neither, for that matter, is marriage such an opportunity.

Dissenting Views

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

The marrying age is increasing, brides and grooms are more independent, but the bride’s parents are still responsible for the wedding. Parents have two or three decades to notice that they have a daughter, and to realize that someday she will probably marry. Saving for a wedding should be a priority, and a wedding should not take the bride’s parents by surprise.

It seems that parents often dismiss this responsibility, as some dismiss their responsibility to plan for their children’s college education. This is consistent with our self-centered society.

If parents have to go into debt to pay for their daughter’s wedding, then shame on them for not planning ahead. Yes, the costs should be reasonable, and the bride and groom can contribute their own funds if they want something extravagant, but $10,000 to $20,000 is not extravagant for a middle-to upper-middle class family in this culture. Think of it as a wedding gift from the parents, instead of the dowry that was required from the parents in past centuries.

GENTLE READER:

You’re joking, right? Surely the complaint about “our self-centered society” was the tip-off. Please tell Miss Manners—and more importantly, your parents—that you are joking.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

What about inviting people verbally, say five months before, and then changing your mind? I realize that it’s not right, but sometimes in the expansive mood of the engagement, these mistakes are made. In addition, I’ve known some sourpusses for many years. They could easily pout their way through the wedding and not share the happiness. Yet I’ve known them for fifteen years or so, and feel an obligation (somewhat). How much of my day really is this wedding day, anyway?

GENTLE READER:

You pushed the wrong button here. Miss Manners hates that bridal canard about My Day (even aside from the question, Why isn’t it Our Day?)—as if getting married, of all things, gave one the right to suspend normal consideration of others. Here you are contemplating using My Day as an excuse to dis-invite guests (which would be a high insult) or to rate your friends and relations on whether they will be able to produce suitable facial expressions (which would be a new low in choosing bridal accessories).

Personalizing Your Wedding

Isn’t your wedding already personal because you are the ones who are getting married?

The professionals strongly urge you to believe otherwise. “Show your guests who you really are through pictures, videos, blogs, programs, table names, and any other means possible,” they declare. “Stick to a theme, a color palette, and foods that represent your unique wedding journey.” “Mix and match ceremonies and customs to suit your personality.” And, above all, “Don’t try to be a people pleaser.”

“It’s your day,” they insist. Cram it all in. Your tastes, color preferences, and entertainment style should be fiercely cultivated and relentlessly shared throughout your wedding and reception. Hour upon hour of highlights of your supposed lifestyle, reinforced by tint, taste, sight, and sound. Questions such as “What is your signature drink?” and “What do you mean, your bridegroom says he doesn’t have a favorite font—he must!” are not allowed to go unanswered. Unless, of course, you just want to be like everybody else.

Unfortunately, personalizing your wedding turns out to mean de-personalizing everyone else. The bridesmaids have not only been dressed identically, but told to wear the same chin-length bobs and shade of blush because these look good on you. The guests all have to eat uncooked food because you’ve adopted a raw-food lifestyle. The older generation will be excluded from dancing because acid funk is the only accurate musical reflection of your union. After a lifetime of choosing friends and learning how to get along with your family, you are going to make everyone eat, see, listen to, and look like only what is in your taste.

That is not a wedding. It is a cult. Doesn’t making your closest friends appear identical—or worse, colorized mini versions of you—defeat the purpose and pleasure of having multiple friends? And didn’t you just give everyone you know a major demonstration of your taste by whom you selected to marry?

The good news is that a wedding is not your only chance to express your taste to a captive audience. You will have more parties. You will wear other clothes. You will have more stories to tell and food to share. A better way to share your personal values and good taste is by showing a sincere regard for other people’s individuality and feelings.

Think of all the time, trouble, and money you would save. There would be no debating whether your names should be in silver or gold on matchbooks and paper napkins, which you don’t need anyway, as your guests should be issued real napkins and are not likely to smoke.

You would not be saddled with the assignment of composing vows and other declarations in competition with great writers of the ages, and of reciting them in front of people who have a sentimental attachment to the time-honored words you rejected.

You would not have to think of a theme for the wedding, either the popular ones, such as (pseudo) Victorian or a medieval tournament, or something reflecting your hobbies or affection for your pets. The theme, as it were, would be A Wedding, the basic pattern for which has already been worked out for you over the generations.

You would not have to hire a master of ceremonies who patronizes your parents and milks the crowd to applaud you and the entire wedding party, and you would not have to worry about his getting your name wrong.

You would not have to design the invitations, as the form of the third-person, engraved invitation on white or ivory paper has been the same for as long as anyone can remember.

Nor would you discover the work involved in making an autobiographical video, or the disappointment of seeing its audience wandering off for drinks, leaving only a few relatives already familiar with the pictures and story, plus some engaged couples hoping to learn from your mistakes.

And while you will naturally exercise your taste in making the arrangements, you could save yourself a lot of flak if the food and music were to include not only your own favorites but take into consideration the pleasure of a variety of guests. It would be, nowadays, a highly unusual and individualistic way to approach a wedding.

The Indirect Defense

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

One of my brothers is about to be married to a woman I liked very much when we met. Since then, however, I have become appalled.

I observed her and her friends doing the “white glove test” at a dinner party. She has asked my parents to pay half the wedding costs (her parents have encouraged her to reduce her expectations). She called my mother to ask exactly what her future in-laws will give as a wedding present and, when told, said, “Oh, I guess that will be okay.” I have been making a quilt and, when the quilt top was done, she strongly desired that I make the two-hour round-trip for her to inspect it. Everything is done with a cheerful voice and pleasant smile, but it makes her behavior no more appealing. I wish to be polite, but my stress level increases with each encounter. The wedding is three months away!

GENTLE READER:

Three months seems sufficient time for you, and perhaps your parents as well, to have a cozy little chat with your brother. It should go something like this:

“Tiffany is such a lovely girl, dear; we’re all so happy for you. We’re so much looking forward to having her in the family. I’m sure that she’ll soon get used to our ways. But perhaps—since we don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with her—you’d better tell her about us.

“As you know, we’d like you both to have lovely things, but we can’t really see paying for a lavish wedding. And we felt funny about being asked about our presents. Tell her to have a little more faith in our desire to welcome her, even if she doesn’t find us able to be as generous as you may have led her to expect. The quilt is a labor of love, but it’s not reasonable to make a special trip to have it inspected. Tell her I want her to be happy with it, but I don’t have that kind of leisure. Darling, I hope you didn’t make her think we were rich, or had unlimited free time. But what we do have is lots of love to give your wife; see if you can make her understand that.”

TROUBLESHOOTING

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

Through pure coincidence, it turns out that one of my cousins is getting married on the same day I am. We aren’t very close, as she was very competitive with me while growing up.

She is getting married in the morning, and I am having an afternoon wedding with an evening reception. I assumed she wouldn’t be able to make it to my reception as she would be exhausted and want to spend time with her new husband. However, I just received an e-mail from her saying she really wants to go.

I think it’s great that she is considering it and would be happy to have her there. The catch is, she said she is not going to have enough time to change so she wants to wear her wedding attire (dress included) to my reception. I think this is terribly rude! I mean, how long does it take to change? Am I just being petty? How does one appropriately respond to something like that?

GENTLE READER:

With the gentleness you would use with a little girl who wants to wear her Halloween costume to school in September. While brides are not encouraged to dictate guests’ clothing, they do get to be the only one in bridal attire at the wedding. Please tell her that you are sure that she will be more comfortable changing out of her wedding clothes, and that she is welcome to use your changing room to do so. Better send some family members in with her, though, so she doesn’t return in your going-away outfit.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I am attending a wedding with my family next month and have received an e-mail giving the “attire for the ceremony and reception” as All White for women and girls, and khaki pants and white shirts for the men and boys. The e-mail states that this will make the wedding fit in with the couple’s outdoor theme.

My questions: a. Is it appropriate for the couple to dictate what guests should wear to the wedding? b. Do guests need to go along with this? and c. Isn’t it a faux pas for anyone but the bride to wear white at a wedding?

GENTLE READER:

a. no, b. no, and c. yes.

The idea of an “outdoor theme” just begs to be met with guests in hunting outfits and hiking gear. Or doing as the previous bride’s cousin is attempting and wear your own white wedding dress. But you didn’t hear it here.

THE WEDDING AS FUND-RAISER

When people used to speak of “marrying for money,” it meant that one half of a bridal couple was plundering the other. Nobody, with the possible exception of the impoverished side of the aisle, considered that quite nice. But at least it kept whatever monetary exploitation was being practiced within the family—allowing for the fact that the family was actually being formed for that purpose.

Miss Manners has been told that brides and bridegrooms are not as inexperienced and innocent on their wedding days as they used to be. They have lawyers. But however much the possibility of greed between lovers may have been curbed by caution, the association of that nasty appetite in connection with matrimony does not seem to have been suppressed. Only now it is the guests to whom bridal couples turn when they think of making a profit out of matrimony. Marrying for money has come to mean making a profit from the wedding guests through direct cash contributions and wedding presents, after deducting the expenses of allowing them to attend.

Ever the romantic, Miss Manners has never actually believed that expectation of candlesticks is what motivates people to get married. She is quite severe with those who assume that other people only get themselves born, graduated, married, and pregnant for the purpose of extracting presents from them. But her Ghastly Wedding File is unfortunately bulging with anecdotes suggesting that guests are no longer considered people with whom brides and bridegrooms wish to share their happiness without regard to the possibility that they may be moved to give some token of their pleasure at the event. To wit:

• “I would like your opinion of the growing number of ‘Jack and Jill’ parties, often organized by the engaged couple themselves, who sell tickets for a dinner dance and keep the profits after expenses. Are these proper?”
• “The groom sent out an invitation by office computer, with a choice of entrées ($22 for steak, $19 for filet of sole or chicken Marsala), and the notations, ‘No host cocktails,’ ‘Please R.s.v.p. with payment to ___ ’ and ‘There will be a money or gift basket available.’”
• “I was invited to a wedding dinner in a restaurant, where the check was handed to the groom, and without announcing the amount, he instructed everyone to pass down $75 a person. I did not drink any of the expensive wine, or coffee, and I split a dessert. The following day, I learned that my portion of the bill was less than $30 including tip.”
• “A member of the bride’s family passed a hat decorated with flowers and ribbons indicating it was for donations for the honeymoon. This is the second time this has happened to me.”
• “I have been informed that an invited guest gives a money gift based on the cost of the wedding reception. In other words, if it is a nice, sit-down dinner with an orchestra, the guest is expected to give at least $100. Is a wedding reception now a charity event or an evening out which guests pay for, like the parties I attended at college, where you gave five bucks at the door to help the frat boys cut the cost of beer and snacks?”
• “The father of the bride, my relative, has informed me that my wedding gift (a museum-quality, handmade Native American work of art) was not appropriate. While refusing to assign a value to the item, he said it was not right, meaning not adequate, in view of the fact that four members of my family will be in attendance.”
• “Just when I thought I’d seen it all, my daughter received a wedding invitation—not even from a close friend—with a card asking, ‘If you would like to assist us in saving for the purchase of our first home together’ and giving the name of their mortgage company. Thinking and hoping it was a joke, I called the 800-number. Sad to say, it was not.”
• “Under the R.s.v.p., there was listed a money amount per person, with the notation, ‘Includes dinner, dancing, and gift.’ Is it considered appropriate for the invited guests to pay for the festivities and to chip in for a gift to be determined by someone else?”

In what one must presume to be an advance of delicacy, one couple offered a chart with a heart to be placed by the guest donor, indicating whether that person’s contribution should be spent on such choices as “a night on the town,” “a moonlight cruise,” or “shopping for souvenirs.” Another bride, eschewing the crudity of collecting cash, listed her demands and the catalog numbers with which they could be ordered.

It was Miss Manners’ last illusion that people who engaged in such practices were aware that they had sacrificed any vestige of politeness and were just too greedy to care. Then she got the following letter, not even from the person who stood to profit:

Recently, I had a bridal shower for one of my girlfriends. I decided to have people send in $15 each for a group gift. This request was actually printed on the invitation. Now I know what is right, but I found that many people do not. Those who regretted did not send in their $15. I come from middle-to upper-class society, and I was just shocked at this. I know what is socially correct, so this is not a question, rather a reminder to those in my circles who need a refresher course on their manners.

Miss Manners is relieved at the notation that this was not a question. It saves her from picking herself up from the floor, where she fell into a dead heap at the death of decency and hospitality—never mind romance.

FINANCIAL FRANKNESS

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

A couple in their mid-thirties, who will be married next month, have registered at a large department store for various household goods and china. However, they have made it quite clear that they do not intend to keep the china, but return it for cash to be used to purchase a stereo system. I am appalled. I am in my mid-thirties, too—am I that old?

Another bride, who has lived on her own for a few years, said that she wanted to have lots of showers so that she can get a lot of gifts. I just do not understand the greed. Money is not a problem for either couple, which is demonstrated by both brides purchasing expensive dresses and planning large receptions. Can you please explain what is going on?

GENTLE READER:

Greed? You want Miss Manners to explain greed? And then what? Lust and sloth? Instead, she will modestly limit herself to explaining why greed, always part of the human condition, is now so frankly expressed, rather than decently concealed.

The appalling idea that openness is a virtue, regardless of the sin being flaunted, has been around for a generation or so. That is why one hears ugly confessions accompanied by the self-righteous declaration, “But I’m not going to be a hypocrite,” and why those who are timid about condemning dreadful behavior affect to be upset only by the transgressor’s having subsequently lied about it.

In that spirit of total revelation, bridal couples are cheerfully admitting to their wedding guests that they are deeply focused on the presents they will receive and that, far from leaving the choice to the generosity and taste of their friends, they see the wedding as an opportunity to make others do their shopping.

Within this context, the couple willing to launder the money through some hapless store’s china department may think themselves marvels of subtlety. Since they went and blabbed their scheme, Miss Manners can hardly agree with them.

All this frankness is highly unflattering to the guests, of course. They might have harbored the notion that the couple, being primarily interested in their friendship, was pleasantly surprised that friends, using their own taste and their sense of what the couple might appreciate, are also sending presents. This may never have been strictly true, but it was a pleasant illusion for the guests to have. Miss Manners cannot fathom why those who are disabused of this are still motivated to demonstrate affection.

Sponsorship

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

Will you please tell us where the custom originated of sponsors for weddings and debuts? Our neighbor is going around asking for money for an expensive wedding. We think it is awful for people to impose on other people for money for their sons’ or daughters’ weddings. If you can’t afford an expensive wedding, settle for what you can afford. We paid for our daughter’s wedding, down to the last flower or mixed drink. We all try to do the best for our kids, but why should we pay for others?

GENTLE READER:

The origin of this practice—Miss Manners refuses to dignify it by calling it a custom—is the strange idea that marriage is a justification for committing extortion. Miss Manners trusts that you will refuse to submit to this, without yourself being rude. You need merely decline the offer to be a “sponsor,” and add that you send the couple your best wishes.

Begging

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

What is the proper way to request cash in lieu of gifts?

GENTLE READER:

Sit on the floor with a hat turned upside down on the floor beside you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I was surprised that in this techno-savy age you didn’t know there is a way to ask for cash, without begging. With all the wedding Web sites on the Internet these days some have actually become very helpful. One such Web site that my wife and I used very recently was TheKnot.com. On this Web site you can “Create a Gift.”

The gist of it is, you put down something that you really want, but is not possible for someone to purchase; ex: new living room carpet. The Web site then allows you to set minimum amounts that people can contribute. A person could set the amount at $25, then when a guest goes on the Web site with no idea what to get as a gift they can give $25, or increasing increments of, towards your “living room floors.” At the end, the newly married couple goes on to the Web site and is able to have all money deposited into their bank. I feel this is the new way to ask for money on a bridal registry, without begging.

GENTLE READER:

Do not go into the etiquette business.

The Bag Lady

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

HELP! My daughter is getting married soon—a formal wedding—and she has just decided to carry a “money bag” during the reception!! She hopes to make enough money for a down payment on a house!!!

I’m appalled! Is this telling her friends, our friends, his friends that their gift is not enough, or is this something common?? In my opinion, greed has overcome the young people and they don’t celebrate the solemn occasion—they want to see how much money they can “make”!! If it is proper, maybe her father and I should carry one—a big one!!

GENTLE READER:

Do you think you have put in enough exclamation points to express proper horror? Miss Manners finds an excess of them still perilously lodged in her own throat. She had better dispose of them discreetly, because you have actually given her two questions to answer:

1. Is it common for couples to go crazed with greed? Yes, although Miss Manners congratulates this couple on taking the impulse to new depths.
2. Is it proper? Don’t make Miss Manners laugh while she has something in her throat.

You might inquire of your daughter whether she is under the impression that your friends and hers will be so emotionally overcome by the event of her marriage that they will be moved to help her buy a house. And, furthermore, whether they will be too shy to accomplish such a wish unless she does them the favor of offering them an opportunity.

Otherwise, her scheme consists of simple social blackmail. She is counting on the guests to fork over under the threat of embarrassment. This is not exactly what we call hospitality.

Miss Manners is unfortunately not confident that if the real nature of what your daughter and her fiancé are doing is drawn to their attention, they will back down. Why should people hesitate to induce a profitable false embarrassment in their friends when they have shown themselves willing to give their own parents cause for the intense, genuine embarrassment of blackmailing their friends? Miss Manners urges you to refuse to be a party to this. People who treat wedding guests this way do not deserve to have any.

A Reply

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

Miss Manners (I am loath to call you that) needs to do more research into other cultures and customs before condemning the young lady who wanted to carry a money satchel at her wedding. Both you and her mother were horrified, but just because you have your nose in the air, the young lady hardly invented it.

In some communities (this includes many Polish, Russian, Italian, French, and, I just learned, Vietnamese peoples) gifts are reserved for the wedding showers. When you attend a formal wedding with a sit-down dinner, at a banquet hall, the proper “gift” is an envelope with cash or check, which is left with the bride, who places it in the money bag.

If Miss Manners thinks her uppity manners prevail everywhere, she has another think coming. Those of us who are happy to celebrate our own customs await your apology, and a hope that the overbearing mother of this with-it new bride sees this before she ruins her daughter’s wedding day.

Today, a banquet hall reception can run $75 to $100 or more per person. Many couples, whose parents aren’t able to underwrite this tremendous bill, pay for the hall out of these monetary proceeds. My wife and I did this ourselves.

GENTLE READER:

Miss Manners is not immune to the lure of tradition and would not interfere when customs are practiced among those who developed them. Please forgive her, but in this case she does not quite understand the argument about being emotionally attached to a heritage of which the young lady’s parents have never heard.

She also cautions those whom you characterize as “with it” against pleading tradition too strongly. Miss Manners has heard of a great many wedding traditions from these and other cultures, few of which allow the bride to have any say about anything, including the choice of marriage partner. As life progresses, people weed out inherited practices they find offensive and dig up ones they find useful, such as you and this bride have done. By requiring guests to contribute toward putting on a wedding that the principals cannot afford, you are jettisoning the universal tradition of hospitality in favor of one called Living Above Your Means.

Settling Up

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I know there’s no remedy for my problem. My husband and I had a beautiful, simple wedding a year ago, which we planned and paid for ourselves. We’re in our early thirties, were already living together, and have full-time jobs. Needless to say, the wedding was a lot of work and expense, but at the time we were happy we did it. The only thing marring a wonderful memory is that at least twelve of our closest friends who attended never gave us a wedding gift.

I realize it is verging on pettiness, but I wonder how many other couples experience this. Is this common, or do we just have an unusually large number of inconsiderate friends? I know I should never mention it to them, but my husband and I both find that we feel resentful toward these people. I am sure they probably figured they had a year after the wedding to get a gift and then just forgot, but I can’t help it. I now look at these people and think they’re selfish. I find I don’t call them much.

One of these friends is getting married soon and I find myself evilly thinking, “This is our chance to not give them anything.” Is this completely out of line? How do my husband and I get rid of this resentment that is now marring our friendships? I now wish we’d eloped.

GENTLE READER:

Miss Manners doesn’t know how many couples experience bitter regret at having had a simple and beautiful wedding because it did not achieve the goal of collecting tribute from every single person present. Nowadays, probably lots.

What is the point in getting married without a 100 percent return in donations? As you may imagine, Miss Manners does not much care for this line of reasoning, which she agrees you have accurately characterized as evil. The remedy is to enjoy what ought to be your own happiness.

However, after your year of brooding, the situation has changed. You now find yourself in the position of being invited to be wedding guests, and therefore the question of whether to give presents or not is one that you may legitimately consider.

The custom of giving presents to help establish a new household has indeed been eroded, both because many bridal couples, such as yourselves, already have fully stocked households and because the potential recipients have become so frank about their expectations as to take the pleasure out of giving. Miss Manners would like to see the custom survive as a symbolic expression of goodwill on such an important occasion as marriage—but only if it can be maintained as a voluntary gesture, prompted by affection.

Should you no longer feel affection for your own wedding guests, you have no business attending their weddings. Should you still care for them, it seems to Miss Manners that you would want to participate in their happiness, not seize on an opportunity to slight them in revenge.

The Charity Solicitation

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

Since my fiancé and I are in our late thirties and have maintained households for many years, we do not need many of the things that people often give as wedding gifts. We are both active in volunteer activities and we thought we would ask our friends and relatives to make a donation in our name to our favorite charity in lieu of a wedding gift. As we made this known, we found that several friends said they intend to give us a gift anyway.

Do you have any suggestion as to how we can tactfully discourage these people? How should we handle the people who bring gifts to the reception? We do not wish to embarrass them, but we also don’t want people who followed our wishes to see a number of gifts and wonder if they, too, should have given a gift rather than a donation.

GENTLE READER:

Miss Manners has a wonderful suggestion for you: Take all that time and effort you are putting into improperly denying others their privilege to decide what, if anything, they want to give you and donate it to your favorite charity. As for people who do give you presents, your job is to thank them. The items are then yours to use as you wish, which could include donating them to charity.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I am getting married in October. My fiancé and I are wanting to adopt a child from Guatemala; however, the cost is preventing us from doing so.

We currently have a house and are living together. We really have no need or want for wedding presents like a toaster and china.

Many of the adoption agencies that we have contacted have given us information about setting up our own foundation in order to have friends and family donate money toward the cost of the adoption. How do I let people know that I do not want wedding presents and instead would like money donated toward the adoption?

GENTLE READER:

If only it were a question of how touching and worthy the cause, you would have a sympathetic case. Miss Manners would certainly put you ahead of all those couples who want their guests to give them money for the wedding itself, for the honeymoon, for paying off their debts, or for taking out a mortgage.

But how is she going to make everyone understand that their guests are not their creditors? And that decent people do not instruct their friends to pay their bills?

Yes, yes, she has heard the argument that you are only saving them all from buying toasters. (And by the way, why is it always toasters that people cite? If there is one item that is easily returnable after the thank-you letter is written, and whose absence will not be noticed by the donor, it is a toaster.)

Wedding presents are voluntary tokens of affection from people who should care enough about you to put some thought into the selection. They are not intended to be a source of income for the bridal couple to count into their budget and allot as they wish.

Children are worth sacrificing for. As you have a fully equipped house, Miss Manners gathers you are not destitute, so perhaps you could find a way to pay for the adoption by sacrificing—for example, by having a modest wedding and honeymoon. But she urges you not to sacrifice your dignity.

TROUBLESHOOTING

Generosity

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

I have recently become engaged, and I have decided to ask three of my closest friends to be bridesmaids.

I have been blessed in life, with a wonderful family, and now wonderful in-laws. I also have a great job, and my fiancé and I both make significantly more money than one of my bridesmaids, who is not very well-off. The other two bridesmaids are fairly well-to-do.

The wedding will be a small one, and I would like to pay for all the bridesmaids’ dresses, as I know that would be an imposition on my friend—it is important to me that she stand up for me, and I do not want money to be the reason she is unable to. I also do not want to single her out, and since I can afford to, I would like to pay for all three dresses.

Both my mother and my mother-in-law feel that this is inappropriate, as it is traditional for the bridesmaid to buy her own dress—they feel it might be seen as a sign of a bride gone over the edge, requiring control over all the details. Is this correct? If so, what can I do?

GENTLE READER:

It is a lovely gesture to offer to pay for the dresses, and since you are able to do so for all three, there hardly seems to be a conflict. We only ask—although we feel sure you know this—that you phrase it as, “I would like to make the dress a gift to you,” rather than, “Don’t worry, I’ll foot the bill.”

How sad that your almost unprecedented kindness and regard for other people’s life situations is considered going over the edge, but demanding that others pay for and wear a dress they cannot afford is thought less controlling.

Generosity Abused

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My fiancée and I planned to attend a friend’s wedding with mutual friends, who would be staying with us. Two weeks before, I was surprised to receive an e-mail from the bride saying, “By the way, it turns out the price of wedding cake is exorbitant, so we’re asking friends to bring cakes to the wedding. I know friends are staying with you, so I thought maybe you could whip one up together on Friday night. Love, the bride.”

I admit that I felt rather shocked by this last-minute request that I “whip up”—and bear the cost of—something the bride and groom have deemed “too exorbitant” to pay for. I would be happy to celebrate with them regardless of what food they provide.

I would not have planned to bake a cake either on Friday between coming home from work and picking up my guests at the airport or on Saturday morning before going to this wedding.

But, after asking my guests (who received similar e-mails), we agreed that the bride is a sweet girl who has, perhaps, behaved thoughtlessly but who we like nonetheless and are willing to forgive, and we will plan to get up early enough to make her her cake on Saturday morning.

My fiancée and I had planned to buy the couple a gift from their registry. Is it appropriate for us to provide the asked-for cake in lieu of the gift we had planned to purchase? I can’t decide if this is reasonable, or if it’s an indication that I’m still irritated and need to work a little harder on the forgiveness part. I don’t want to respond with another transgression.

GENTLE READER:

We won’t tell anyone if you don’t get the couple a gift. Demanding that you provide accommodations, food, and items off her shopping list is beyond unreasonable and your forgiveness and generosity commendable. If your conscience won’t rest (or worse, you fear that she will call you out on it), get her a token gift. We suggest a cake pan and baking mix.

THE WEDDING AS SHOW BUSINESS

Miss Manners may be the only person who remembers when people got married by putting on the best clothes they already had and going with a few similarly attired friends and relatives to their regular place of worship, where they followed a solemn and traditional ritual set by their religion.

Queen Victoria herself started the practice of costuming the bride in white (although we do not hold the dear lady responsible for the vulgar notion that this advertised that the body inside was untouched). From then on, it was all downhill, from solemnity and tradition to the flash and gimmicks of show business. There have always been similarities, theater having originated by copying the pageantry of religion, but now the direction has been reversed and the process accelerated.

Since the Academy Awards ceremony has been televised, it has been the quintessential modern ritual, setting the pattern for all others. The ingredients are: outrageous clothing mixing all degrees of formality and informality, a pathway cleared for grand entrances, on-the-spot opinions solicited from bystanders, a patter of jokes and teasing from one or more masters of ceremonies, introductions of participants summarizing their biographies, intermissions and other inconveniences to accommodate the requirements of filming, choreographed chorus lines, rehearsed outpourings of gratitude and sentiment, standing ovations, sly references to the love lives of those present, presentations of trophies, acknowledgment of sponsors, and at least one impassioned plea on behalf of someone’s favorite cause.

This has produced significant innovations in the wedding ritual.

• Everyone is costumed, but none of it matches. The wedding party may be in formal clothes, but not even of the same degree of formality—for example, the bridegroom in white tie (or more likely, an “original” variation thereof ) while the groomsmen are in black tie, and the guests dressed at an even less-formal level, from business suits to jeans, on the grounds that they are audience, not performers.
• Direction, jokes, and background anecdotes are offered at the reception by a professional master of ceremonies, while during the ceremony, the officiant tries valiantly to be equally entertaining and self-revealing.
• The stars, seeing this as their moment in the spotlight, subordinate the form to showcase themselves and are given the leeway of high temperament and indulged in whatever whims and selfishness they may care to exercise.
• Family members and friends are cast into set roles, regardless of whom this includes or excludes: a man to give the bride away, even if there is no father—the mother not being considered for the part—and attendants chosen for the right look and number, rather than solely for being close friends.
• The bride’s mother’s entrance has become a staged event, a prelude to the bride’s entrance, which pulls people to their feet. Applause and ovations are common, especially for the first marital kiss (which also draws laughter, as if it were a love scene viewed by an audience of early adolescents) and the pronouncement of the marriage (or maybe that round of clapping is because the show is ending).
• Presents are regarded as admission tickets, and there is a lot of anger at those who try to get in without them. These are brought to the event and handed over, regardless of the logistical difficulties this creates, because paying admission has become so important a part of the occasion.
• Capturing the event on film for another audience is treated as superseding any need to accommodate those actually present. Guests may be shoved aside or made to endure long blank waits, or cast without warning as extras if the film script calls for candid reaction interviews.

That is the unfortunate result when a bride cares more about having matching bridesmaids and costuming them to match her personal taste, such as it is, than that her bridesmaids be her dear friends, however dumpy, and suitably dressed.

Miss Manners is only too aware of the unpopularity of the position she is taking. Nobody loves a critic. Why shouldn’t a wedding be entertainment and draw on the experience of professionals in the business?

Her first reason is that this is often bad theater, and she is not the only critic. Not every amateur, no matter how in love, can produce a good original script. It is one thing to have friends murmuring “I thought the church needed more flowers,” and quite another to hand them your courtship and philosophy to critique.

The second is that a wedding should be a joyous but serious occasion, not lighthearted entertainment. It’s marriage itself, not the ceremony, that is supposed to be a scream.

The Program

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

It has come to my attention that I must have a program at my wedding, because “everyone” has a program at their weddings. Quite frankly, I cannot recall one at the weddings I have attended, but most likely I would not have kept it. The examples I have been given not only have the wedding ceremony, but a “list of characters,” from the bride and groom down to the hostesses (not necessarily the parents, but rather a wedding consultant or caterer) and “acknowledgments,” listing the florist, travel agent, facility, etc. I’ve been told that they help guests identify who’s in the wedding and they can refer back to them should they forget a name, but the idea of having a program is not sitting quite well with me.

GENTLE READER:

Where else would you put the plot summary? And the synopsis of what happened in the prequel? And the preview of the sequel? How else could you credit the sponsors? Or introduce the supporting actors (“Sherrie is a newlywed herself and a new mother,” or “Mike especially enjoys watersports”)?

The only excuse for a program is to give the order of the service, which is not necessary at a wedding. Miss Manners congratulates you on resisting.

The Script

How you met: It’s a fascinating, romantic tale, full of twists and turns, a Jane Austen novel mixed with The Matrix. The combination of fate, destiny, coincidence, near misses, hilarious mishaps, and sentimental anecdotes is something that everyone wants to hear (stories!), see (pictures! videos!), read (wedding columns and blogs!) and experience (your entire themed wedding and reception!) before, during, and after your big day.

Except it isn’t and they don’t.

Because we’re guessing that you actually met online or at a bar. All right, maybe you met at college or at work or through friends. There’s nothing wrong with predictability. There is, however, something wrong with yanking a bio-epic from the slim plot of your courtship and forcing it on your friends. Over and over again.

Considering how many years that family, friends, and mere acquaintances have asked “Have you met anyone?” and “When are you getting married?” it is not unreasonable to suppose there is huge demand for the details of your now-successful love life. Finally, you have gathered some, perhaps all, of the material for the three-picture deal called Courtship, Marriage, and Family. Your script is distinguished by the eerie intervention of fate (“The numbers in his profile username were my half-birthday!”), coincidences of commonality (“He likes beer. I like beer!”), and the all-important suspense (“We broke up for a while, but there was no one else who really got that sometimes I need me time.”).

The truth is that in the course of your courtship and wedding preparations, maybe a few people will ask you how you met. Your close friends or family members heard it at the time and are already tired of it or, worse, will know when you’re embellishing. So why deprive yourself of party chatter to others (complete with adorable arguments between you about who made the first move) by making it the relentless subject of your wedding or fodder for the Internet or local paper?

The Cast

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My son by a previous marriage is to marry soon. His mother died while he was a minor, and two older sisters became surrogate mothers in her stead. He wishes to acknowledge this at the reception by announcing them together with myself as a part of that ceremony. My present wife feels slighted by this, and feels emphatically that a provision should be made to present her as my wife as well. She refuses to attend otherwise.

GENTLE READER:

Announcing? Presenting? Does Miss Manners understand you to ask who gets the public credit for being the bridegroom’s surrogate mother?

See the trouble people get into by treating their weddings as show business award ceremonies? A wedding is a family gathering, not a contest. There is no need to announce, “And in the role of mother…” Why shouldn’t the four of you occupy the front pew, sit at a family table at the reception, and receive his toasts of thanks?

The Extras

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My fiancé and I are trying to find a mature and nice way of requesting on our invitation that there be no crying children at the wedding, due to the professional videotaping. What is the best way of telling guests without offending them?

GENTLE READER:

What makes you think that your younger guests are more likely than the older ones to be overcome with sentiment on the occasion of your marriage, and to weep throughout the service? Anyway, wouldn’t this add a tender note to your professional videotape, bound to touch the hearts of audiences everywhere when the tape is released in neighborhood theaters?

Or is it, Miss Manners finally understands, that you assume that all children cry, simply as recreation, especially when asked to sit still for an hour? In that case, don’t invite any children to your wedding. Should their parents inquire whether this was an inadvertent omission, you must say, with a tone of regret so as not to seem a monster, “Oh, I’m so sorry, but we’re not having any children there. I know yours would behave perfectly, but others might find it tedious.” This is more acceptable than “I’m not using children in my show.”

The Set and Costumes

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

Within hours of their engagement, my nephew’s betrothed joined the congregation of a very picturesque church to provide a suitable venue for her special event. The wedding is almost upon us, and the bride has announced that hats are not to be worn.

Other than the fact that my two young daughters and I have already purchased lovely bonnets to complement the chosen setting, how can we enter a house of worship for an afternoon wedding, bareheaded? Is it no longer customary to cover one’s head in a church? Would a lace handkerchief or designer tissue do?

GENTLE READER:

If your prospective niece has changed her church merely to acquire the background scenery she wants, nothing is going to persuade her that she cannot costume the extras.

As you have noticed, the bride’s idea about hats is wrong, in addition to being impertinent. It is proper, although no longer mandatory, for ladies to wear hats both for any church service and for any afternoon wedding. So perhaps you are entitled to wear two hats. It would be even worse to appear with patterned nose-wipes on your head, if Miss Manners understands you correctly, or with lace handkerchiefs (although many a lady made do with such back when the Catholic Church barred bareheaded ladies from the door).

Nor do you want to start a family feud with a new relative who is unpleasant enough without provocation. Miss Manners would therefore suggest either sending back the message about your already purchased hats through your nephew (who supposedly knows how to deal with this person) or simply wearing flowers or ribbons in your hair.

Facing the Audience

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My daughter faced the audience during her wedding vows, as did the rest of the wedding party. It was a treat to see the ceremony, the facial expressions, and the beautiful bridesmaids and the men. I realize that some ceremonies must be conducted with certain rites that must have the wedding party’s backs to the viewers. However, some ministers or pastors would not object to having their backs to the audience. Perhaps you could suggest this?

GENTLE READER:

The “audience”? Is that how you categorize the people who gather in a house of worship to witness a sacred ritual?

Miss Manners has been increasingly aware that, weddings now being regarded as a popular amateur branch of show business, not only spirituality but also ties and duties to family and friends have become secondary to the production values. Your suggestion, however, is original enough to manage to shock her. Since you are dabbling in theater, she suggests that you analyze the symbolism you plan to convey: In facing their audience, to Whom would these star-for-a-day performers be turning their backs?

Audience Reaction

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

What is your opinion about the practice of clapping loudly for the newly wedded pair? I have seen a number of weddings on television, and each time I am surprised to see the ceremony end in applause. For what? For whom? For the adorable couple, I assume, and yet I feel upset that the solemn moment is treated as an entertainment. Does this surprising ovation occur in a church, too, or in a synagogue, or a mosque? I feel that applause is more appropriate in a theater.

GENTLE READER:

It is fortunate that, for this particular form of entertainment, the house, so to speak, is papered with friends. Audiences sometimes boo when they are insufficiently entertained.

Playing to an Empty House

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

This is a worst-case scenario: A wedding is planned and the bridesmaids, having bought their expensive dresses, are thrilled at being asked to participate in such a socially prestigious event. But then the invitations arrive and the wedding is to be held in the bride’s home town, 200 miles away. The groom’s relatives live in the opposite direction. Arrangements have been made to accommodate out-of-town guests (and the wedding party) in a nearby city; the rates are reasonable as weekend rates go, but the guests pay their own way. Times being hard and distance and expense outweighing fond sentiment, the regrets are 100 percent.

Then what happens? Can the bridesmaids and ushers bow out? The mother of the groom certainly would, if given half a chance, and she is not at all certain her dress will arrive in time. Do the bride’s parents send out cancellation notices and let the couple marry in their own city and among their close friends?

At least the hosts will be spared the problem of what to do about the wedding presents people bring along to the reception, and the problem of the uninvited guests people bring along because there won’t be anyone they know to talk to—supposing one could talk in the ear-shattering din of loud dance music.

Wouldn’t it be a welcome end to all the show-biz extravaganza? And might not a return to the small, intimate, and meaningful ceremony result in lower divorce statistics?

GENTLE READER:

Miss Manners is no fonder of the show business mentality toward weddings than you are, but she finds herself unable to gloat at the picture of people who discover that no one cares enough about them to attend their wedding. The idea that even their intimates would then be tempted to bail out is pathetic.

However pretentious the bridal couple may be, surely it is such guests who have the more distasteful attitude. As you point out, convenience and price have outweighed sentiment. Had they cared, they might have hopped a bus and inquired about staying with the couple’s local friends and relatives.

One does not absolutely require an “audience,” as it were, for a wedding of any style. If they were planning this wedding to dazzle others, yes, it should be canceled if those others won’t be there. If they were doing it for their own satisfaction, Miss Manners does not see why they should not go ahead with it.

Also Playing

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My boyfriend and I announced our engagement four months ago. We have not set a date yet, as we are still trying to figure out the wedding details, but we told everyone that it would probably happen in October of next year, although we weren’t certain.

My fiancé’s closest sister, who is older than he and is not married, was happy for us when she heard the news, but also a bit jealous. You see, she has been living with the same man for 10 years and she very much wants a family and he has yet to commit.

Much to everyone’s surprise, she suddenly announced that she too was getting married and the wedding would be next January! I am very upset because I feel that she is being inconsiderate by not waiting for my fiancé and I to set our date and now their family has to attend two weddings in one year! What is the proper etiquette, if any, that she should have followed in setting her wedding date?

GENTLE READER:

Are you suggesting that since she has waited ten years for a husband and children already, she might as well wait another year so that you can have the spotlight all to yourself? Or rather, that she should do so out of courtesy to the poor relatives who might face the hardship of attending two weddings in a single year?

Miss Manners finds it imprudent of you to have brought up the question of jealousy. Let us assume that your prospective sister-in-law is getting married because she wants to, as you acknowledge, and because the gentleman is willing, which you oddly fail to acknowledge but is surely a prerequisite.

Let us also assume that she sees her marriage as living her life, rather than trying to top yours, and that she wishes you and her brother well, which she has indicated. Miss Manners is hoping to hear that you can manage to behave as if you had the same attitude.

TROUBLESHOOTING

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My daughter does not want video cameras at her wedding or reception—she finds them to be intrusive, they make her feel uncomfortable. There will be no professional video photographer for the same reason. We agree with her decision, but the question is, is there an acceptable way to say “no video cameras, please”?

GENTLE READER:

In an age when everyone wants to be televised doing absolutely anything, on or off reality shows, it is almost incomprehensible that someone would not want to have her every breath caught on film. That a bride would not want it is even more rare.

Good for her. Now she must convince the rest of the world. As small as video cameras have become, they should still be fairly easy to spot. Ask a trusted and otherwise unoccupied relative or friend to run interference (“I’m so sorry, but we are asking that there be no filming.”) as the guests arrive, and to keep an eye throughout on wily guests brandishing cell phones. Better yet, give this assignment to those who crave attention, offering them a sense of importance and perhaps distracting them from providing running commentary.

DEAR MISS MANNERS:

My fiancé would like to sing and play the guitar during the wedding ceremony, but my mother says to perform at one’s own wedding is impolite. My instinct agrees, and my fiancé graciously agreed not to perform. I’d like to be able to tell him why it is impolite, but I don’t know the reason.

GENTLE READER:

While etiquette does not specifically dictate a rule against the performing bridegroom (it didn’t think it had to), its close cousins, good taste and propriety, do. A wedding ceremony is a solemn occasion, and its rituals oddly do not include covers of “Can’t Get Enough of Your Love, Babe.” If your fiancé must sing, ask him to do so at the reception. If he isn’t very good, encourage a karaoke setup so he won’t embarrass himself. Or your mother. Or you.