Talk:White wedding

Departing
SomeoneElse: So what does "departing" mean to you then? ;) -- JohnOwens 05:30 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * That would be the opposite of coming? -- Someone else 05:32 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

An old tradition has it that the first bride to wear white was Mary Queen of the Scots, on her second wedding: white was used for royal mourning, and she was a recent widow of the king of France.

I don't know about Scottish monarchs, but English queens apparently dressed in I think it was gold. Queen Victoria, if my memory serves me right, broke precedent by marrying in white, setting of a renewal in the tradition. Between her dress, Albert's trees and and Albert's penis jewellery, that couple sure set off a lot of styles. FearÉIREANN 22:26 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Caption
The image caption was just changed from


 * A white wedding at Thornbury Castle, England

to


 * Gaffes at a "white wedding" at Thornbury Castle, England, where even the mother of the groom is hatless and a member of the party has also worn white

This seems POV to me and I think it should be reverted, or at least softened. fabiform | talk 12:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done, and I've put a message on User talk:Wetman to say why his caption was totally unreasonable (I took the pic) - Adrian Pingstone 14:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sadly, Wetman has now, without further discussion, removed my pic from the White wedding article. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia where each side explains itself at length before any such action is taken. I don't know how to explain to him that he has no solid evidence of any gaffe whatsoever (gaffe meaning mistake). As I told him on his talk page User talk:Wetman this is not an actual wedding photo, I just came across the group by chance and took some photos from well behind the official photographer but not at the exact moment of the official picture taking. Wetman therefore has no right whatever to assume the brides mother has no hat (she may be holding it behind her until the official pic is taken) and that a guest is in white (when she is wearing a shawl and may have a coloured top).


 * I find his deep concern at these two supposed "gaffes" most odd and absolutely no reason to delete the pic!! I've decided to leave the pic off and hope that someone else puts it back - Adrian Pingstone 19:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My caption was not PC, I'll agree, but I didn't mention the bridesmaid's flipflops! I've been part of a wedding that took place in a meadow with a barefoot bride crowned in flowers (dates me, eh?) and numerous extremely correct weddings, none of which was ever referred to as a "white wedding", though in retrospect they were very white indeed! This entry is about the conventions of weddings within a certain tradition. There is also an entry Wedding, etc. Frontier brides and Shotgun weddings belong in other entries. Throwing birdseed at the bride may be PC, but it is comic in this context, gang. This entry needs some serious adult attention: evening weddings, the 4 o'clock wedding, the "bride's side" and the "groom's side," Doo-Wop tuxedos etc etc. There are also class issues, which are both serious and amusing, some already naively collided with in this entry. Wetman 00:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * For me the problem with the caption is that none of the things that Wetman listed are mentioned in the article. A white wedding is one in which the bride wears a formal white dress. The definition does not extend to requiring that the mother of the groom (if this woman was correctly identified) wears a hat, nor that female guests may not wear white. The only people whose clothes are planned and coordinated are the bride (and by custom her attendants and the groom and his attendants). For example, in the recent royal white wedding (Edward and Sophie), hats were explicitly prohibited on the invitations. fabiform | talk 02:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The last Royal wedding took place in the evening, therfore many guests wore feathered confections known as canapes or tiaras on their heads. More to the point, and passing no comment on the image, perhaps it would be more kind if the article were illustrated by a white wedding of some-one in the public eye, or even one from a film eg '4 Weddings and Funeral'.  Then no offence could be taken or given; or have this unfortunate couple given permission for their happiest day to illustrate this page Giano 16:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How hilarious! I don't think the humour in this discussion was intended, but I'm highly amused.
 * I, too, had my concerns about that photograph: it is not the best example of a 'white wedding' for many reasons, but I wasn't going to do any deleting.  I also shared Giano's concern about using this couple's photo--I think it's legal, Giano, but that doesn't make it 'right'.
 * I think some of this can be cleared up by some research into the definition of the term 'white wedding'. In my mind, the term is linked not only to the colour of the dress, but to the degree of formality of the wedding, which would make Wetman right, because the degree of formality of a wedding does dictate what people where, what conventions are observed and all the rest.   If, however, the term only applies to the wedding dress, then that changes things.
 * No, Giano, the headgear at that wedding had nothing to do with the hour, the bride didn't want hats, so people got creative--some with disasterous results.
 * By the way, folks, let's not hold the English royals up as paragons of wedding etiquette--they've had some 'no-no's....
 * Quill 09:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disaster has struck
This now reads badly. Here's an example of expansion taking the article onto a completely different tanget.

Lots of information here needs to be deleted and incorporated into an article on Weddings or Wedding, Western traditions or something of the sort.

The term 'White Wedding' has to be defined and the article rewritten, shortened and kept on topic.

Quill 09:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Could not agree more! Giano 10:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * To help with this can we collect definitions of a white wedding? I've looked in the OED ("white wedding, a wedding at which the bride wears a formal white dress"), but I feel that we may find descriptions in books about wedding planning and the history if weddings even more useful. fabiform | talk 17:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll vote 'yea'. Unfortunately, my (American) dictionaries do not define 'white wedding', neither does Emily Post's Etiquette by Elizabeth L. Post, 14th Ed.  If I get to it this week I'll drag out my specific wedding etiquette books. Quill 06:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since this article is about the conventions (wedding is a separate article, as the article states), does the following strike anyone else as the least bit odd?: " the Mother of the Groom accompaigning her son in the procession to the altar." In a "white" wedding, the groom is conventionally accompanied by the best man or sometimes his father. The mother of the groom is actually a minor figure in a "white" wedding. The arrival of the grrom has been omitted from the processional sequence given in the article.--Wetman 20:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legal requirements
In the United States, religion plays no role in the legal requirements for getting married. I think the article should do a better job at distinguishing between the white wedding tradition and the legal necessities. -Acjelen 04:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There has been considerable merger discussion about Participants in wedding ceremonies and a variety of related articles. However, from what I can see that page (and those articles) duplicate the section Attendees in this article, so it make sense to point them all over here. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would make more sense to point the section in this article to the Participants in wedding ceremonies article. Although the overlap maybe almost complete at the moment, as an encyclopedia we shouldn't be limiting the content to such a culturally narrow view.  The Participants article could be greatly expanded to provide a much better overview than the corresponding section in this article feasibly could. -- SiobhanHansa 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the participant list is that of a western white wedding. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well not exactly, while the Participants article currently only includes white wedding participants, those participants are not exclusive to white weddings (brides and grooms for instance participate in many other wedding types). Also, an article on wedding participants in general can be extended beyond the white wedding perspective, where as this article really can't.  In the participants article editors could (eventually) build a broader, more encyclopedic article that can show the overlap of roles as well as the distinct differences between different cultural approaches. This article is always going to be much narrower than that.  -- SiobhanHansa 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, expand the Participants article to include non-"White Wedding" participants. Simple solution.  •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  03:35 (UTC)  31 Mar '08

Definitions please
I saw the referenced definitions were removed with the motivation of "poor sources". However, isn't it better to have non-perfect sources than none at all? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mikael, I understand why you may think so, but I've learned that at Wikipedia one needs good sources before adding information. You can read about verifiability and sourcing at WP:V.  This brings me to your more recent addition -- http://www.brollopstorget.se/.  It is not a reliable source for facts of this kind and could also possibly be considered SPAM since it is an industry website in Sweden.  I am not disputing the fact you are sourcing, but you need to find an academic book or paper, or a respectable newspaper that makes this claim, like Svenska Dagbladet.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

White as a color of mourning
I've removed this:


 * At the time of Victoria's wedding, white was considered the color of mourning, and inappropriate for a wedding.

because this distinctly dubious claim is sourced to a blog. The blog cites as its source a book printed almost 100 years ago. That book gives exactly one example of white being used as a color of mourning—in 1393 (yes, 447 years before Victoria's wedding), in France (yes, a completely different country), and only during a specific funeral for an exiled monarch, rather than as a general practice. The same underlying source gives many examples of black being used as the primary color of mourning during the Middle Ages (yes, a completely different era, generally agreed to have ended in the 15th century).

Although "white mourning" was the primary color during the Middle ages, it had long been the normal color for normal children's clothing (because it didn't fade when washed), and by the 19th century, it was the normal color for young women and among adults was sometimes used as a color of half-mourning (along with gray and violet). Black was the primary color of mourning in the 19th century, and even in the 18th century. Consider, for example, this declaration of public mourning in the London Post of 1702: "Yesterday an Order was published, by Her Majesty’s Royal Pleasure, That all persons, upon the death of His Late Majesty King William, do put themselves into the deepest mourning that may be, on Sunday next: And that for the incouragement of our English lutestring and a-la-mode manufacture, hatbands of black English a-la-mode, cover’d with crape, will be allow’d as full and proper mourning, &c." The possibility of wearing white for primary mourning isn't even mentioned.

Victoria's choice of color was surprising, but only because royal weddings had previously involved cloth of gold, purple, red, and other expensive colors, not because it was associated with mourning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite certain that in the first half of the 19th century, the Catholic Church had white westments for feasts of the Lord excepting those of His passion, for non-martyred saints, and the like. On the other hand, we had black (which Paul VI later would allow to be substituted by violet) for masses for the faithful departed. Do you get my drift? I think so... (This particular thing was not, I presume, a point of dispute between Catholics and Anglicans. I just don't know the Anglican Prayerbook, which is why I commented catholically...)--2.236.198.248 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)