advertisement


Black Tie Wedding

paulfromcamden said:
Yeah that crossed my mind too. But I think it's actually more complex than that.

I read a book chapter about the popularisation of fox hunting in the c18th. It became a popular pursuit with the newly monied classes who were keen to ingratiate themselves with the landed gentry. A whole industry sprang up to sell them daft riding clothes and manuals on how to conduct yourself on a hunt day without looking like a pleb. It was all a bit 'trying too hard'.

By contrast, as a member posted upthread, proper old money has nothing to prove.
Click to expand...

Hasn't changed much around here apart from the fact that the landed gentry don't bother any more.

Polo's a big thing, one GP i know well has 9 ponies ready to roll this year.
 
kensalriser said:
All this stuff is designed to make people conform and to reinforce social stratification. The code identifies, humiliates and/or excludes people of inadequate social standing and makes people of higher social standing feel good about themselves and their social status.
Click to expand...
Wow! Thats an interesting assumption and appalling generalisation that the ‘peasants’ don’t like dressing up and that the Lord of the Manor is always resplendent in his most exquisite finery!

Just maybe it could just be that the bride and groom would like lovely memories of their nearest and dearest dressed up and looking smart, rather than just wearing their usual casual day attire?

It’s a special day for them and could well be a one-off in their lives. What sort of grump would object to making a bit of effort for that?
 
I would just rock up dressed as I would normally do. No-one really cares. At my Mum's funeral I decided she would want me to come as me so I did.
(PS don't buy a present until you see how they treat you)
 
Beobloke said:
Wow! Thats an interesting assumption and appalling generalisation that the ‘peasants’ don’t like dressing up and that the Lord of the Manor is always resplendent in his most exquisite finery!

Just maybe it could just be that the bride and groom would like lovely memories of their nearest and dearest dressed up and looking smart, rather than just wearing their usual casual day attire?
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the assumption. I think the point was around codes of behaviour and dress - all that guff about not removing one's jacket before the groom/ in front of a lady/ until permission is announced. It's just another layer of social codes that are designed to exclude and isolate the 'wrong' people, who don't know how and when to use a fish knife, or which direction to pass the port, and who will feel uncomfortable and out of place in situations where this etiquette is observed.

And the bride and groom could just as easily get nice memories of their nearest and dearest looking smart, by specifying a 'smart casual' dress code. As long as GT doesn't rock up in his designer tracky bottoms, most people will take that to mean a nice frock for the women, jacket and tie for the men. Some scope for personal expression too. Who want's to see all their rellies looking exactly the same?
 
our wedding was small, about 25 ppl. We specified; no suits, no ties, no children, no workware. Invitations were sent out on USB with Come As You Are by Nirvana with the animated invitation.

I wore black jeans and a black cotton long sleeve top and some brown brogues. Louise wore a corset and skirt and trainers.

We used the S2000 as a wedding car to and from the registry office.

We walked down the aisle to the Masked Ball from Eyes Wide Shut

I made a CD of the music for everyone to take away after the lunch.

it was huge fun, memorable......and we celebrate 20 years this coming Saturday
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I don't think that's the assumption. I think the point was around codes of behaviour and dress - all that guff about not removing one's jacket before the groom/ in front of a lady/ until permission is announced. It's just another layer of social codes that are designed to exclude and isolate the 'wrong' people, who don't know how and when to use a fish knife, or which direction to pass the port, and who will feel uncomfortable and out of place in situations where thiIt seems so meaningless etiquette is observed.

And the bride and groom could just as easily get nice memories of their nearest and dearest looking smart, by specifying a 'smart casual' dress code. As long as GT doesn't rock up in his designer tracky bottoms, most people will take that to mean a nice frock for the women, jacket and tie for the men. Some scope for personal expression too. Who want's to see all their rellies looking exactly the same?
Click to expand...
I don't like "smart casual" as a dress code. It seems so meaningless, basically "do your best not to look dirty or scruffy." It would seem obvious that if you are going to a wedding you will change from changing the oil on your motorbike. In fact the whole idea of "dress code" on the invitations should be abolished unless it is "black tie", or "white tie" (very unlikely these days, if not impossible).
At a wedding, if they want to do something "formal" the key players will agree among themselves what to wear, the guests will do what they like.
In any case, better a good, well-cut suit than an ill-fitting hired morning suit or DJ that doesn't belong to you.
 
PaulMB said:
I don't like "smart casual" as a dress code. It seems so meaningless, basically "do your best not to look dirty or scruffy." It would seem obvious that if you are going to a wedding you will change from changing the oil on your motorbike. In fact the whole idea of "dress code" on the invitations should be abolished unless it is "black tie", or "white tie" (very unlikely these days, if not impossible).
At a wedding, if they want to do something "formal" the key players will agree among themselves what to wear, the guests will do what they like.
In any case, better a good, well-cut suit than an ill-fitting hired morning suit or DJ that doesn't belong to you.
Click to expand...
I guess it would seem obvious to you, or me, that scruffy isn't appropriate at weddings, but it's not obvious to everybody. There will be some people who just don't 'get' it, unless reminded so it does no harm, IMHO, to give a gentle hint as to what is expected. I agree, though, that a cheap or ill-fitting tux looks worse than a blazer or jacket that fits and suits your own personal style.
 
Judging by responses on this thread, it is safe to assume that is best not to assume what anyone means by a certain phrase. I am sure MVV's come as you are would get a full spectrum of clothing from suited and booted, T and joggers to fluffy yellow coats. Smart casual could cover nearly as wide a spectrum. I quite like the phrase as it does make you think more about what you wear; my wife hates the phrase nearly as much as business casual.

Most are super cool about how you turn up to their event but it is not that hard to respect the inviters surely. My mum's funeral instruction was for bright colours and she was in a cardboard coffin with daffodil prints all over it. The day was a joy because everyone made an effort, it was a riot of colours and some very dodgy ties. It made it just that little more memorable.

I did not specify any clothing guidance for my wedding and still would not as I don't care about what people wear really, but it was fairly traditional and everyone dressed up as they felt appropriate. Some dodgy fitting suits yes but there were a lot of farmers there who I suspect popped into the local charity shop for their Sunday best suits. Nice to see people who looked like they were showing their best and enjoying it. Many people do like dressing up.
 
Beobloke said:
Wow! Thats an interesting assumption and appalling generalisation that the ‘peasants’ don’t like dressing up and that the Lord of the Manor is always resplendent in his most exquisite finery!
Click to expand...
He's not saying that at all. He is saying that all this talk of codes and standards of behaviour is clubby and exclusive and designed to exclude those outside the Lord of the Manor's circle. That's the opposite of what you are suggesting.

It fits perfectly with my experience of black tie affairs, as I described above. I had to be shown how to tie a bow tie by an ex public school boy. He was in the inner circle because he had been taught it at school. I hadn't, so without his help this "peasant" would have been excluded for not knowing how to tie the bow tie, when he wanted to dress up.
 
Truth is, why are you inviting people to your wedding that don’t know you well enough to know what pleases you? And respect you enough to do that for you if they can. Or that you don’t care for enough to forgive whatever imagined indiscretion they may enact.
 
I've not attended a black tie event in decades, I have already let my very old suit out so i doubt if I could do it again!
If I was required to attend by virtue of a firm's event, I would ask them to pay for the hire and if personal event i wouldn't attend.
I used to feel this sort of thing was important, it really isn’t as important as the person.
 
stevec67 said:
He's not saying that at all. He is saying that all this talk of codes and standards of behaviour is clubby and exclusive and designed to exclude those outside the Lord of the Manor's circle. That's the opposite of what you are suggesting.

It fits perfectly with my experience of black tie affairs, as I described above. I had to be shown how to tie a bow tie by an ex public school boy. He was in the inner circle because he had been taught it at school. I hadn't, so without his help this "peasant" would have been excluded for not knowing how to tie the bow tie, when he wanted to dress up.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better, I went to a private school, and they never taught me how to tie a proper bow tie either. I had to resort to YouTube!
 
If I really felt the need to specify a dress code for my wedding, I'd probably just put "No Nudity".

But I'd probably get some joker wearing only a bow tie...somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top