Love AND Marriage
From wedding rings to white gowns, Caroline Roope looks at how the marriage traditions we know today came to be
On 8 September 1897, the Sheffield Evening Telegraph reported an “Amusing Incident at a Wedding”. The wedding party were making their way home from the festivities
– the blushing bride no doubt looking forward to spending the night with her new husband. Unfortunately, the groom had other ideas. The journey home required passing the local public house, where the bridegroom “was seen to hesitate, and then snatch himself away from his bride, and make for the pub”. Sensing that she was about to be abandoned in favour of a pint, the bride was quick to act, and “seizing him by the collar, with the assistance of the bridesmaids hauled the thirsty one from the doorway and led him home captive”. The course of true love never did run smooth…
Such anecdotes are rife in newspaper archives, providing a humorous insight into an institution that is as old as civilisation itself. Marriage is found in virtually every society, and while the way we celebrate a wedding may have changed from the simple ceremonies our ancestors would have recognised, some wedding traditions have survived throughout the centuries, for better – and for worse.
Forging Links
The Anglo-Saxons saw marriage as a way of establishing trading relationships and diplomatic links, and throughout the medieval period, money and protecting hereditary bloodlines ranked highly on the aristocratic wish list. This meant that consent was of little importance, particularly for the bride, who was expected to keep quiet and leave the decision to her parents.
Written in 1523, Juan Luis Vives’ influential manual The Education of a Christian Woman made a strong case for obedience to one’s parents, ordering that “it becometh not a maide to talke, where her father and mother be in communication about hir [her] marriage”.
For those who were lower down the pecking order – and therefore less concerned with dynastical allegiances and hereditary wealth – things were much simpler. Although the Church attempted to control marriage, all that was required for a binding union
was the consent of those involved. And because a priest didn’t need to officiate, it didn’t have to take place in a church. Legal records show couples getting married on the road, in bed and even in the pub – perhaps that errant bridegroom had the right idea after all. legal requirement of marriage in 1754.
Announcing the couple’s intention to marry on three successive
Sundays in the church parishes of both parties was a way of safeguarding marriages contracted by words alone. This ensured that the marriage was the responsibility of the whole community, who could then testify to its legality.
There was some confusion over what objections counted. On 15 January 1881, the Londonderry Sentinel reported that a wedding
ceremony was interrupted by a “young lady” who wanted “to ‘forbid the banns’, on the grounds that the bridegroom had courted her for three years, whilst he had only known the bride-elect for two months”. The broken-hearted woman was quietly informed by the clergyman that her objection especially by many
little archaic, but the 800-year-old tradition of reading the banns has lasted in sickness (it was nearly scrapped by the Church of England in 2015) and in health. Wedding vows – “to have and to hold, from this day forward” and so on – also have a similarly long history, dating back to Thomas Cranmer, the architect of English Protestantism. His ‘modern’ wedding vows were scripted in 1549 in his Book of Common Prayer, in which he also pronounced the fourth finger of the left hand to be the site of the wedding ring.
The exchange of rings also holds a powerful significance. As a closed circle, the ring is endless, symbolising an enduring commitment. This idea has its roots in ancient times, with records of the Greeks and Romans wearing rings as an external symbol of unity. In the Middle Ages, the exchange of rings was often more significant than the ceremony itself, even if the ring was made of humble materials such as a twist of rushes.
In August 1913, a canny jeweller spotted a PR opportunity and fabricated a story to promote its wedding rings. Under the headline “Amusing Scene at a Wedding”, the Mid-Ulster Mail reported that the bridegroom was asked to produce the rings, at which point he “went through his pockets a dozen times”. With the bride in tears, the jeweller was summoned: “R M’Dowell & Co, who in less than three minutes arrived in a motor car with a tray of over 300 wedding rings,
from which one was selected and the happy knot was tied.” A salesman’s spiel concludes the ‘story’, as well as where to find the jeweller and what it stocked.
Marrying For Love
As Europe modernised during the 17th and 18th centuries, the idea that marriage could be based on affection and mutual consent began to be taken more seriously, and weddings became a celebratory event rather than a formality. Toasting the happy couple had always been a necessary part of the festivities, but it also became customary for a wedding breakfast to be laid on. This was due to the timing of the ceremony, which before 1886 could only take place between 8am and 12pm. Once the hours were extended, it became the perfect excuse for a lavish banquet with music and dancing well into the evening.
The 19th century saw major changes to the system of marriage. The 1836 Marriage Act made it possible for a civil ceremony to take place in a register office, as well as allowing nonconformist Christians and Catholics to marry according to their own rites.
The idea that marriage should be based on mutual affection was cemented by the wedding of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in 1840. Their love match in an era of arranged marriages among royalty proved extremely influential, and Victoria’s white silk satin and lace dress was widely admired as the “beau ideal of a Royal bride’s apparel” ( York Herald, 15 February 1840).
Most brides, unless they were wealthy, would have worn their Sunday best whatever its colour. A specific gown would have been considered an unnecessary extravagance, but as the 19th century wore on, bridal fashion became a trend in its own right. The advent of photography and society journalism, reporting the minutiae of marriages and weddings among the aristocracy, introduced wedding finery and styles to a whole new audience at the turn of the 20th century – the middle class.
Renowned dressmakers such as London store Russell & Allen would be featured in magazines such as The Queen: The Lady’s Newspaper and Court Chronicle, which reported on the wedding of Miss Gordon to Mr Lawrence Johnston in October 1898: “The bride looked lovely in her ivory
Victoria and Albert cemented the idea that marriage should be based on mutual affection
satin gown, embroidered in pearls and diamante, with chemisette and sleeves of chiffon.” The new department stores opening in the early 20th century, coupled with an increase in mass production, meant bridal fashions were no longer merely aspirational; they became an affordable option for working-class women as well.
A groom would look positively plain compared with his lavishly attired bride. The man’s clothing would be determined by his
class – evolving from a black frock coat in the 19th century to morning dress at the turn of the century, and then a top hat and tailcoat. Upstaging the bride was not an option!
Marriage In Wartime
Wartime privations also had a direct impact on wedding culture. During the Second World War, a dress might be borrowed from a friend or relative, while food rationing curtailed extravagant wedding breakfasts and cakes, as well as the ancient Roman practice of throwing rice over the happy couple to symbolise fertility. The practice could also be dangerous, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries when horse-drawn transport was the only means of travel. One account in the Dundee Courier in May 1899 describes an incident where rice was hurled at a wedding carriage and “the horses, becoming frightened, bolted, and, running the carriage up a bank, overturned it. The carriage was smashed and the bride, who was badly shaken, had to be extricated from the wreckage.”
The bridal bouquet also has its origins in ancient Rome, symbolising new beginnings – as well as providing a handy way to mask the smell of body odours with something more fragrant. Flowers were selected for their meaning and Queen Victoria’s bouquet and headdress both contained orange blossom, which signified fertility.
Despite the Victorian obsession with love and romance, the old
to The bouquet was a handy way mask the smell of body odours
cliché of marriage as a ‘ball and chain’, and wives being likened to ‘trouble and strife’, persisted into the 20th century – often manifesting itself in popular culture via comedy and music hall. In Ernest Butcher’s (1885–1965) I Married a Wife, he laments his predicament: “I married a wife, the plague of my life/I wish’d I were single again.”
Legal access to divorce spread slowly and for most of our ancestors, marrying really did mean “till death do us part”. Let’s hope they made a good match!
writes about social history and nostalgia: carrie creates.co.uk