Catholic Wedding Attire - laughworthy

[crazyforkate]

My fairly conservative Anglican home parish doesn't give a shit about how wedding dresses look, but we're all heathens doomed to hell anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[thekate]

Thanks for the link. Guess what I found:

http://tackyweddings.com/2009/07/21/fas ... /#comments

(I'm guessing this was the original source for the "Makes the Duggar's look dirty" thread on the yuku board back in the Dark Ages.)

Total threadjack, but do we know whatever happened to Kristina's sister Michelle? She had a baby out of wedlock and then was married off to a guy who "kept her in church."

juliesjewels062694.blogspot.com/2011/06/its-been-bittersweet-time.html

[Coconut Flan]

Not only that but making sure the neckline area fits properly is a challenge as well. So with strapless, you omit having to deal with any neckline and sleeves, which would be the most challenging part of fitting the dress. The waistline and skirt part is easy.

Strapless with a corset back pretty much eliminates any fitting except length as long as the dress is within one size of the correct one. The brides hauling at the bodice either don't have the right size, don't have the correct bra or any bra on under it, or aren't laced in properly. It's astounding how many bridal shops either don't know or don't teach how to properly lace the gown.

Our local Catholic diocese seems to have no real rules about wedding attire except to ask that it be tasteful. Individual dioceses though vary from no info to having to send a picture to the wedding coordinator before purchase so she can say it will meet the priest's requirements or not. One recently retired monsignor only told the brides to have someone take a picture of what his view of the bride would look like during the ceremony and make sure they thought he and she would be comfortable with it. :)

[Dutch_girl]

http://bekendebruiden.wordpress.com/tag/valentino/

I loooove that dress because it's clean and elegant. And yes, also because it isn't strapless.

Also loved Kate's dress btw. (Mabels dress not so much, to much stuff on it)

[louisa05]

I loooove that dress because it's clean and elegant. And yes, also because it isn't strapless.

Also loved Kate's dress btw. (Mabels dress not so much, to much stuff on it)

Agree on all counts.

I just find the endless parade of strapless dresses boring. That was my biggest reason for not wanting one. Easiest way to have a "unique" dress was to get one that was not strapless.

A younger friend happily told me she found her wedding dress and opened with "I think it is really different than what most people are wearing!" followed immediately by "it is a strapless ball gown". I wanted to say, "oh, honey...". :lol:

[MamaJunebug]

Can't remember which Servendaughter's wedding it was, but the maid of honor fussed over the train, and fussed and fussed and fussed .... I'm pretty sure it was Elizabeth's -- the younger sister who was permitted to marry at 25, while Rebecca (the oldest sister and firstborn, to boot) was permitted a few months later to marry at 29. (Emphasis on "permitted," remember, they really didn't have the *choice* of when to marry until DaddyServen okayed everything.)

Don't have the time nor inclination to look up the videos, but the don't-over-fuss-with-the-train caution brought up the memory. I think the Catholic site has a point! ;)

[Hane]

I've been to several Catholic weddings where the brides and bridal party wore strapless or spaghetti strap dresses and no one had issues with the attire.

At my former parish, a bride showed up for her wedding in a strapless dress, and the douchebag priest flat-out told her she couldn't walk down the aisle without her shoulders covered! (My sister was the organist and witnessed the whole debacle.) The poor bride had to wait in the sacristy having hysterics as someone in her family dashed home to find her something "appropriate" to throw on over her dress. Apparently Father Clueless was unaware of current wedding fashion (this was several years ago), and it hadn't dawned on him that bride dressed like this in the 21st century. (He was a pretty old dude, and must have been going by 1940s fashion standards, in which brides and bridesmaids wore little jackets over revealing dresses in church ceremonies.)

[louisa05]

At my former parish, a bride showed up for her wedding in a strapless dress, and the douchebag priest flat-out told her she couldn't walk down the aisle without her shoulders covered! (My sister was the organist and witnessed the whole debacle.) The poor bride had to wait in the sacristy having hysterics as someone in her family dashed home to find her something "appropriate" to throw on over her dress. Apparently Father Clueless was unaware of current wedding fashion (this was several years ago), and it hadn't dawned on him that bride dressed like this in the 21st century. (He was a pretty old dude, and must have been going by 1940s fashion standards, in which brides and bridesmaids wore little jackets over revealing dresses in church ceremonies.)

The church I did not get married in that had rules about bridal attire gave me a booklet that contained all of their rules about that and other things as soon as I asked about getting married there. If a parish/church or priest/pastor is going to enforce rules about such things, couples should be made aware long before the ceremony!! If they weren't, then everyone needs to live with it.

[gypsygirl22]

We got married back in the mid 1980's so my dress was the then popular Princess Diana look. We were married in Vegas, then a few years later had the marriage blessed in the church.

[FreeJosie]

My wedding dress had sleeves because I have a rather large scar on my left shoulder that I didn't want showing up in pictures. I had to wear a gown with thin straps as a bridesmaid, but I haven't worn a strapless gown for a wedding to date.

[takers401]

When I went shopping for a wedding dress I specifically avoided strapless with a swoop to the side at waist-level as that seemed to be the rage in the few years before I got married (in 2010) and I wanted something different. I saw many pretty dresses that were of that style but, for me, they all blended together.

I wore a sweetheart neckline halter style dress in a Catholic nuptial ceremony and was only told that my dress should be tasteful but the definition of that would be left up to me. We had a required fee for having the wedding in the church ($100 I believe) but I was cool with that because we used their decorations and we also donated additional money to the Father who married us. I do think that additional suggestions/requirements for church weddings are appropriate because it's a house of God and, I believe, deserves respect but I think these suggestions can go overboard into the ridiculous.

[latraviata]

I loooove that dress because it's clean and elegant. And yes, also because it isn't strapless.

Also loved Kate's dress btw. (Mabels dress not so much, to much stuff on it)

I loved the dress too. I didn't like poor Mabel's dress at all, I liked the shape, but all 248 horrible bows........I hate bows!!

aboutroyals.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/69cf9-princessmabelweddingdress-bodice3.jpg?w=584

[Hane]

My daughters used to attend a Catholic elementary school. When my oldest was in 1st grade, the students presented an evening spring concert, and the attire (for the girls) was a spring dress, and no other instructions were given. Since we are near the gulf coast, spring here is very warm, and sleeveless dresses are common, especially for young girls. However, that evening one of the 1st grade girls was told that she would not be allowed to participate, because someone had deemed her dress straps as too revealing. Her mother had to scramble, and eventually found another girl who lent her her short sweater so that she could 'cover up' and participate. I thought that the whole thing was ludicrous - thin straps on a young girl is not too revealing, and if the school/church wasn't going to allow them, then they should have announced it in advance, and not waited until that night to make arbitrary decisions.

This modesty crap aimed at little girls is ridiculous. Before my niece's First Communion, the parents were informed that "sleeveless" dresses weren't allowed. My niece had her heart set on wearing the dress I'd made her when she was flower girl in my daughter's wedding--a simple white-satin sleeveless dress with a full skirt that I shortened to knee length. So I made it a matching short-sleeved lace bolero jacket and cummerbund. It was a bit of work at short notice, but she loved it and looked beautiful. Then we got to the church and saw most of the girls in sleeveless dresses. Apparently, the memo that went out actually meant they didn't want the kids in halter or spaghetti strap dresses, according to the moms who had called the religious ed teachers for clarification. (Third graders, in a church, wearing halter and spaghetti straps? Who would go that way?)

[louisa05]

I am teaching religious ed this year--confirmation class. Our handbook says that for the ceremony, girls must wear "dresses or skirts, appropriate for church, and dress shoes". Boys must wear "dress pants (no cargos or jeans), dress shirts (no t-shirts), a tie, and dress shoes".

I think that is a change as with the previous bishop girls had to wear closed toe shoes and stockings of some sort which caused endless problems since 8th graders do not wear stockings of any sort, especially in spring. I also am a bit amused that the dress code for boys is much more specific. How often does that happen?

[Coconut Flan]

The last first communion I went to as a family friend the sister got after the mother about the daughter's dress for both being sleeveless and off-white. We were both going sheesh. They had this dress already, it was lovely, and it was completely modest. Luckily they only live a mile from the church and mom was able to run home and get a short sleeved sweater.

[jenny_islander]

My fairly conservative Anglican home parish doesn't give a shit about how wedding dresses look, but we're all heathens doomed to hell anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Even more heathen and Hellbound Episcopalian here. The only rules we have for rental weddings are that the church be thoroughly cleaned afterward by somebody not-us and that no permanent changes be made to the structure (she said grimly, looking at the tack holes all over the ceiling in the parish hall). Parishioners are expected to have the banns read for three weeks beforehand (although this is negotiable for long-time couples).

[jenny_islander]

The last first communion I went to as a family friend the sister got after the mother about the daughter's dress for both being sleeveless and off-white. We were both going sheesh. They had this dress already, it was lovely, and it was completely modest. Luckily they only live a mile from the church and mom was able to run home and get a short sleeved sweater.

The obsession with extravagantly impractical white dresses needs to stop already! Before Queen Victoria (IIRC) set the fashion, most women simply got dressed up in their best, new if possible, and wore the same dress on special occasions thereafter. I've even spotted discreet conversions of wedding dresses to something more useful for everyday wear in fashion mags published during her reign. But now, you are supposed to pay a ridiculous amount for a dress that is way too poofy/slinky/short/long/ornate for you to wear anywhere else ever, and white whether it becomes you or not, and then either stick in a box forever or trash it in a photo shoot.

I wore a red silk two-piece that made a good special occasion dress for years. My sister was scandalized. :nenner:

[latraviata]

The obsession with extravagantly impractical white dresses needs to stop already! Before Queen Victoria (IIRC) set the fashion, most women simply got dressed up in their best, new if possible, and wore the same dress on special occasions thereafter. I've even spotted discreet conversions of wedding dresses to something more useful for everyday wear in fashion mags published during her reign. But now, you are supposed to pay a ridiculous amount for a dress that is way too poofy/slinky/short/long/ornate for you to wear anywhere else ever, and white whether it becomes you or not, and then either stick in a box forever or trash it in a photo shoot.

I wore a red silk two-piece that made a good special occasion dress for years. My sister was scandalized. :nenner:

I wore a black cotton India dress, well it was in the seventies.....

[louisa05]

The obsession with extravagantly impractical white dresses needs to stop already! Before Queen Victoria (IIRC) set the fashion, most women simply got dressed up in their best, new if possible, and wore the same dress on special occasions thereafter. I've even spotted discreet conversions of wedding dresses to something more useful for everyday wear in fashion mags published during her reign. But now, you are supposed to pay a ridiculous amount for a dress that is way too poofy/slinky/short/long/ornate for you to wear anywhere else ever, and white whether it becomes you or not, and then either stick in a box forever or trash it in a photo shoot.

I wore a red silk two-piece that made a good special occasion dress for years. My sister was scandalized. :nenner:

The post you answered was about children's dresses for First Communion in the Catholic Church which actually have nothing to do with Queen Victoria or weddings. The tradition of wearing white is likely related to the longstanding tradition of white garments for baptism which stretches long before Victoria chose a white wedding gown.

[louisa05]

Victoria was hardly the originator of the desire to have something "extravagant" or special or even white for wedding attire, either. This link gives some history of wedding gowns.

http://thedreamstress.com/2011/04/queen ... ed-it-all/

[halfheartedheroine]

The obsession with extravagantly impractical white dresses needs to stop already! Before Queen Victoria (IIRC) set the fashion, most women simply got dressed up in their best, new if possible, and wore the same dress on special occasions thereafter. I've even spotted discreet conversions of wedding dresses to something more useful for everyday wear in fashion mags published during her reign. But now, you are supposed to pay a ridiculous amount for a dress that is way too poofy/slinky/short/long/ornate for you to wear anywhere else ever, and white whether it becomes you or not, and then either stick in a box forever or trash it in a photo shoot.

I wore a red silk two-piece that made a good special occasion dress for years. My sister was scandalized. :nenner:

That sounds really cool! I really want to get married in a cocktail-esque dress, which drives my mom up the wall whenever we watch Say Yes To The Dress together... haven't even brought up the idea of wearing something other than white yet lol

[church_of_dog]

I really want to get married in a cocktail-esque dress, which drives my mom up the wall whenever we watch Say Yes To The Dress together... haven't even brought up the idea of wearing something other than white yet lol

I always wanted to get married on cross-country skis... alas, I'm getting too old for that kind of exertion, so it's looking less and less likely... :?

[salex]

I've looked at that site trying to plan my wedding (which is imaginary and only exists on Pinterest at this point but shhh!) and I really like the guidelines. It seems that most are about practicality rather than "modesty." The train one especially- I imagine traditional catholic weddings with super crazy trains (a la Maria in the Sound of Music) but, while traditional, they are incredibly impractical and would take away from the sanctity of the day. Better than fundies who all wear the same T-shirt dress to be "godly"

I agree that strapless dresses or dresses that are on the immodest side would look strange in a Catholic Church, but that might just be me. I'm not a fan of showing much skin, and I would definitely want my cleavage and shoulders covered on the big day.

I am always reminded of this picture when I think of lots of strapless dresses.

[WonderingInWA]

I, too, believe a strapless dress combined with a veil is just such a contradiction.

And, face it -- most girls don't look very good in a strapless gown. Most of them I've seen are ill-fitting where the boning in the bodice has a mind of its own. And the armpits -- the buttcrack armpits. Oy. Unless you are really REALLY thin or have a very small bust, those buttcrack armpits are gonna show in a strapless dress.

Do the bridal shops seriously not carry anything anymore that has some sleeve to it that isn't a fundie t-shirt style?

[HOTW]

I am not fond of the abundance of strapless gowns seen on Brides as it does them no justice! In the 80's I was the only one who wore a strapless gown to Prom and could have worn a strpless wedding gown if they even existed !LOL But even if they had my DH family was a little more conservative than mine and his sisters about freaked when I mentioned a non white wedding gown, so I ended up wearing a white gown that was very different from most in that era of overdecorated, many sequined, huge sleeved and long trained travesties. It took me nearly a year to find a gown that met a physical defect to cover, was attrative and classy. Not fun. I roll me eyes at back cracks,armpit muffin tops and cleavage breakouts and thankful my DD has ound the dress she wants for her wedding a very nice casual calf lngth with colour wrap top for less than $150 which will go perfect with the outdoor setting she so desires!