Wedding trends are alarming

By Judith Martin

Brides are being callously deceived. Bridegrooms are being fed deliberate untruths. And not even necessarily by each other.

Armed with the true but dangerous knowledge that customs evolve with the times, amateur and professional wedding advisers have promulgated certain procedures as now being essential to a proper wedding. Often they try to claim that these changes are "traditional," as if they had been given the august imprimatur of etiquette.

Miss Manners would be grateful for this unrequested assistance if the new procedures were, in fact, proper. Aware that the 20th century wedding pattern still in vogue stopped corresponding to reality by about 1917, she has sanctioned changes herself. Not widespread ones, as it remains charming and amusing to see headstrong veterans of the various sexual revolutions mince along, disguised as parent-dominated innocents. But certain adjustments have become necessary.

For example, weddings often involve travel, now that the only people who marry the boy or girl next door are those who became overly friendly as neighbors during their first marriages. The save-the-date letters that annoy some guests are designed to allow them to take advantage of airplane bargains requiring advance purchase. No commitment is involved — to the hosts, that is — so when the actual wedding invitations arrive, the guests still have a chance to claim previous engagements.

Considering the time and trouble involved, it is no longer acceptable, as it once was, to invite some guests to the ceremony but not to the reception. Miss Manners never cared for that custom anyway.

But the innovations that are most widely followed, even by those who resent them, are vulgar, impractical or nonsensical — and almost always expensive. Here are some that Miss Manners refuses to sanction:

• That "wedding" is a collective noun referring to a long series of events — minimally including an engagement party, numerous showers, bachelor and spinster (Miss Manners is incapable of saying "bachelorette") parties, a rehearsal dinner, the ceremony, a dinner, a dance and the next day's brunch — until everyone concerned has been worn to a frazzle. And that they all require presents.
  Only the ceremony and a celebration immediately after have the full sanction of etiquette; the rest is for those who have the stamina. A true engagement party is one at which the bride's father announces the engagement as a surprise, and showers are solely at the discretion of friends.
• That the hosts are responsible for answering their own invitations as well as for issuing them. If there are no preprinted responses — and sometimes even if there are — guests claim to be stumped about what they are supposed to do. If there are no stamps on the return envelopes, they turn indignant.
  It is as if they had never received an invitation before ("Would you like to catch a movie tonight?") without being handed the possible answers ("Now you're supposed to tell me either yes or no").
• That hosts must allow anyone who is single to bring along that ubiquitous person known as "And Guest." And Guest doesn't know the hosts or care about the wedding, and if left at home, would allow the person who was invited to meet someone better disposed toward the occasion.
• That the wedding couple is not only entitled but obligated to think up their own presents, and that guests are bound to buy them as directed. Worse, that guests are supposed to bring goods equivalent in value to the cost of the food and drink they receive. And that the couple has a year after the wedding in which to send their thanks.
  Getting married does not endow people with the privilege of levying taxes or charging admission. It does give them the obligation of expressing their gratitude in writing immediately, and to refrain from complaining about what a burden it is to be the recipient of so many people's generosity. Presents are voluntary, and should be selected by the giver, but never brought along to the wedding, where collecting them causes no end of trouble.
• That anyone who seeks to resist the pace, expenditure and anticipated take of a wedding, while increasing the amount of thoughtfulness required from and on behalf of the guests, must have no sense of romance. Or be impossibly romantic.