Fancy white gowns and multitiered cakes. Shiny gold rings and 400 guests. Exactly when did the fantasy of a classic “white wedding” take root?
In the new book “It’s Our Day: America’s Love Affair with the White Wedding” (University Press of Kansas, March 2008), historian Katherine Jellison traces the elaborate and formal ritual to the rise of consumer culture after World War II. It was driven by “superstar brides,” including Grace Kelly, Tricia Nixon, Diana Spencer and Carolyn Bessette.
While few could afford their extravagance, the princess brides pointed the way to a particular style of designer gown or a certain brand of expensive champagne that, taken alone, might well be affordable, writes Jellison, an associate professor of history at Ohio University.
She attributes the endurance of white weddings through decades of cultural tumult — including the rise of feminism and divorce rates — to their adaptability; a white gown, no longer a symbol of virginity, was favored just the same as a way for the perfect bride to have her perfect day.
In the latest example of fascination with a high-profile wedding, President Bush’s daughter, Jenna, married Henry Hager on her family’s Texas ranch in May. The media, which weren’t invited, reported details of her dress, ring, wedding party, band and venue as details were released. While the bride wore white, her special day was laid-back.
Jellison spoke recently with The Associated Press:
AP: Why are we in love with lavish white weddings?
Jellison: I think it’s an escape from the routine of everyday life. It gives us a valid excuse to wear fancy clothes, eat fattening food, spend too much and perhaps drink too much without any guilt. After all, who can begrudge launching a loving, hopefully lifelong relationship with a pull-out-all-the-stops celebration?
AP: The Cinderella complex seems to be in full bloom with these elaborate wedding rituals. What does that say about where the culture has been and where it’s going?
Jellison: Women in our society, particularly young women, still often feel they have relatively little control over their own lives.
The evidence is all around us: Young women with eating disorders believe they can at least control their food intake, and pregnant teenagers often believe that a baby will give them the unconditional love that they crave.
Compared to the eating disorder and teen pregnancy epidemics, the epidemic of elaborate weddings seems relatively harmless. So society in general — and the wedding industry in particular — nurtures this phenomenon.
AP: Is there any disconnect between the white wedding and the realities of marriage?
Jellison: Even if a woman can orchestrate a “perfect” wedding day, she will not have a perfect marriage. Such things do not exist. Illness, arguments, financial strain are all but inevitable. In fact, the marriage’s first crisis may occur when the wedding bills arrive.
Psychologists have noted an increase in the number of brides who report feeling let down and disappointed when the glamour of the long-anticipated wedding day ends and the real marriage begins.
AP: How should we the people feel about the very private nature of Jenna Bush’s nuptials?
Jellison: I don’t think we should be surprised by the low-key nature of the event. Unlike their counterparts of 35 or 40 years ago — Julie and Tricia Nixon and Luci and Lynda Johnson — the current pair of first daughters have largely shunned the spotlight.
Unlike the Nixons and Johnsons, the Bushes have not employed their daughters in politically motivated photo ops. Instead, following the lead of the Clintons with Chelsea, the Bushes have tried to protect their daughters’ privacy.
AP: Have first-family weddings played a political role?
Jellison: The last two high-profile, first-daughter weddings definitely had political implications. When Lynda Johnson married in the White House in December 1967, protests against the Vietnam War were daily fodder for the U.S. media. Lynda’s groom, Charles Robb, was a Marine captain who was scheduled to leave for Vietnam shortly after the wedding.
The formal military wedding, which was broadcast on the era’s three major television networks, may be seen as an assertion of the Johnson administration’s commitment to the war.
When Tricia Nixon married in the Rose Garden in June 1971, her father and his advisers stage-managed the event for maximum political effect. Facing a re-election campaign the following year, Nixon hoped his daughter’s wedding would show America his warm and human side.
At the time, Nixon characterized his daughter’s highly publicized nuptials as “the biggest news story” of the day, and special counsel Charles Colson noted that the “warm and appealing” portrait of the Nixons that emerged from the wedding and other recent family events was “one of the most important political developments” of the Nixon presidency. Following Tricia’s wedding, her father’s public approval ratings noticeably rose.
In contrast, George W. Bush will not be running for re-election and does not need the spectacle of a White House wedding to boost his re-election chances. As a lame duck in his final year, Bush’s focus is on his historical legacy, and a grand White House wedding would probably only add to the controversy of that legacy. …
At a time when the American public is worried about the worsening economy and fed up with the war in Iraq, Bush would only gain more negative press if he hosted an elaborate White House wedding featuring a bride and groom who never served in uniform.