<p>^^^ Beautiful picture of all three ladies, IMO. I love how Chelsea is focusing on her grandmother, and also like how grandma’s brooch coordinates with Chelsea’s jewelled waist piece.</p>
<p>I am a big fan of everything I have seen.</p>
<p>And again, I’m hugely impressed at how well they kept things private. No leaks on the honeymoon destination so far!</p>
<p>That is a wonderful photograph!</p>
<p>It’s a lovely photo, and Chelsea obviously has such nice manners to be so sweet to her grandmother. </p>
<p>I like Hillary’s dress, and I think it’s fine for MOTB at such a formal affair. I think the necklace is one fol-de-rol too many though. The flowers and beading and color change is enough. Just the earrings would have been fine.</p>
<p>I did not like Hillary’s caftan for the rehearsal dinner. It looked like a Scarlett-O’Hara-act with the curtains to me. Not flattering. And her shoes—AKKK! Black closed-toe plain pumps for a summer wedding event. NO. Metallic sandles or even flats or even black sandles, but the pumps.</p>
<p>The grandmother looks darling. I don’t think Hillary’s gown did her any favors. Sleeves too short for a woman of her age, the necklace too much with the flowers. Those flowers are a very young look, IMO. </p>
<p>For Hillary’s overall look and build, I actually think a smart Chanel or St John dinner suit might have been chic and flattering. They have some with long skirts if she wanted to keep her legs covered.</p>
<p>Not a huge fan of Hillary’s dress, just gives me the impression of a prom dress. </p>
<p>But I love, love, love Chelsea’s gown - even more in this picture. Love the silver beading/belt. The whole dress is gorgeous, and it’s beautiful on her. The hair, the veil, the flowers… perfect.</p>
<p>A lovely picture and the happy expressions on all three womens faces are priceless.</p>
<p>Totally agree, Lafalum, in this photo you can really appreciate how stunning Chelsea looks. ihs76 thanks for the link.</p>
<p>A really like the top of Hilarys dress but not fond of the bottom. It would have been an elegant dress without the fading color, flower appliqués, and ball gown bottom.</p>
<p>Mrs. Rodhams dress is perfect!!</p>
<p>Thank you for the link! The three ladies in the picture look absolutely lovely! IMO Hillary’s dress is fine (could have been better without the flowers). Had Chelsea’s dress been really plain and simple, it could have been somewhat overshadowed by the Oscar dress, but I think mom and daughter got it right! 
Chelsea looked simply stunning!</p>
<p>I think what’s bugging me about Hillary’s dress is the “sleeves.” They’re kind of little-girl frilly, or dress-up princess-ish. I like the color, and that she didn’t go bland and boring. Her mom looks great. </p>
<p>What matters more than the dresses is how happy they all look. </p>
<p>But who am I kidding? We’re the peanut gallery, and we’re checking out DRESSES! :p</p>
<p>“I’m looking at my ketubah, as it’s framed within view of my home office desk. I’m not halachically Jewish, but that’s of little concern in Reform since I do have a Jewish father and made the appropriate affirmations as an adult, and if C and O don’t consider me Jewish – well, too bad for them, not my problem. The ketubah has two lines for witnesses, and they were signed by two Jewish adults in our wedding party, one male and one female.”</p>
<p>You ARE jewish according to the decisions of the Reform Movement (which they do not call halacha, but I will not address that) so to your R rabbi your wedding was a formal kiddushin, with both parties bound to the ketubah to the extent Reform J considers any Jew bound to anything ritually jewish. Ergo it made sense for them to have a place for witnesses. </p>
<p>Having a place for witnesses for a “ketubah” between a Jew and someone the Reform movement itself considers to not be Jewish raises a different set of issues. Although I suppose when you decide that the Ketuba itself is not a halachic document, those issues don’t seem particularly pressing. Many (most? it used to be most not that long ago) Reform rabbis avoid this issue by not “officiating” at weddings between a Jew (as defined by R) and a non-Jew (also so defined) but this rabbi did not. </p>
<p>Your being a “patrilineal Jew” is only an issue A. If you choose to participate in certain ritual acts at a C or O synagogue, which it does not sound to me like you are interested in or B. If one your children chooses to become C or O or to marry someone commitedly C or O. </p>
<p>In C, I am pretty sure that someone with three Jewish grandparents, second generation patrilineal if you will, would be offered a quick and easy conversion process. I am not sure if O would stick to the whole nine yards of the traditional conversion process in such a case.</p>
<p>What a nice picture! Love the interaction between Chelsea and grandmother.</p>
<p>oh I am sad, I had my grandma and my mom around when both of my kids were born, let alone when I got married & but my kids just have me.
wah.</p>
<p>It’s kinda amusing that Grandma colors her hair and has a better sense of what colors look good than Mother does.
I like Chelsea’s dress, Hilary’s not so much. I think it is too floofy for her. She looks much better in more tailored things IMO.</p>
<p>But I wear stuff cause it is fun, not really caring what it looks like on me all the time. so you go Hil!</p>
<p>Love the photo! But it’s like a teaser… now I want to see the whole wedding album!</p>
<p>Re: Hilary’s dress - I’m not fond of it either for many of the reasons already posted, but it she felt beautiful in it, then I say more power to her…</p>
<p>I don’t want to side track this thread and please excuse my ignorance …. But what is a “patrilineal Jew” and what does R, C, and O stand for?</p>
<p>What a wonderful photo! Three generations of smart, strong women.</p>
<p>Whether you love or hate Hillary’s dress, I think we can all agree that it is a great color for her.</p>
<p>I hadn’t noticed the streaks in Chelsea’s hair before - they look great.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what flowers are in the bouquet? I’d thought before that they were roses, but from this photo I am not sure. They look a little flatter - maybe they are open old-fashioned roses?</p>
<p>I have read that Hillary’s mother is 90 - we should all look so good.</p>
<p>I like Chelsea’s dress more up close. Hillary’s - well, is she trying to look like a Disney princess? She would have done better with a more sophisticated look…but she probably thought dammit, this is one occasion where I don’t want to look like the Secretary of State.</p>
<p>whats curious is that D1s roommate has been in upstate ny for a wedding.
He isn’t the most social ( Aspie), so it is fairly unusual for him to fly across the country to stay for over a week at a wedding site where he doesn’t know anyone.</p>
<p>His brother is the photographer, funny coincidence.
he’s due back so maybe I will hear stories?</p>
<p>"I don’t want to side track this thread and please excuse my ignorance …. But what is a “patrilineal Jew” and what does R, C, and O stand for? "</p>
<p>R = Reform C = Conservative O = Orthodox</p>
<p>In traditional Jewish law, Jewish status follows that of the mother. Anyone born to a Jewish mother is a jew, anyone born to non-Jewish mother is a non-Jew (unless they convert to Judaism). Both C and O judaism continue that in their views of Jewish law. This is referred to as “matrilineal descent”</p>
<p>Reform, placing gender equality over tradition, changed this. They are sometimes said to have adopted “patrilineal descent” though that is not true, as that would mean the children of Jewish fathers, and only those, would be born jews. </p>
<p>In fact, IIRC, Reform officialy says that ANY child born to one jewish parent and one non jewish parent (gender language omitted) is a Jew IF they are raised Jewish, are educated as Jews, are NOT educated in a different religion, and affirm their commitment to Judaism when they are ready for their ceremony of Bar/bat mitzvah. Interpreted strictly this in fact means there are some people who are Jews according to C and O but NOT according to O (those with Jewish mothers and non Jewish fathers who have NOT followed all the other requirements) but I have never heard of a Reform synagogue actually challenging the status of an adult matrilineal Jew on that basis (its mainly used, AFAICT for determining who can have a ceremony of bar/bat mitzvah) I am also under the impression that many Reform synagogues are not too fastidious about the “not raised in another religion requirement”. </p>
<p>Patrilineal Jew would then be a term for someone with a Jewish father, non Jewish mother, recognized as Jew by the Reform movement, but not by the other two movements.</p>
<p>Two bring this on topic, Chelsea’s groom is from a C family, but was married by R rabbi. Their children will be Jews according to the R movement IF they meet the requirements (thus no joint Methodist/jewish upbringing) but will be considered non Jews by the other two movements absent a formal conversion ceremony. Note that C judaism recommends in a case like this that the children be converted as infants, avoiding the emotional trauma of “I was raised as a Jew, what do you mean Im not Jewish?” which is often an issue when a patrilineal jew approaches a C synagogue - a recommendation which is often moot, since the intermarried couple usually has little to do with C Judaism at that point.</p>
<p>Most O rabbis challenge the validity of infant conversion, IIUC.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what flowers are in the bouquet? I’d thought before that they were roses, but from this photo I am not sure. They look a little flatter - maybe they are open old-fashioned roses?</p>
<p>They are Gardenias.</p>
<p>^^ I wondered if that’s what they were but thought the stems didn’t look right.</p>
<p>That must have smelled <em>heavenly</em>.</p>
<p>My wedding bouquet was gardenias (21 years ago today!) They did smell terrific!</p>