<p>Totally agree re sleeveless, Pizzagirl. It is incredibly difficult to find a simple summer dress that is not sleeveless. And MOST women I see going around in sleeveless clothes are not doing anyone a favor, IMHO. (Chelsea looked lovely, though. 
)</p>
<p>Two dresses is a new one to me too. I just read that Carrie Underwood did the same thing. I recently went to a very lavish wedding, and the bride wore her dress to the reception and danced in it. It was strapless as are most of the dresses I’ve seen for weddings in the last few years.</p>
<p>I’ve never actually attended a wedding where there are two dresses…I only know about it from Say Yes to the Dress. Seems like most brides - no matter how wealthy - would love their dress so much that they would want to wear it for longer than just the ceremony.</p>
<p>I’ve been to two weddings where there were three dresses: a dress for the ceremony, a dress from the bride’s culture (in this case, Chinese) for the early part of the reception, and then another dress when the dancing started. Whew. </p>
<p>An article in the Washington Post this morning revealed some details that made me smile–Bill and Hillary lifted up on chairs during the hora. It sounds like a wonderful, happy party, and I’m glad Chelsea had her semi-private day.</p>
<p>I’m glad they had such a great time, too! It sounds like a perfect wedding.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard of multiple wedding dresses, either, except for weddings where a particular costume is part of an ethnic tradition. Wedding dresses are so horribly expensive that it seems profligate to have more than one. It strikes me that this has been promoted by the bridal gown industry in order to increase their profits, and now is seen as normal. </p>
<p>I haven’t been to enough weddings to know that strapless is now the norm. Chelsea did look wonderful in her strapless gown, but she is young, thin, and has beautiful skin. This is not true of all women!</p>
<p>Last time I was in Rome, there was a group of about ten women all in wedding gowns having their pictures taken at the Coliseum (one photographer). They were draping themselves over rocks, benches, moped, lying on the ground, etc. dragging their dresses through the dirt and water (and if you’ve been to the Coliseum you know dirt). An Italian friend told us that it had become a kind of fad to have these kind of toughed up bride pictures taken before the wedding, so the girl would buy a dress just for the picutres, usually a cheaper dress, so that makes one more dress to buy.</p>
<p>There was an article in the NY Times recently about the trend for young women to buy more than one wedding gown (couldn’t find it after a quick search). Some of the women wanted to wear more than 1 gown for the ceremony/reception; several others just couldn’t seem to commit to one gown over the others. The unworn dresses wound up on preownedweddingdresses dot com or something similar.</p>
<p>Exciting news here - my d bought her wedding gown last week at the Filene’s Basement “Running of the Brides.” Not for the faint of heart, apparently. This kid is a terrific money manager and got a discontinued 2009 model in excellent condition, valued between $1500 and $3000, for less than I paid for my wedding gown 31 years ago. Believe me, her sister/maid of honor would never have permitted it if the dress had been even slightly damaged, dirty, or fell short of beautiful in any way. D1 is thrilled with it (yes, strapless). Even if she had second thoughts, she’s so far under budget that she could buy a second gown she loves and donate or sell the first. But she’s only wearing one dress on the big day (or that’s the game plan right now, anyway).</p>
<p>
A ketubah is the marriage contract between the groom and bride. It’s not “issued.” It’s signed by groom and bride, a witness and the person performing the ceremony. Anyone can have a ketubah, even non-Jews if they wish to bind themselves to its terms. Many are pre-printed forms, or can be beautifully calligraphied.</p>
<p>And I say “groom and bride” rather than the other way around, because most of the promises are made from the groom to the bride, and she assents to the marriage by accepting the ketubah and the ring. She makes very few promises. And at my orthodox wedding, held that way because my grandparents were orthodox, I said nothing. Traditionally, the bride makes no vows.</p>
<p>^^thanks for the clarification Chedva!!..it looks like it was beautifully calligraphied in the picture…</p>
<p>Maybe Chelsea wanted Bill to lose weight so the guests wouldn’t get a hernia lifting him up in the chair during the hora. That was DH’s reaction as well & he’s been the lifter lots of time at Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.</p>
<p>I have a Chinese friend who did the two dresses thing but here? Seems a bit over the top but that’s just me and that Quaker blood running through my veins.</p>
<p>One thing that confuses me about the multiple dresses is this. It’s very (very!) common here for many people to just come to the reception and the ceremony to be more about family, particularly when the ceremony is on Friday. So if the bride changes for the reception, there will be a lot of guests who never got to see the actual gown. Same with headpiece and veil.</p>
<p>My D was recently a bridesmaid in a wedding where the bride wore two dresses. For the wedding ceremony, she wore a Japanese-type wedding dress (she’s Japanese–went to high school/college/med school in the US and plans to stay. Groom is from the US.) For the reception, the bride wore a short cocktail-type dress–which was strapless. </p>
<p>My D got married last year and she wore a strapless gown. I accompanied her when she went looking for a dress; it is extremely difficult to find a wedding gown that isn’t strapless. I’d say that 95% of the wedding gowns we saw were strapless. I agree that strapless isn’t universally flattering. </p>
<p>I thought Chelsea looked great in her Vera Wang dress. Has anyone seen the bridesmaid’s dresses?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would imagine that with the security issues that the Clintons had to deal with, everyone was pretty much accounted for at all times, so they needn’t worry that people were skipping out of the ceremony :-)</p>
<p>Maybe I missed it - any discussion of the green caftan from the rehearsal dinner? I loved the fabric and the color of the dress on Hillary … the size, however, was unfortunate, as it didn’t photograph well. Some dresses like that look really nice IRL, though, but not in photographs. </p>
<p>I haven’t yet seen a picture of what Hillary wore to the wedding, aside from a very small shot where I can see that it was burgundy?</p>
<p>
I agree. Not a flattering shape. But she did look comfortable.</p>
<p>Hilary is a very attractive woman, IMHO. Her one major flaw is lousy legs, unfortunately. Nothing a person can do about that in photos but cover them. (Hence the pantsuits, I would guess.) I have the feeling that she wanted to be comfortable and feminine during the rehearsal dinner! The fabric was really nice and the color looked good on her, although the shape didn’t photograph particularly well.</p>
<p>I shudder to think of the pressure to be photo-perfect at all times that women like her are under. I find looking at ANY picture of myself horribly traumatic. :D</p>
<p>“A ketubah is the marriage contract between the groom and bride. It’s not “issued.” It’s signed by groom and bride, a witness and the person performing the ceremony. Anyone can have a ketubah, even non-Jews if they wish to bind themselves to its terms.”</p>
<p>quibble, its signed by two witnesses, neither of whom has to be the person “performing” the ceremony (technically in traditional Judaism no third party “performs” the ceremony, a rabbi is present to make sure that the bride and groom follow the proper halachic procedures - I will not comment on what that could conceivably mean in a case such as this). Its common though to have the “officiant” serve as one of the witnesses. (actually I am pretty sure the bride and groom do NOT traditionally sign it - the groom commits to it by handing it to the bride, who commits to it by accepting it - the witnesses witness that the bride and groom have done so)</p>
<p>Of course thats all for those who care about halacha (Jewish law). In this case one of the parties is not bound by Jewish law, so no contract under halacha exists. Its a contract, in that they exchanged promises - I suppose they (and anyone else) can call it a ketubah if they please, but to me thats stretching things a bit. I mean if any exchange of promises between bride and groom becomes a ketubah by being written in Hebrew and including some of the traditional formulas, why do you need witnesses? The two witnesses is a halachic requirement.</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>H is a wedding photographer. Two dresses is getting to be quite common. I doubt my kid will do it. It is appropriate for a very long affair with a lot of dancing, or as others have noted, part of several ethnic traditions.</p>
<p>The defilement of the bridal dress is also done after the wedding with the actual gown. Seems a sad thing to do to such a beautiful garment, but how many daughters really want to wear their mom’s bridal gowns.</p>
<p>I was too much of a hippie, twice. Both my wedding dresses were $25.00 off the rack, no alterations. D, of course, knows she wants a Vera Wang. LOL.</p>
<p>I have met Hillary Clinton in an intimate setting on several occasions. She was both more attractive and more personable than I expected. And of course, she is whip smart.</p>
<p>In defense of strapless dresses, my D always wears them to any formal occasion and she doesn’t have the best arms in the world. What she does have is a small waist and very narrow shoulders. Strapless expands her shoulder area, which is very flattering for her.</p>
<p>I have never had arms nice enough for even sleeveless. Sniff, sniff. When I got married in 1976 my mom nixed the Harlowesque white satin dress I bought at a vintage store (still own, unworn) because it was sleeveless. It certainly wasn’t strapless. I wore a longsleeved, very plain gray jersey dress that crossed across the bodice. It was lovely, but although almost no cleavage showed, (it had a deep V cut) it was considered racy. Not by me. It fits D who has trouble believing I was that small (size 1).</p>