Two Dresses or Not Two Dresses? That is the question.

I am going a bit more bridal frou frou with this one everyone. Let’s talk about Two of Everything. As the wise band Nelson said, ‘Two heads are better than one, double the pleasure, triple the fun’. Is it though? And when is two just one too many?

 

Life is geared up to couples, true – when I was single it was often a point of frustration that I had no-one to share the financial cost of going to a friend’s party or wedding if it were far away. However, now BF and I pay out of our joint account, I actually find myself feeling like I am paying more. After all, if I shared a £100 room with a friend back ‘in’t good old days I would have paid £50, right? Now I pay £100 to all intents and purposes; it just comes from our joint account.

 

Now, we have two wedding rings and even two engagement rings. Some people have two types of wedding cake. Many women have two sets of wedding shoes (high ones and low ones) and others even have two weddings. You can often do a better job in general with two people. But you can’t have a fight on your own. And sometimes two is just too many for some jobs.

The decision to have a second dress is one which a lot of women think about, even if it’s briefly dismissed. And why not? It is the only time in your life when you will spend that amount of money on a dress. And if you have ever tried to dance or do anything sensible in a long frock with a train, you will understand why it’s nice to have maybe a shorter version for the evening. Why stress it really? If your bustle doesn’t work do you want to be worrying about it being ripped as people get more enthusiastic or even (god forbid) being unable to dance because the bloody thing is getting in the way?

 

 

Many people decide that they will combat this choice by having a day dress (long) and then have a separate dancing dress which they can have a good boogie in. And maybe show off their shoes….  In fact, a number of articles on the Telegraph online, Inside Weddings and Brides Website talk about this choice some women make. Even the Huffington Post and the NY Times got involved. People were doing it long before Kim Kardashian did it. Wedding boards on The Knot and Wedding Bee are full of the question, ‘Should I wear two dresses?’ Interesting that they feel they need ask permission of their peers … More on that later.

 

My friend’s sister went the whole hog and had two different dresses, a longer ballroom style dress and then a short 1950’s one for the evening.  Her take on the 'two dress is better than one' question was: ‘I only bought the second dress the week before the wedding as I thought at the last min it would be good to have something shorter I could dance in. My first one was from Monique L’Huillier and the second one was Phase Eight. I was really glad I had a second one, it was much more relaxed for the party section of the day. I also went all out with a second pair of shoes from Jimmy Choo, the short dress really showed them off.’

 

The other option of course is to get one dress which gives you the option of having two dresses without having to get changed, Poppy Delevingne style which is generally more practical and less expensive in the long run. Also it means a quick change of 5 minutes doesn’t turn into half an hour in the loo changing. There are even websites like this one, 2in1 which have two in one dresses for this very purpose. The wedding industry is wising up… You only have to look at the number of very expensive lace tops offered in most bridal shops to realise that many people like to have this option. After all, if you’re having a church wedding you don’t really want to be flashing too much flesh but neither do you want to be trussed up like a lace turkey for your disco.

My friend MD, did a similar thing to what I plan to do myself and had a dress which could take her throughout the day from the ceremony to the party with a simple top that came off to transform the dress.

 

She told me, ‘I basically tried on a few dresses and as I got nearer to what I wanted I started to look online as well. I found my dress as I'd tried a similar one on by the same designer that wasn't quite right but I really liked the style. It just so happened that it was both affordable and 2 dresses in one - bonus! And I completely fell in love with it partly because of its versatility and how fun it was.’

Similarly, I will have a dress which might not be quite so versatile (she went from lacey, slinky bridal to full on elegant white slink backless in the evening – I was most impressed), but will have a bit more flesh on show in the evening thanks to some lace construction by Mrs McW for the church bit.

The question I am guessing that you are asking is, since when did being a bride become a fashion show? In the same way that actors used to wear just the ones dress at the Oscars, suddenly we have hosts in four or five of them.

 

 

Is it fair to call them ‘costume changes’ and should we be feeling guilty about changing our dress halfway through our big day? Surely one dress is enough?

 

I don’t know about that. Honestly, it’s an inordinate amount of money to spend on a dress. I can fully understand why many readers are rolling their eyes that women feel they want to milk one day for all it's worth while people oo and ahh over yet another wardrobe change. But if you want to have a great dance in the evening and you’re getting married at 1pm, why wouldn’t you have a cheaper dancing option to change into? I can't see how anyone would object to that as a practicality, even if you don't agree with it in theory.

 

I haven’t quite gone for two, mainly as I want to get my money’s worth out of number 1 and will most likely stay in it until I’m forced out of it, but I have made sure that I get a second shot at the whole ‘I’M A BRIDE!’ feeling regardless.

 

We have wound up having a second reception to fit in M&D’s friends and some of our chums who have families (we are strictly no children on the Saturday) and M felt it was important to be ‘bridal’ for both. I refused to put the dress from the previous day on (I have done enough plays in period costume to know that I’ll never want to put it on ever again after spending 14 hours plus in it) so I went for a second option.

Today was an exciting day at work as my second dress arrived. It is a particularly beautiful frock from Honeypie Boutique. Amazingly enough, at £149.99 you can have a made to measure 1950’s style silk dress in any colour you want in a whole variety of styles with sleeves, over skirts, extra petticoats…the works. Frankly I’d have had it for my actual wedding dress.

I might be mildly in love with this site.

I cannot therefore stand here and say that you shouldn’t have a second dress. However I do think that if you can’t afford a second dress and want one, restrain yourself! Remember, want is different to need. If you can afford it, well, you technically only get married once. There is a little Kim Kardashian in every woman deep down….

 

To give or receive?

I have discussed traditions in weddings somewhat in the past few blog entries, but I began getting interested in one particular one when BF asked for something which is distinctly non traditional. 

My colleague (and friend) K has just announced her own engagement which happened while she was away in the mystical orient with her boyfriend. She is defying tradition, not by having a small wedding, but because she will not be changing her name to her partner’s, for both professional and personal reasons.

Which I think is entirely sensible. 

"I hope it's mine"

Names were changed originally not merely to imply ownership of the female partner in the ‘good old days’, but also to ensure continuous heredity through the male line. This has always seemed an impractical way of doing things in my mind. Any woman could pass off a child as a different man’s than her husband, but it takes particular cunning for her to pass off another woman’s child as her own. What with all the carrying and birthing etc. it doesn’t matter who the father was, you can see when a woman is pregnant and watch the birth to ensure you know what line it carries. Paternity tests in the Middle Ages were harder to prove. The Queen doesn’t change her surname for work reasons; why should we ordinary folk have to? 

Mr and Mrs Pratt?

My Aunt and Uncle both have doctorates with different surnames for professional  reasons, and have found it a pain on occasions when they are put in a twin bedroom and even at times, separate rooms because hoteliers assume they are not a couple. I can see why it is practical to take your husband’s name. I hugely respect my Aunt’s and K’s decision to keep their professional surname AND all my friends who have all become Mrs XYZ. What did emancipation and the vote give us after all but the right to a choice in these things?

Another consideration is taking on the new name if you don’t like it. Another friend with her wedding in the pipeline (they are dropping like diamond encrusted flies at the moment into engagements) hates her future surname. I can understand that. I once went out with a man called Mr Pratt and remember thinking before we’d even gone on a first date (pointless worrying, as it was a no go from 3 seconds after meeting him) that he’d have to change his name to mine eventually if it went well. I would never be Mrs Pratt.

BF would like me to take his name. My name sounds rather pretty with his surname and frankly my father’s surname, despite being a very old name, has enough little curly haired tots carrying it on already. I’ll change it for him because he would like me to. I am ambivalent and am happy to keep my own name or change it. Why should it therefore bother me?

And this is when he surprised me. Also, he said, he wanted an engagement ring please. I hadn't even thought a man would WANT an engagement ring. I laughed it off until i realised he was serious. I was surprised (BF isn't the type to wear jewellery in my mind) but it seemed fair enough. I got one after all; why shouldn’t he? 

So I went on Etsy, the only place where I could track down a ring in the metal he wanted. This was Niobium – a super conductive element  named after Niobe of Ancient Greece (famous for boasting about her children in front of the Gods who then killed them all), and which happens to be the metal he wrote part of his Pd.D. thesis on. Did I mention BF is a Dr of Clever Stuff? Lucky I am not one too if I go by my Aunt’s experience.

He also wanted it in purple.

I don’t know what my feelings on this were – well, I know what they were on the purple, but I mean the ring itself. Practically, his ring was comparably cheap compared to mine despite the fact that I had to have it commissioned specially. I had his ring size from our wedding ring file so that was easy. It also turned out that his brother and dad both had engagement rings; I liked this. It was an L family tradition, and one day it might even be something we passed on to our own kids, or our nieces and nephews if the kid thing never happened. Plus it is an intensely personal gift with a lot of happy associations. 

£120 Male Engagement Ring, H Samuel

Male engagement rings. What a lovely, if slightly untraditional, idea to pledge your troth before marriage on both sides – especially if you have a long engagement in front of you. 

£3500 Male
Engagement rings, Beeverbrooks

And more common than you might think. Smooch (the company we eventually bought our wedding rings with) told me that they often sell male engagement rings and that the number of rings they are selling with diamonds and other precious stones in them is on the rise steadily. Now the high street are getting in on it with H Samuel and Beaverbrook to name a few selling male engagement rings. Ascending to a mind blowing £3500 for a platinum diamond ring (although most are around the £300-800 range) they are yet another wedding accoutrement which may soon turn into a ‘must have’ item. I got off lightly with Niobium by the looks of it, although H Samuel has one as low at £75.

£75 Tioro Male Engagement ring, H Samuel 

Also, looking at some of these rings, how will a man wear it? A woman slips her wedding ring on under her engagement ring; both items tend to be fairly slim and dainty. Men’s rings are bigger, heavier and bulkier in the main. A man surely can’t fit all of that metal on his hand? This Daily Mail article (no, I am not a reader but the article is relevant!) by Sara Nelson states that the ring will be transferred to the right hand when the wedding band is placed on the left hand. Most men will therefore go from wearing no jewellery to having it on both hands within a year or so. And if a woman proposes first to her man and buys him a ring, does she get a ring as well after the proposal has been made? Are two rings to be the standard? It’s opened up a mind boggling can of wedding etiquette worms for me.

Another friend and his boyfriend also recently got engaged (not all of my friends are planning weddings you know). They are (obviously both being men) not a heterosexual couple. I asked him how they did the whole ‘ring’ thing. Both saw wedding rings they liked but neither wanted to wear two rings. So R had a wonderful two piece necklace made for his proposal and his BF proposed with the ring that R wanted for his wedding ring. R has bought him an engagement ring in return and they will then use both rings as their wedding rings. Simples.  

Anyway, back to the niobium ring. I had it made and shipped (HMRC you are horrible people charging me so much extra customs charge from the US) and I proposed to BF romantically in the pasty section of M&S Food services on the A34. There was no element of mocking involved. Well, maybe a bit.

Our engagement rings

A few weekends later when he went to Prague for his friend’s Stag Do though, I think I got it. There was a certain, despicable part of me that rather LIKED the fact that BF had a stamp saying ‘taken’. In the main, it was a badge to other women which said he ‘belonged’ to someone just as my ring was my personal ‘taken’ badge to other men.

Is this how men feel when they give us an engagement ring? Do they feel the same smug, odd emotions of possession and belonging that I did when BF put his own ring on?

It’s an interesting post-modern question – why are women who balk at changing their name for philosophical and feminist reasons happy to have this symbol of unity and implicit ownership on their finger? Do men feel the same way about wearing one? Is there an inherent ownership which comes with an engagement ring in the same way as changing your name does, or are these merely the husks of once important, legal and symbolic traditions?

Whatever you think (and here comes what I always say) it’s your choice. And who has the right to judge what you decide to do as a couple? No-one. You do what the heck you want!

For me it is not a stamp of ownership to either of us, but one of pride. I love seeing his ring on his finger and he says he feels the same way. That can’t be bad. So here’s to new traditions, even if they are going to push your budget up even higher!