The absurd history of wedding traditions, according to Clementine Ford’s new book

“Weddings are full of retro practices romanticised as ‘tradition’.”

Let’s talk about tradition. During the Middle Ages, it was considered normal – and even expected – that a bride’s virginity be confirmed. This was sometimes done prior to the wedding, with a midwife using her fingers to feel for the presence of a hymen (which was a bit unfair for us sturdy girls whose hymens might have made their departure while riding a horse or just engaging in some vigorous stretching).

It might also have been confirmed post-coitus, with the public display of bloodstained bedsheets. For the aristocracy, whose virginity was more closely monitored to prevent illegitimate claims on inheritance, it wasn’t uncommon for a priest to watch as the newly married couple (who may have only met that day) disrobed and copulated. Fun times!

For more content like this, tap through to our Life section.

Although some cultures still demand blood ceremonies be performed to satisfy the patriarchal need to claim a woman’s sexuality as the property of men, such a ‘tradition’ would be baulked at by many of the people who invoke the same word to romanticise practices they like.

It’s just how it’s always been done might be true (or at least seem true) for things like throwing rice at a newly married couple, but few people would defend the Victorian practice of throwing old shoes with as much rigour as James Crombie of Aberdeen, whose 24-page treatise titled Shoe-throwing at weddings (1895) argued, ‘Pelting a bride and bridegroom with old shoes when they start on their honeymoon is a custom we are all familiar with, and in which many of us have participated.’

Interestingly, the bouquet toss is one of those ‘traditions’ that isn’t as old as people think. As with most of the rituals that accompany weddings, it emerged out of weird necessity rather than any kind of ancient commitment to party planning.

Although the concept of love as a precursor to marriage began to gain popularity in the 1800s, it couldn’t quite outstrip the economic need for marriage in the absence of all other options. Superstition led women to believe that touching the bride during the wedding ceremony would bring them luck, and bring a suitor their way. The apocryphal story is that, after one too many bridal gowns were ruined or torn by women angling to be next in line, brides began to throw their bouquet instead. Et voilà! A tradition was born.

It being less necessary now for women to marry for economic reasons (the operative word being ‘less’), the toss has come to represent something more needy and distasteful. It’s an indulgence of the social anxieties we’re supposed to have about unmarried women, which is that we’re a problem in urgent need of solving so we don’t spend the rest of our sad, empty lives burdened by the stench of desperation and the futility of having nothing to do.

The fact that there’s no real equivalent for a wedding’s male guests (the garter toss is hardly the same thing) is revealing. Men might be enticed to engage in a beer-drinking contest or some kind of wrestling match to prove who is the strongest and most virile, but never to discover who’ll be next month’s lucky groom. That would be considered pathetic. Girly. The actions of a beta cuck!

Men fight with other men in order to win the respect of men everywhere. And although that might sometimes involve fighting over a single woman, these displays are never intended to suggest they might want love or marriage for themselves – even though they’re the ones most likely to benefit from it.

Peel back the layers on other wedding practices and you’ll find some equally retro motivations. Warding off demons, bandits and even the prospect of physical altercation were all cause for concern on a wedding day, and measures were taken to mitigate against each. For example, we can date the use of bridesmaids and groomsmen all the way back to Ancient Rome, where the law required 10 witnesses to be present at every wedding. As Roman law didn’t consider women to be humans, only property belonging to fathers, brothers and husbands, these witnesses had to be men.

The group would accompany the bride to the wedding to protect her from any thieves intent on stealing her dowry (and don’t you just love the idea of having to pay a man to marry you, only to become his property?). Having safely navigated the risk of theft, the wedding party had to contend with the threat of malevolent spirits targeting the bride and groom. To confuse them, the group – which now included 10 bridesmaids – would dress identically to the marrying couple so the spirits would be unable to distinguish them from each other.

These days such a prospect might horrify an enthusiastic bride whom, it is explicitly understood, must be the standout on her special, special day. Funny how some traditions can be abandoned while others, like bridesmaids all being poured into five versions of the same ugly dress, are steadfastly maintained!

Centuries after Rome required men to stand as wedding witnesses, groomsmen were employed for different reasons. In the sixteenth century, the Germanic Goths decided that it was easier just to kidnap a woman rather than go through the rigmarole of negotiating their price with whichever man was thought to be her owner. If the abduction was successful, the groomsmen would stick around for the ceremony in case the woman’s family tried to reclaim her or another group of Really Cool Guys tried to steal her for themselves.

Rather than standing next to the groom, the best man was positioned next to the poor woman whose luck had suddenly taken a terrible turn. And the reason grooms traditionally stand on the right-hand side of the wedding altar? Because this was the best position from which to draw their sword or a weapon in the event of a fight. As time went on and the Church began to wield more power over the wedding ceremony, this staging continued – but now the bride was expected to stand on the left to symbolise that Eve had been formed out of Adam’s left rib.

Weddings are full of retro practices romanticised as ‘tradition’. But although we can trace a lot of these customs back to historical eras in which people were more willing to believe in evil fairies than in women’s right to freedom of choice, many of them are modern fabrications. As Jia Tolentino explores in her excellent essay I Thee Dread, what Western culture has been taught to view as traditional is very often recent capitalist invention.

As Europe moved out of the Industrial Age and towards a modern era, the potential for love (which had also been reinvented as marital tradition) to be monetised proved too alluring to resist. Marriage had always been about economics, with the money exchanged in service of keeping the shop closed to outsiders.

The birth of the wedding industrial complex happened at a time when marriage itself was ceasing to be a purchasable item, but the individual status it conferred could be carefully curated via the right dress, tastefully designed invitations and artfully taken photographs. And suddenly, everyone was open for business.

This is an edited extract from I Don’t by Clementine Ford, out now.