Popular Superstitions: Marriage

[sublime311]

Something fun and interesting for all you busy planning brides! Enjoy!

Popular Superstitions: Marriage


IN primitive days, Mankind was divided into tribes rather than Nationalities—a custom still seen in the Scottish clans and the North American Indians. It was always held advisable to marry outside your own tribe; to remain content with a daughter of your own people suggested cowardice—the greatest vice and failing known in those days.

It is, of course, impossible to say when the ancients first discovered the danger of inbreeding, or the marriage of close relations. It must have been by observation based upon their stock, after horses and cattle had been domesticated. The introduction of “new blood” would make such a marked dif*ference that Man could not fail to be struck by the fact. This knowledge was undoubtedly at the back of the custom of going outside for a bride—and that meant carrying off the woman by force.

Naturally this often proved a failure—the woman might not be so very desirable, after all, for there was little time for choice. In consequence, a system of barter was established—a case of wealth versus strength which has persisted almost to the present day. In fact, it is still far too frequent and is not discouraged by public opinion—the girl who “makes a good marriage”—that is, who sells her*self for the highest price obtainable—is generally envied by her companions and associates.

The honeymoon custom clearly suggests hiding the stolen woman—she was kept vigorously seclud*ed for a time, and after that, she would generally settle down contentedly to her fate.

Naturally, such early marriages went through without any real ceremony, but with the introduction of barter or purchase, this was altered, and much superstition came to be built around the marriage rites.

Among the Babylonians, a thread was taken from the clothes of both bride and bridegroom; these were tied together—hence our modern reference to “tying the knot.” It really is wonderful how tightly these old customs have fixed themselves into our lives!

It has always been held unlucky for two sisters to marry two brothers, and popular superstition tells us that there is only a certain quantity of luck to be had, and that both couples cannot have it. One of the two marriages is expected to prove unfortunate. As a matter of fact, in primitive times a man was expected to take over a dead brother’s widow, and it has always been held to be bad for the children for a woman to have marital relations with two brothers. Many bitter tears have been shed over the “Deceased Wife’s Sister” question, principally because women have failed to recognise—or to admit—that there is a vast and essential natural difference between the child-begetter, and the childbearer.

The mere fact that a man marries two sisters cannot in any conceivable way affect the children ; but the reverse is not a pleasant custom and should be discouraged, as it was by the ancients.

There is an old superstition that it is unlucky to be married on your blrthday! I fail to find any reason for this. It is, however, a very good omen when the birth dates of husband and wife fall on the same day of the same month, but not on the same day of the week-in other words, they should not be exactly the same age. A further superstition tells us that if the birthday months are far apart, it is unfortunate—this, of course, is based upon astrology, and is due to the fact that the temperaments would probably clash badly, thus causing constant quarrelling.

It was also held lucky if the wedding party consisted of an even number of people, in spite of the fact that odd numbers are generally the lucky ones. It might be assumed that the presence of the

minister would render the total number an odd one, and there is much in this idea. But it was more probably due to a desire for the presence of an equal number of friends or supporters from both sides—if one party predominated, there might be trouble!

Friday, as already explained, was always considered a good day for love affairs, and was at one time a very usual one for ceremonies.

As for the wedding day itself, the most persistent superstition tells us that “Happy is the Bride whom the Sun shines on.” No doubt a fine day does improve our spirits, but the real reason for this belief lies in the fact that all early marriage ceremonies took place in the open air—generally at the Church door, and not inside the building.





Found this here. (http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/01/080/08.htm)

[sublime311]

The old and much beloved superstition is a case of reversal—it must have been unfortunate for the bride if it rained, therefore, by reversal, it was considered lucky if the Sun shone on her. It was, I believe, in the reign of Edward VI. that the custom was altered, and the rites performed under cover.

This explains the persistent superstition that it is unlucky if there is an open grave in the Churchyard—the open air marriage would actually be taking place in the same enclosed space, which would be repulsive. To-day, though the bridal ceremony takes place elsewhere—that is, within the building—it is usual to place planks over any open grave in the adjoining yard.

It was also held a bad omen for the bridal couple to enter the Church by one door, and go out by another. Here again we see the clashing ceremonies, for that is the custom at a burial service, where the coffin is taken out by a different door.

Snow on the wedding day is considered unlucky in the West of England, but in most districts it is looked upon as a good sign. We must remember, however, that in such a district as Dartmoor, snow can be a ghastly danger to life.

Another amusing belief runs that it is unlucky if the bridal party, on the way to Church, should meet a Priest, a Policeman, a Doctor, a Lawyer, or any one who is blind! What a curious mixture! A rival priest might have caused trouble in the days of bitter religious faction, when they thought nothing of burning men and women alive, in public, because of a difference of opinion about some minor observance! But the others appear to be modern additions to what might at one time have been a very real danger.

There is a very strong objection to May marriages, yet surely it is one of the brightest months of the year, and full of the promise of spring. But among the Romans it was considered sacred to the old, and therefore was always avoided by young lovers. Nowadays we do nothing special for our parents during this month, but the old avoidance remains a vital factor in our social life.

The custom of throwing rice on the bridal couple is a time-honoured institution, though paper confetti is now used instead—a great improvement from every point of view. Many a bride must have been rendered uncomfortable by rice getting down her clothes!

In the primitive days of Symbolism, the slipper was looked upon as equivalent to the womb—hence its use at weddings. The rice also was a sex symbol, and completed the pious hope in the happy possibilities of the union.

But rice was not always used, though something else was invariably substituted—there have always been the two different things thrown after the young couple.

In Eastern countries, the Rice crop invariably meant life or death to the people of the district; it was to them the only possible symbol of fecundity. In some parts of India, the bridegroom stands, on the day of the wedding, in a basket made of bamboo, by the side of the bride, who stands in another.

He then takes up a basket of rice and pours it over her head. This forms the wedding ceremony. The costume worn by the bride is probably a very scanty one.

In the days of Henry VIII.—that confirmed widower, as he has been described—corn was used instead of rice. In fact, in many districts, ears of corn were worn by the bride, and these are sup*posed to have been replaced by the wedding cake. Originally this cake was something very like our modern “shortbread,” and was broken into pieces on the bride’s head! Here again we have a most remarkable survival—the Indian bride over whose head a basket of rice is poured, and the Western bride upon whose head the early wedding “cake” is broken. In Persia, raisins were throvm, while in Russia it was hops.

The throwing of the Shoe is not confined to weddings by any means, though the symbolism is differ*ent. In the East it formed part of the usual transfer of any property, and Jews used to confirm any sale or exchange by the removal and gift of a shoe or sandal. The custom reached the Jews through the Egyptians—the priests and worshippers in many places have had to remove their shoes or san*dals before entering any holy place, thus the act itself gradually gained a religious character, much like affixing a seal to a document to-day.

There is also the old custom of fixing an odd shoe to the door at childbirth, and the superstition that if a dog comes to you with an old shoe in his mouth that it means luck.

In other days, the throwing down of a shoe or a gauntlet indicated a claim to ownership. Again shoes were thrown after Queen Victoria when she first entered Balmoral in 1855. In many sea-coast towms, a shoe is thrown after the boats—to ensure a good catch of fish.

In Germany one of the bride’s shoes is thrown among the guests—also as an emblem of good for*tune, much as her garter is prized by women.

In all these cases, the shoe should be thrown so as not to hit any one—which upsets the luck! Even to-day, the shoe is throwd at the bridal carriage, not at the young couple themselves.

Unfortunately in some districts, the father gives one of the bride’s shoes to the new son-in-law—who promptly spanks her with it, presumably to show the change of ownership!

It is usually assumed that the presence of the Best-man and the Bridesmaids is a relic of the days of capture—they are supposed to represent the friends of the two parties, endeavouring to prevent the possible abduction of the unfortunate woman. This is very doubtful. Under Roinan law, ten witnesses were necessary to a marriage—nowadays it is only two, but the extra crowd still turn up and make themselves as useful and as ornamental as they can.

Superstition wisely ignores the Bridegroom altogether—he is merely a scarecrow to keep others away from the central figure in the drama. It is true that we are warned that a man never wives and thrives in the same year, but this is a business maxim, pure and simple. We are also told that the poor man must not attempt to see the bride on the bridal morning, until the ceremony begins.

I cannot say what would happen to him—or to her—as superstition stops at this point. But obviously this belief applies equally to the Bride, so for all intents and purposes the bridegroom can safely be ignored—at least on the wedding day itself. He is not allowed to pay the fees—the best-man sees to that.

We are told that if the younger sister marries before the elder, the latter must dance barefoot at the wedding. This recalls that delightful story of Cinderella, which certainly seems to have been written in support of it—the elder sisters are quite unable, whatever their efforts, to secure the necessary shoe for Cinderella’s wedding.

The Bride, however, should be very careful not to look at herself in the mirror after she is fully dressed! This superstition clearly embodies the old belief that part of oneself goes into the reflection, and it would be a very bad start for their life together if the bride failed to give the whole of herself to her future husband. However, she can evade this—so we are told—if she leaves off one shoe or one glove. In that way, she would complete her toilette afterwards, and thus avert any misfortune.

It is considered lucky if the household Cat sneezes on the eve of the wedding—that is, a few hours before the ceremony.

In some of the Northern parts of the Continent, it is usual for brides, on the way to the Church, to carry bread, which they break and scatter. Humans are not supposed to touch these crumbs, but if any birds come and pick it up, it is a good sign for the woman’s future happiness. Here again we have a touch of philosopby—it is intended to show her tender heart and compassion. Yet in reality it is a sham and a lie, because it is done to order, and not upon impulse.




Found this here. (http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/01/080/08.htm)

[sublime311]

In Japan, her room is not swept for a few days after the departure of a bride, lest her luck be swept out also. This may possibly be done in order to assure her that her old home is still open to her in case of unhappiness. Neither bride nor groom ever wear any purple, lest the marriage be soon dis*solved. It is a colour that quickly fades in the East!

Most people know the old doggerel about the bride’s clothes: she should wear “Something old, something new, Something borrowed, something blue.”

There are doubts about the third of these, for it varies in different parts of the world. The “something old” should either be her slippers or another bride’s garter, or handkerchief. The “something blue” is the only exception allowed to the age old rule that a bride must wear no colour—it must of course be heaven’s own blue, no other shade.

But the “something borrowed” is sometimes varied to “something golden,” or even “something stolen,” and is obviously the weak spot in the doggerel. Probably the other three reach us from very ancient days, while the doubtful third item is a recent addition in order to balance the “poem.”

It is interesting to note that—until recent years—the Bulgarian women only washed their whole per*son once in their lives—the evening before marriage. The two bridesmaids were expected to look on; they also were naked, but they were not allowed to bathe.

The bridal veil dates from the days of Sex worship, and is supposed to screen the bride from the view of any strangers.

It is generally considered unlucky to wear satin for a bridal gown—I can trace no reason for this, nor do I see anything against it but a natural dislike for “swank.” Silk is now used, but has probably become popular because it is softer, and therefore drapes better.

After the ceremony, the Sussex bride is robbed of all her pins by any single women present, but not by the bridesmaids—superstition does not tell us what happens to the bride’s clothes afterwards. Presumably this daring theft should take place while she is changing before her departure. The word “Honeymoon” refers to the feasting after a marriage, and not strictly to the young couple at all—it was general to use a fermented liquor made from honey, until the next new moon after the marriage ceremony. So by their absence, the happy couple really have nothing to do with the honeymoon, although in olden days they would have remained in the husband’s home and would have been the central figures in this prolonged rejoicing.

The bridal orange-blossom is comparatively modern, and, I am afraid, is another instance of swank. It came from abroad, and was popular because it showed that “no expense” was being spared for the momentous occasion.

Originally myrtle was used, just as the laurel wreath was general for crowning any person high in popular esteem. In Europe generally, Rosemary was long a popular bridal wreath; Hawthorn with the Greeks, Hazel with the Romans—the Orange-blossom was used by the Saracens.

In early days, brides wore fetters on wrists and ankles, after they had been “sold” to their future owners—hence the popularity of bracelets, for it was considered a slur if a woman could not find favour in the sight of some man. Our humorists still ridicule the old maid!

It is still popularly held that no one but the husband should remove the wedding-ring, which of course was only natural under the circumstances. We give this belief a more romantic explanation, but the superstition dates from the days when the Bride’s ornaments were a sign and a proof that she belonged to the husband.

The wedding-ring appears to have been part of the earliest civilisations known to us, but I have dealt to some extent with the ring when discussing horseshoe nails—once used in place of the simple gold circlet.

It is an old superstition that it is lucky to sprinkle salt on the floor of a bride’s room; and when she retires to rest, she should place her stockings on her bed—in the form of a Cross!

Midsummer’s Eve was always smothered with superstition for those in love! There were many ways of consulting the Fates.

You could arrange your shoes like a T for True Love—and then comfortably go to bed and dream of your future lord and master.

Another plan was to write the letters of the alphabet on bits of paper; then you put these in a basin of water face downwards, overnight. It was during the dark hours that the Fates worked, so in the morning, you would find that one or more of the slips would be face upwards!

This method suggests some delicate juggling on the part of the young damsel concerned—for, of course, none of these practices were ever followed by mere Man, who has always been thankful to accept what the good gods sent!

Found these here. (http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/01/080/08.htm)