Put This On

Went to a close friend’s wedding this weekend. My wife was Matron of Honor, so I ended up with the choice accessory.

Kansas City haberdasher & president-to-be Harry S. Truman on his wedding day in 1919. Note that his suit looks almost completely contemporary, despite the photograph being 92 years old.

“Love”

via BigHappyFunhouse

Bill sent us this wedding photo, which I’ve cropped to protect the guilty.

I’d say this is a pretty solid example of too-long pants, wouldn’t you?

(Hint: yes, it is.)

PTO reader Matt writes: I just got married a few weeks ago. I was 100% clueless about what to wear on the big day, then stumbled across PTO. Thanks to your advice, we ended up in navy/charcoal leisure suits and wedding ties, and everyone looked great. It was great to just trust everyone to dress well in clothes they already owned and knew would fit.

It was such a relief to find good advice about this stuff. We would have been in skanky rental tuxes without you guys, so cheers; and thanks!

(Photo: Josh McCullock)

Controversy is brewing in the UK over outfits. Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a press release, announcing that he won’t be wearing morning dress to the impending wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. Instead, he’ll wear business dress - a suit and tie. He will be the first Prime Minister to shirk the traditional dress code, and will perhaps be the only man so dressed. (Above, by the way, are Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles at their wedding.)

Many speculate that Cameron is dressing this way to avoid the stigma of his upper-class past. Cameron was a member of Bullingdon, an Oxford club notorious for its exclusivity and its destructive binges. He’s shunned formal dress since his past became an issue when he rose to national prominence, and this is in keeping with that pattern.

It’s tough for an American to judge a choice like this, since class plays so differently here, in a land where we at least pretend that it is a fluid status that comes with hard work and seized opportunities and so forth. Besides which, we have no monarchy, and essentially think of the British royals as amusing anachronisms. So I write from the perspective of a bemused outsider. That said, Cameron’s decision does strike me as both disingenuous and self-centered.

It is disingenuous in that it is an attempt to obscure his past. When Prince Charles dons Highland Dress, it is not because he is trying to pretend to be a Scottish warrior, or lead people to think that he anything other than an English Prince. Instead, it is an act of fellowship and a gesture of respect. Part of dressing, particularly for men, is to humble yourself, even if you are a Prince, by asserting that the custom of the whole is as important as your personal choices. This is why we wear business dress, as well - it is an assertion that we’re all in the same boat, all respect the importance of the situation, and we’ve chosen ceremonial clothing to reflect that fact.

Perhaps if Cameron were a representative of the proletariat he could genuinely claim that breaking this tradition was a revolutionary act. One could then quibble with whether he was leading a just revolution, of course, and the answer would depend on how one felt about the monarchy and so forth, but he would at least have some ground to stand on. Instead, it seems transparent that this is an act of obfuscation in the service of self-interest.

Indeed, it is that self-interest that is the most annoying here. The reason that we all dress the same way for a wedding is respect for the occasion. For those of us in the pews it is a joyous day. For those on the dais it is the most important day of their lives. This is true for Kings and Queens just as it is for street sweepers. We wear clothes that reflect that celebration, but we also wear clothes that indicate ceremonially that we understand how important that day is, clothes that reflect that we are the community that binds together the couple being wed.

If given the opportunity to chat with the PM, my message would be simple, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that these people getting married are royalty.

I’d just tell him this: it’s not about you, man.

(Thanks, Ari, for emailing about this.)

It’s On Sale

Drakes of London Checked Tie

Anybody getting married?

£55 from £85 at Drakes

I’ve written extensively on the subject of weddings, but I’ve been getting more emails, so I’ll write it again.

You don’t need to wear a tuxedo if you’re being married, and you don’t need to wear matching outfits.

I wore a suit to my wedding (the photo above, by the way, is by Peter DaSilva for The New York Times). My groomsmen wore navy and dark gray suits, white shirts, black shoes and black and white or silver ties, which they provided themselves. This is as formal as daytime dress gets in this country, and it was all I expected from my guests, as well. Our look was coordinated and coherent without looking like we were in a chorus line or on a sports team. It also required no rentals, which are pretty much guaranteed to look awful.

Some other most-frequently-needed advice:

• Please do not wear black tie during the daytime. Black tie is also called “evening wear” for a reason.
• Please do not wear colors other than black, white and midnight blue if you choose to wear black tie, and do not wear a long tie.
• If your bride to be has been brainwashed by the wedding-industrial complex into thinking that everything has to be the same color at a wedding, suggest this color be reflected in your boutonnieres.

youdontmeet:

thisfits:

Morning dress, gentlemen. We must revive the tradition of wearing this for weddings in America. Who’s with me?

I like the sentiment, but as a recently married dude I’m not on board.

My wedding was in the daytime, making morning dress appropriate. The reception was in the evening though, meaning a seperate kit would be needed.

I was already asking my groomsmen to spend a lot of money: flights, several nights of hotel, gifts, time off work, etc, in addition to $125 or so to rent a tuxedo since most of them did not own their own.  I would have felt prohibitively guilty asking them to rent not one but two different suits.

Or you could have the ceremony in the evening (say five or six), reception at night (say seven or eight). 

Or just wear relatively formal lounge suits. Generally speaking, this is the alternative I endorse. No shitty rentals, everyone looks sharp. It’s reasonable to expect grown men to own or buy a dark, solid suit. Provide wedding ties if you like. Boutonnieres can match the “wedding colors” if that’s a thing. The great advantage is that you don’t wear a tuxedo during the day like a farmer.  (OK, it’s not a perfect metaphor, but I got to link to my favorite line in 30 Rock history, so let’s call it a wash.)

(Source: todaystie)