Is it me, or does it seem like reporters aren’t even trying to make sense anymore?
Tricia Nixon was risque in a sleeveless gown at her Rose Garden wedding.
Oh please. In 1971, this might have been fashion forward, very lovely and “different” (neither hippy-granny dress, nor blowsy meringue) but it was hardly “risque,” especially for a wedding held in a garden instead of a church.
Blah, blah, blah, Jenna is not having a White House wedding because blah, blah, George Bush isn’t running for election and he’s unpopular, blah, blah, blah. I’m sure if Jenna Bush wanted a White House wedding, she’d have had one. It seems to me President Bush is not intimidated by his low approval ratings, and he’s also not interested in pandering for that approval by dancing to “Thank Heaven For Little Girls” for the cameras. What is much more likely (and believable) is that the Bushes prefer to keep their family celebrations to themselves and not reduce their special occasions to fodder for the very press that hates them all.
What blather. Congrats to Jenna Bush and her intended. She’ll be teaching in Baltimore after the wedding.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Maybe Jenna did not want those jackals screwing up her days with their incessant yammering. Can’t say that I blame her. Not everyone likes to perform.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:10 am
[…] Hardly, as the Anchoress points out: In 1971, this might have been fashion forward, very lovely and “different” (neither […]
May 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“The frivolity of a big White House wedding in the middle of an unpopular war ..” What a crock. Yes, heaven forbid we celebrate anything anywhere while war rages. I call a moratorium on partying, esp. of the family kind (you know….weddings, baptisms,1st Communions,graduations,promotions,housewarmings,etc.)
May 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Amen, Anchoress. Little else needs to be said, except for, “Be happy, Jenna!”
The MSM can go to Hell.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Wow, that is risque? Who knew?
Is there a bad room for the women who get married in a strapless gown?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
From the article, so-and so professor says:
“”Jenna’s father is not running for re-election,” she said. “The frivolity of a big White House wedding in the middle of an unpopular war would have used up what little political capital he has.”
Now that’s scurrilous beyond belief.
No wonder I do not pay attention to the regular media anymore.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
My preference would be for a wedding in, oh, I don’t know . . . a church? But I’m not going to criticize.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
[…] This is “risque”? […]
May 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Thanks, Newton, for saying so eloquently what I was thinking!
Bender, while I love church weddings, one of the sweetest weddings I ever played for was at the bride’s family home/farm. It was really very spiritual in nature, held outside close to the flower garden, with the bride wearing a beautiful gown her older sister had made for her, and the flowers were done by her other sister. The parents of the bride, both devout Christians themselves, didn’t believe in spending a lot of money on the trappings of a wedding. They set a budget of $1,000 for everything, and the bride kept to her alloted money. Twelve years later, they are still very happily married and have three beautiful children. On the other hand, I’ve played for some elaborate weddings that cost over $20,000 (except for what they paid the organist!) and the divorce has already happened.
That said, I wish Jenna & Henry much happiness, and I hope Dubya enjoys his weekend at the ranch away from the hordes of reporters who only want to see him fail.
Tricia Nixon was elegant in her beautiful gown…
May 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Jenna might want to rethink the Baltimore assignment. Teachers are getting attacked by students here. Maybe they’ll let her bring the Secret Service folks into the classroom?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Call me stupid–or blind–but those look like what was popularly known as “cap sleeves” on Tricia Nixon’s dress. And modest cleavage as well.
Or maybe I’ve just seen too many strapless/spaghetti-strap wedding gowns lately.
Best wishes and God’s blessings on Jenna and her finace!
May 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“risque”?? The obvious explanation for that very weird remark is that the writer does not know what ‘risque’ means. Really. I have noticed a lot of that happening lately. There is no point in being upset: this is just the natural result of 3 decades of a terrible educational system, from the slums to the ivy leagues.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Piano Girl –
I fully agree about modesty vs. financial extravagance. But in desiring a church in which to be married, I did not mean to spend a lot of money. That is not what I mean by a “church wedding,” although I agree that much of contemporary society would associate a church wedding with extravagance approaching Lady Diana and Prince What’s-his-name’s wedding.
What I mean is that, even many of us Catholics have gotten too far astray from the concept of marriage as a sacrament or covenant. Even for non-Catholics, for whom marriage is not strictly a sacrament (since they largely do not recognize “sacraments”), still it is something that should be associated with God, who is the One who does the actually binding of two into one. And that association is best done in a church or chapel (especially if this were a Catholic sacramental wedding), rather than outside or in a hotel conference room or in the White House.
By all means, an outdoors reception is highly recommended, but a church or chapel for the ceremony itself is better. That does not mean expensive fancy clothes or expensive flowers or expensive musicians. And any church that charges an exorbinent amount for having the ceremony itself there is missing the point (unless the couple is themselves only using the church as a prop). The focus should not be on external material things, but on the mystical union of the couple in Christ. (Of course, if you have a really big spread, I suppose you could build a private chapel on the property. I suppose you could even place a chapel in the White House.)
Now, if one is Jewish, outside in the splendor of God’s creation would be better, if under a canopy, which represents the presence of God over the covenant of marriage.