Did you promise to obey your husband?

[peace654]

I had an interesting discussion with my 90 year old nan about the royal wedding. She said she was surprised Meghan didn't promise to obey Harry, and the whole point of marriage is to follow tradition.

I was surprised - she's 90 but always been a feminist for her age at least, she believes in women working outside the home and not putting up with any bullshit. She's always pushed me to be strong and independent. She's not religious either. She definitely wore the trousers in her marriage too!

I've only been to a handful of weddings and didn't take much notice of the bows, so I wondered if it was usual for women to promise to obey their husbands nowadays? Do people still do it in order to be traditional?

I got married in church in 2016 and had the option. I wasn’t comfortable promising something before god that I knew I wasn’t comfortable doing. So it was left out. No big deal.

I married in 1980 and said that I would not 'obey' so it wasn't put in the vows - it's ridiculous, surely marriage is meant to be an equal partnership? My dear late husband didn't believe in that old nonsense either - I wouldn't have married him otherwise. He didn't want a doormat for a wife - nor would any real man.

Side note, people should read the 1662 service intro - it refers to men as "brute beasts"...

"Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding ; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace."

In the anglican church, there are 3 versions, the "brute beasts" (1662) version, a slightly updated version of that, and hte "modern" one (2000).

A retired vicar friend said a surprising number of people have the "brute beasts" one, because they think it's traditional.

We had a very traditional vicar who said traditional vows or no wedding.

I was happy to say "obey". Dh is still around after 20 years so clearly it hasn't bothered him that I have failed to comply. Otoh, I can't call to mind his ordering me to do anything much...

Also people don't seem to object to "till death us do part" or "in sickness and in health" but often appear only to happy to bail when the going gets tough (or a better prospect hoves into view...).

Diane promised to obey Charles...

She didn't actually. She had it removed.

“Also people don't seem to object to "till death us do part" or "in sickness and in health" but often appear only to happy to bail when the going gets tough (or a better prospect hoves into view...).”

most people intend to keep those vows at the time they make them. It doesn’t appear that many women promising to obey intend to keep to it at the time of making the vow

I promised to obey. What it means for us is that if we can't come to a joint decision about something, dh gets to decide. I then get to say ' I told you so' for the rest of his life when he is wrong.

No way!

no its not standard. I was asked if I wanted it include 45 years ago and I said No

What it means for us is that if we can't come to a joint decision about something, dh gets to decide. I then get to say ' I told you so' for the rest of his life when he is wrong.

I cannot pretend to begin to understand how any woman would participate in this appalling sexist farrago.

No I didn’t. We used the alternative.
I also didn’t have my dad asked ‘who gives this woman’ and changed it to ‘who brings this woman’.

Yes, I did - and as ALongHardWinter said, DH promised to worship me!

I've known others who have used the obey vows too, but it's the minority. If you hear the groom promise to worship, it's likely that the bride is going to follow that with obey.

I had it in mine.

Good grief no. I couldn't promise something I had no intention of doing.
My Mum didn't say it either, when she got married back in the mid 1950s. Am pretty surprised that anyone does in the 21st Century. I haven't heard in in years - potentially decades.

I most definitely did not!! DH and I were married in church 40 years ago and we asked for the obey part of the vows to be omitted. It was not the done thing for brides to want to be obedient in 1978; we were modern, liberated women with minds of our own, don't you know! But my dad still "gave me away" though!

Yes (with fingers crossed behind back)

It was standard when/where I got married but you could opt out. It was pointed out that if dh was doing his cherishing properly then it wouldn't ever be an issue. So if he doesn't cherish then I don't obey.

I went to a very religious wedding recently where the bride promised to 'obey'. I noticed, thought it was a little old fashioned, bit each to their own. Then, to my horror, the sermon that followed was all about why good Christian wives must obey their husbands, because the bible says so. That was difficult to sit though!

'Obey' was removed from the Church of England marriage vows as an optional alternative ceremony in 1928, i.e. the same year that the age of female suffrage was equalised with that of men, with the other traditional language retained. The big revisions of language happened much later. I actually really like the 2000 version of the ceremony, I think it's beautiful. Newt, your elderly people are wrong - it's always been 'I will' in the Church of England vows. 'Will you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband - 'I will'. 'I do' is both American and then imported here by Four Weddings and a Funeral Amazing how easily culture can change/be forgotten. Admittedly I'd imagine when I am 85 I won't have been to many weddings for a while.

I married twice in a register office where there is nothing about loving, cherishing or honouring anybody. You're voluntarily getting married for life. You're free to get married and you call upon those persons present to witness that you are getting married. Done.

Oh, I went to a second wedding of a friend about 12 years ago. She was 35 or thereabouts. She promised to obey and had the bit from Genesis about the wife being formed from Adam's rib read out. What this means in practice to her I don't know or wish to know but I think it's a shameful thing to promise. If a man ordered me to do something I considered seriously detrimental to my children it would not happen. That scenario alone would stop me ever considering saying it because of 'tradition'.

Nope and I remember my Mum telling me she didn’t vow to obey my Dad in 1971 either.

@annandale grr yep people expecting the american "I do" thing is so annoying...
ditt the bridesmaids walking in front of the bride

'Obey' was removed from the Church of England marriage vows as an optional alternative ceremony in 1928

I got married in the 90s and it was still alive and kicking then.

My take on it is as above. If I'm being asked to obey something that I don't want to then dh has failed on his vow to cherish. If he fails on his vow then I'm free to fail on mine.

ferrier it still makes no sense.