For Better or For Worse

[Drake]

A friend of mine has a son who is getting re-married . He and his bride to be are having a civil service and both have decided to exclude the words,"For Better or For Worse",from the marriage vows .
Just as a point of interest it got me wondering when these particular words appeared in the marriage ceremony . I'm hoping a few budding historians out there maybe able to help me on this one .

[gaz]

I always thought it came from one of those groups that doesn't insist on monogamy, i.e. your marrying one spouse today but you can also have four richer, four poorer, four better, four worse.

[reohn2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzPmDtkeRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Apscp3 ... creen&NR=1

[thirdcrank]

Book of Common Prayer 1662 (ie around 350 years.)

The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand, and to say after him as followeth.
I, N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ ... riage.html

PS we were married in a register office in 1967. I don't remember being consulted about the form of the ceremony although that means nothing.

[Nettled Shin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzPmDtkeRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Apscp3 ... creen&NR=1

I can't peel myself away.

[Edwards]

I always thought it came from one of those groups that doesn't insist on monogamy, i.e. your marrying one spouse today but you can also have four richer, four poorer, four better, four worse.

No thanks this summer I had the benefit of a temporary stand in wife. All the bad bits and not able to warm your cold feet up when needed.

An interesting question though.

[Ray]

Must say I've sometimes wondered, 'For better or for worse than what?'. Surely you are not being expected to sign a blank cheque for absolutely any kind of behaviour from your spouse? We may enter into the contract with positive expectations, but if there should come a time when things become insufferable, even the worm should be allowed to turn.

I'm the same vintage as TC (register office 1967), and can't remember the form of words we signed up to. Not that I'm complaining but, of course, my wife may see things differently

Ray

[thirdcrank]

I suspect the wording is down to the legal lingo of the time, when lawyers were often monks. They do say that payment for legal work was by quantity rather than results, which is why everything is said twice: last will and testament; heirs and assigns etc. Even in the Larceny Act 1861 - probably based on earlier wording - stealing was "takes and carries away." Assault and battery is from the same stable.

[reohn2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzPmDtkeRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Apscp3 ... creen&NR=1

I can't peel myself away.

You're not meant to lad,it's for life!

[[XAP]Bob]

Must say I've sometimes wondered, 'For better or for worse than what?'. Surely you are not being expected to sign a blank cheque for absolutely any kind of behaviour from your spouse? We may enter into the contract with positive expectations, but if there should come a time when things become insufferable, even the worm should be allowed to turn.

It's a commitment - a lifetime relationship - the same words also say

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.

(My emphasis)

It's not much support to say "I'm here until I can't be bothered".

I don't care what My Cameron says about big society - it's families that form the bedrock of society (not just the nuclear family, the extended family).

Just walking away (which seems to be the current trend) leaves a trail of devastation it it's wake.


NOTE: I am not for one moment suggesting that domestic abuse go unreported, or unresolved - but the vows are first (and grievously) broken by the abuser.

[Drake]

I always thought it came from one of those groups that doesn't insist on monogamy, i.e. your marrying one spouse today but you can also have four richer, four poorer, four better, four worse.

EEK ! Don't wish that on mankind . Personally i've got enough trouble wiith one wife,let alone a load more .

[byegad]

Book of Common Prayer 1662 (ie around 350 years.)

The Minister, receiving the Woman at her father's or friend's hands, shall cause the Man with his right hand to take the Woman by her right hand, and to say after him as followeth.
I, N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.

Those were the days, when women were chattels to be given away.

[thirdcrank]

I posted that in answer to the OP. A lot has changed in 350 years - life expectancy being high on the list. I wonder how long the typical marriage lasted in those days before separation by a death? My wife is watching a daytime telly prog as I post this: a couple who have been married 54 years selling their house because they are divorcing.

[Shootist]

I always thought it came from one of those groups that doesn't insist on monogamy, i.e. your marrying one spouse today but you can also have four richer, four poorer, four better, four worse.

Sixteen mothers in law? Are you insane?

[Mick F]

Daughter 1 is getting married in December. She's been married before.

I gave he away on her first marriage of course, so what happens now? Surely I can't give her away again, so does her ex-husband have to give her away?