What happened to the NYT wedding section?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the old the ones, esp the ones back in the day when we found out where the bride and groom prepped, where they summered and who the attendants were.

Now it's boring and too PC. Yes, I am a snob.

Lots of the "old families" are gone from NYC. The money was split between too many descendants and they sold off the family homes to wealthy foreigners and developers. Their heirs scattered to the winds to FL, TX, CA, CT, the Cape, and Hudson Valley on a permanent basis. The "old families" can't even get into their legacy prep schools because their kids are competing with the kids of Asian, Eurasian, and Latin American billionaires who can write $1m checks for the development fund. The exclusive parts of Manhattan are so much more diverse than even 30 years ago. All the people I know in finance from the "old families" don't even keep a pied a terre in the city anymore, given the rise of nice corporate apartments and AirBnB.

Times have changed considerably.

Well put. I’d still rather read about these families, where ever they live, than the cringe weddings they feature now. Or so over the top “inclusive” and forced. It’s awful.

What you don't seem to understand is that these "inclusive" couples are now the tastemakers, cultural, and financial elites in the City. That's why they are getting featured. The traditional elites ran away to elsewhere, aren't willing to work as hard, etc.

There's nothing interesting about a 4th generation lay-about living off the trust in Greenwich while they spend their days riding at the barn. And the foreign billionaire kids don't want their names splashed in the paper because it draws unnecessary attention. The paradigm has shifted.

Eh this is only half-true. I know plenty of old school moneyed families with millennial children in top nyc and sf jobs (private equity and venture capital mostly, but also some tech) who are definitely still working hard. They’re not the 0.001% Bloomberg families, but their dads started their own funds and/or were CEOs of a respectable Fortune 500. They still went to all the right schools and have the right summer houses with very healthy trust funds and a $2m+ gifted down payment.

All of these couples were prime Vows material 1+ years ago. They’re still out there and doing quite well for themselves; nobody I know is riding horses all day, despite very considerable legs up in life. NYT just doesn’t care anymore. I guess I’m solidly neutral? I kinda enjoyed seeing the parents’ career paths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it was a long overdue death. All the papers used to have social pages with social events and both engagement and wedding announcements. As traditions went it was a nice feature, but they were decidedly somewhat exclusive, with references to prominent ancestors, club memberships, private schools and colleges attended. First it was entirely WASPs, then it became both WASPs and Jewish, and at the end very professionally elite focused. It seems like the Times tried to diversify it but truth be told, when it starts featuring ordinary people, few people care and that was the end.

+1

The "everyone wants to be a Kardashian" mindset put the traditional NYT wedding announcement section to death, thankfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the mini stories. They are so much more special and heartfelt.

The old wedding announcements read like resumes of familial inbreeding and schools/professions. Snooze.

x1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the mini stories. They are so much more special and heartfelt.

The old wedding announcements read like resumes of familial inbreeding and schools/professions. Snooze.

x1000000

[/quote

LOL! Exactly!

[Anonymous]

A few years back there was a long DCUM thread about the NYT wedding section and how unattractive and basic the couples were ....... apparently it is very uncool for the real New Yorkers to participate.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few years back there was a long DCUM thread about the NYT wedding section and how unattractive and basic the couples were ....... apparently it is very uncool for the real New Yorkers to participate.....

I know two couples who were featured in Vows back in the old days and this tracks. Truly some of the dullest people I've ever met. Back then the Vows column was really all about the paragraph that explained who the bride and groom's parents were and also where the B&G went to school and where they worked (if you go back far enough only the G's job mattered). The rest was just padding for that all important "Yes, but do they matter?" paragraph.

I think there is still the cast of that over the current mini-stories. It's more diverse in lots of ways and it's no longer about NY old money families, but there's still a lot of "yes, but where do they work and who is her mother again?" about it. The values have changed a bit (more focus on artists/performers or people in related industries than on finance, for instance) but it's honestly the same set up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still love the one where the couple were married to other people and met at their kids’ school and actually talked about it their NYT wedding announcement/story

We need a link!

There was a great thread about that here, I will try to find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has happened a few times:

Announcement of parents who met at kids' school: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/fashion/weddings/19vows.html?ref=weddings
Gawker's (RIP) dissection of the announcement: https://www.gawker.com/5715019/homewrecking-couples-scandalous-new-york-times-wedding-announcement

Announcement: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/fashion/weddings/between-reps-at-the-gym-a-strong-connection.html
Jilted ex penned an article about it: https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/i-found-out-my-ex-cheated-on-me-from-his-wedding-announcement/

Wow! The first wife NY Post article is whack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it was a long overdue death. All the papers used to have social pages with social events and both engagement and wedding announcements. As traditions went it was a nice feature, but they were decidedly somewhat exclusive, with references to prominent ancestors, club memberships, private schools and colleges attended. First it was entirely WASPs, then it became both WASPs and Jewish, and at the end very professionally elite focused. It seems like the Times tried to diversify it but truth be told, when it starts featuring ordinary people, few people care and that was the end.

the absolutely truth.

Spot on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the old the ones, esp the ones back in the day when we found out where the bride and groom prepped, where they summered and who the attendants were.

Now it's boring and too PC. Yes, I am a snob.

Lots of the "old families" are gone from NYC. The money was split between too many descendants and they sold off the family homes to wealthy foreigners and developers. Their heirs scattered to the winds to FL, TX, CA, CT, the Cape, and Hudson Valley on a permanent basis. The "old families" can't even get into their legacy prep schools because their kids are competing with the kids of Asian, Eurasian, and Latin American billionaires who can write $1m checks for the development fund. The exclusive parts of Manhattan are so much more diverse than even 30 years ago. All the people I know in finance from the "old families" don't even keep a pied a terre in the city anymore, given the rise of nice corporate apartments and AirBnB.

Times have changed considerably.

This, this, this.

See the descendants of socialite Nan Kempner, for example.

Her grandchildren are not even in nyc's 'social scene.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno, I don't read them like I used to, but this was fabulous:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/style/zack-clark-zack-lewis-wedding.html

What a wonderful story!!

yes, truly so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the old the ones, esp the ones back in the day when we found out where the bride and groom prepped, where they summered and who the attendants were.

Now it's boring and too PC. Yes, I am a snob.

Lots of the "old families" are gone from NYC. The money was split between too many descendants and they sold off the family homes to wealthy foreigners and developers. Their heirs scattered to the winds to FL, TX, CA, CT, the Cape, and Hudson Valley on a permanent basis. The "old families" can't even get into their legacy prep schools because their kids are competing with the kids of Asian, Eurasian, and Latin American billionaires who can write $1m checks for the development fund. The exclusive parts of Manhattan are so much more diverse than even 30 years ago. All the people I know in finance from the "old families" don't even keep a pied a terre in the city anymore, given the rise of nice corporate apartments and AirBnB.

Times have changed considerably.

Well put. I’d still rather read about these families, where ever they live, than the cringe weddings they feature now. Or so over the top “inclusive” and forced. It’s awful.

What you don't seem to understand is that these "inclusive" couples are now the tastemakers, cultural, and financial elites in the City. That's why they are getting featured. The traditional elites ran away to elsewhere, aren't willing to work as hard, etc.

There's nothing interesting about a 4th generation lay-about living off the trust in Greenwich while they spend their days riding at the barn. And the foreign billionaire kids don't want their names splashed in the paper because it draws unnecessary attention. The paradigm has shifted.

No. A lot of people are still interested in them actually. Why do you think Americans care about royals. That said yes they may be in but that’s because of a geopolitical push and not organic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the old the ones, esp the ones back in the day when we found out where the bride and groom prepped, where they summered and who the attendants were.

Now it's boring and too PC. Yes, I am a snob.

Lots of the "old families" are gone from NYC. The money was split between too many descendants and they sold off the family homes to wealthy foreigners and developers. Their heirs scattered to the winds to FL, TX, CA, CT, the Cape, and Hudson Valley on a permanent basis. The "old families" can't even get into their legacy prep schools because their kids are competing with the kids of Asian, Eurasian, and Latin American billionaires who can write $1m checks for the development fund. The exclusive parts of Manhattan are so much more diverse than even 30 years ago. All the people I know in finance from the "old families" don't even keep a pied a terre in the city anymore, given the rise of nice corporate apartments and AirBnB.

Times have changed considerably.

This, this, this.

See the descendants of socialite Nan Kempner, for example.

Her grandchildren are not even in nyc's 'social scene.'

+2

The wedding announcements also got very striver-ish as time went on; it appeared that couples were checking "prestige" boxes re: wedding venues, jobs, schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That happened years ago, Rip Van Winkle.

Yup.

Even the NYT itself came to realize that the section had become a parody of its elite, out-of-touch readership.

[Anonymous]

When I was in my 20's living in NYC, I always read the NYT 'love section'. The 'short love stories' were always entertaining. I never made it in there myself.