Why Does "Happily Ever After" Usually Start With Marriage?

Photo by freestocks.org on Unsplash

Do you ever feel like there’s a stigma surrounding single people? I do. And it’s so strong that it seems “happily ever after” can’t exist without a couple getting married. Is it not possible for a single person to live happily ever after?

The “Happy” in “Happily”

If you look directly at the phrase “happily ever after,” you can see that there’s nothing inherent in it to suggest that people who live that way need to be married. It only suggests that they need to be happy. But then why is this phrase used so often with couples and almost never with singles?

Singles, it would seem, live “singly ever after.” But if you use that expression, the “happy” aspect of that life is gone. This seems to suggest that happiness can only be obtained with a partner. I know some people think that. But does everyone—even those who claim to be happy living the single life? Do they secretly wish they had a partner?

Further Examining the Phrase

I find it interesting that the concept of “happily ever after” can be understood quite differently in French. One translation of the phrase is, “Ils vécurent heureux et eurent beaucoup d’enfants,” which literally means, “They lived happy and had many children.”

Having many children isn’t usually an idea associated with single people, even though in this day and age, there are procedures that could make that possible. Or single people can adopt—which I am totally for, by the way.

But this is a phrase commonly used in fairytales, which usually take place before the idea of singles having children was common. So in French fairytales, the idea of living happily ever after encompasses marriage in a way the English phrase doesn’t. Even so, the English phrase still implies the idea of a couple living happily ever after. So where does that come from?

The Origins of the Idea

I think that if a story ends with someone single, there’s a sense of something having been lost or something hidden never found. If the main character in a movie ends up not being with the person they love or once loved, it’s doubtful anyone would say that person lived happily ever after, even if they are happy.

But why not? Single people can be happy just as married people can be happy, though they’ll most likely be happy for different reasons. Maybe the issue is that the idea of everyone having a partner is so pervasive that people don’t even feel like the story has ended if that partner hasn’t been found. And maybe we can find the roots of that pervasive idea in the Scriptures, specifically Genesis 2:18, when God says that man shouldn’t be alone.

But in the Scriptures, Adam really is alone when God says that. There are no other humans in existence at that point. In modern times, if a person has friends and family, they aren’t really alone.

I think maybe it’s time we start using the word “alone” according to its true definition—“devoid of company.” Society has added a meaning to the word alone—“without a partner.” But “alone” and “single” are not synonyms.

A Hopeless Romantic

Let me be clear about something. I am a hopeless romantic. I love weddings and marriage. I believe there’s someone special for everyone. And I, too, feel a sense that something is missing if the lovers in a story don’t end up together. The pervasiveness of the idea of coupling is deeply ingrained in me, too.

I’m just wondering what its origins are. And I’m wondering if there’s a way we can erase the stigma around singles. Maybe if it weren’t so strong, fewer people would settle for partners who don’t appreciate their true worth.

~ Ashley C.

Last updated: February 4, 2022