|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Wedding Etiquette, Gratitude v. Greed
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't honestly understand the problem with waiting until you can afford the wedding you want. Is it because they're already sleeping together and shouldn't be, or what?
Well, for some of us, yes. But it also seems to be placing the importance on all the wrong things. If what is really important is the relationship, the commitment, the blessing & celebration of friends & family-- you don't need much of anything beyond the price of the marriage license for that. As others have noted, you can always have the party "you always dreamed of" at a later date. But delaying formalizing the commitment seems to be saying the party is the really important thing, more than the rest of the building a life together.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
To the question of what's wrong with the big wedding if that's what you want. I think one issue is that of, "Why do you want it?" Is it truly because you're so overjoyed with your relationship that you just can't contain that joy in a more modest ceremony and celebration? Is it because your peers have all had huge weddings and you feel you need to save face by doing likewise? Is it because you're in love with the fantasy of a "perfect," maximized wedding celebration (or because Mom et al are in love with it and are pressuring you)? Do you see it as kind of an investment opportunity where, if you spend X amount of money entertaining, feeding and boozing people, you might wind up with a better return in the form of more/better prezzies?
So there's that.
And then there's the question of finances. Especially in this day and age, when people in their 20's are already being saddled with student loan repayments, poorly paying/low-benefit jobs, expensive rent, etc. -- is throwing a lavish, five-figure-or-more wedding, and incurring the debt that usually comes with that, really a healthy way to formally enter into the married estate?
Just because you can do something, or think you want to do it, doesn't necessarily mean it's a wonderful idea.
[ 24. June 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Shrew
Ship's Mother
# 8635
|
Posted
I thinkit ddepends on what you mean by a big dream wedding.
To me, it is really important to feed everyone who attends, because Ilike to host well and to show my love for people by hosting well. I am also unwilling to reduce a guest list because I would like all the people who are important to myself and Mr Shrew to be able to be there with us to celebrate. Again, this is about liking to show love through hospitality.
This is naturally making the whole thing a more expensive affair. You simply cannot feed 120 people for an evening without it being a bit costly.
--------------------
"The goal of life is not to make other people in your own image, it is to understand that they, too, are in God's image" (Orfeo)
Was "mummyfrances".
Posts: 703 | From: York, England | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.
Mum has the anxiety that we will receive fourteen toasters if we don't supply a list. I think it is unlikely but i don't really know that there is an answer which will satisfy us both.
We were badgered by part of the extended family to set up a list, and long before any department stores would actually allow a couple to set up a list. So we chose a store with a branch near to that part of the family, and did that as early as permitted. Looking back at the gifts we received, the part of the family that asked for the list did not, for the most part, use it and gave things that they thought of themselves. The latter was and is lovely, but made me wonder what all the earlier fuss was about. If you do get 14 toasters, there'll be somewhere in your local community willing to distribute them to people setting up home and lacking in money!
Going back to the OP - was the couple from the same culture as you? What wedding etiquette is regarding presents and money varies significantly across the world.
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
I thinkit ddepends on what you mean by a big dream wedding.
To me, it is really important to feed everyone who attends, because Ilike to host well and to show my love for people by hosting well. I am also unwilling to reduce a guest list because I would like all the people who are important to myself and Mr Shrew to be able to be there with us to celebrate. Again, this is about liking to show love through hospitality.
This is naturally making the whole thing a more expensive affair. You simply cannot feed 120 people for an evening without it being a bit costly.
That's pretty much the kind of thing I meant. I'm not talking about hiring a medieval castle and a carriage with eight horses and an orchestra and a massive pyrotechnic display. I'm talking about a nice but modest venue, with catering of some sort, a dress that isn't second hand and so on. This is likely to run into four figures if you invite all of your friends and family. Many people do not have that kind of money in the bank at all times. Yes you can do a bring and share lunch if you want to do that. I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to do that.
There is the issue of what a wedding means within a religious framework (and issues about premarital sex and so on) but for people who are not religious a) these arguments are irrelevant, b) getting married can still be a wonderful, meaningful experience and c) it's ok to want to be able to look back on the celebration of a massive milestone in your life and be able to say something other than "well, at least it was cheap."
I have the utmost respect for people who are prepared to save and wait and delay gratification to be in the best financial position for something that they really want, whether it's a house, a car, a baby, a trip to a tropical island paradise or indeed a wedding. Because honestly, when you tell people without a lot of money they shouldn't wait around and save for the wedding they're probably more likely to put the whole thing on credit cards than they are to cut back the budget to the bone. As I said, my wedding cost practically nothing and it was perfect for me because I'm an introvert. I'm not a party person AT ALL. For people who are party people, there's nothing wrong with that.
[ 25. June 2013, 09:31: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sophs
Sardonic Angel
# 2296
|
Posted
We asked for cash money or a present from a list where apart from le cruset pans (which I knew I wasn't going to get) the most expensive item was Lego. We got Lego from 3 people but most people gave us cash, one person on job seekers who does so much for me anyway, he helps with chores and chopped hedges down last week and generally is an awesome person gave us £20. Imagine his surprise when he magically received cold hard cash (after failing to provide us with a list of suitable presents) to thank him for the looking after the child of our photographer.
Most of our friends didn't give us anything apart from cake and their love. Some people gave us far too much and left me in tears at their generosity, but I didn't care about the money or presents (but the Lego is fun...) but having them with me for an awesome day and their support for our life together.
I forgot to add, my partners cousins gave us a selection of gifts that they had obviously received from their wedding and were regifting. I thought this quietly to myself and was very happy with the portmerion cake slice and other odd things but my husband voiced his thoughts to his parents. I told him off for saying it, but did have a giggle at the random stuff from random stores, some of which don't exist in their home town. Don't get me wrong, I'm really greatful, but don't think I'd regifting wedding presents just quietly take them to a charity shop or give them to friends who like them!
[ 25. June 2013, 09:49: Message edited by: sophs ]
Posts: 5407 | From: searching saharas of sorrow | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a cultural ritual designed to prepare the young couple for future parenthood, when their life will be an even higher-stakes, near continuous stream of such damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions-- cloth v. disposable? spank or time out? breast or bottle?
ISTM, it is a holdover trade negotiation/wealth display/community celebration and that the state of the parent's live afterwards is a relatively modern afterthought.
It was a joke. Not a very funny one if I have to explain it.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) No, just me being thick.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
When considering what food to serve, the timing of the wedding is important. If the wedding is at two in the afternoon, people don't expect a full meal. You can serve delicious gourmet sandwiches and snacks.
I actually prefer this to a sit-down meal because the guests get the opportunity to talk to more different people. They are free to move around from one group to another.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When considering what food to serve, the timing of the wedding is important. If the wedding is at two in the afternoon, people don't expect a full meal. You can serve delicious gourmet sandwiches and snacks.
I actually prefer this to a sit-down meal because the guests get the opportunity to talk to more different people. They are free to move around from one group to another.
Moo
Yes - or even if you want a sit-down meal, do afternoon tea! Much easier to self-cater than a full meal. I myself have always liked the idea of a morning wedding followed by brunch. Mmm, breakfast food!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Yes, a buffet-style wedding can be a good idea, saving money and enabling the guests to move around.
The whole OP and the attitude of those brides is deeply depressing--and I get the feeling they aren't alone in their assumption that a wedding guest should somehow reimburse the cost of the reception and/or honeymoon.
Even if in their culture "everyone" gives money and "no-one" gives actual gifts, it's still shocking that they responded to the gift in this manner.
I much prefer to give an actual gift than money. However it's true that many people getting married now already have all, or lots of, the household stuff they need. so it's hard to know what to get. A wedding registry can be helpful for gift-givers, but it should never be referred to in any way in the invitation! And there should be a wide variety of prices, right down to humble items like the above-mentioned garlic press (which is indeed all I could afford to buy for a friend of mine who married when we were all still young and impoverished.)
People seem to be forgetting the point of the whole thing:
You are getting married.
You really want the people important to you to be there for this important life passage.
You send them an invitation and you really hope they can come.
End of story!
It is traditional to give wedding gifts, yes; therefore many people will want to give a gift. They should feel able to give whatever they want to give! If the couple has a gift registry, that can be helpful, but it should just be seen as suggestions--no-one should feel obliged to buy only from the list.
The presence of the guests is the important thing. Receiving gifts should not be taken for granted!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
And conversely, as a guest, you are there to celebrate your friends' happiness-- not to be treated to a lavish meal and booze fest. So there should be no judgment from true friends/relatives re: how lavish the entertainment, food, venue might be. One of the easiest ways to keep costs down is to cut out the alcohol or have a single champagne toast only, something that works particularly well (one would think) with a morning or early afternoon wedding. But that goes over better with some groups than others.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the easiest ways to keep costs down is to cut out the alcohol or have a single champagne toast only, something that works particularly well (one would think) with a morning or early afternoon wedding. But that goes over better with some groups than others.
Its another cultural expectation thing. Some people would find a wedding without large, even extreme, quantities of drink as odd and off-puttiing as they would find one where people gave money in envelopes. Others might have hardly any booze at all. Some might have another room at the party where the adult men who want to drink and smoke sneak off to, leaving most people in the place where they are eating.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And conversely, as a guest, you are there to celebrate your friends' happiness-- not to be treated to a lavish meal and booze fest. So there should be no judgment from true friends/relatives re: how lavish the entertainment, food, venue might be.
Yes, but I do think the Happy Couple have a duty to be good hosts. That means ensuring that people's needs are met and they do not go hungry/thirsty.
Obviously there are limits: we are providing alcohol with the meal/toast; unlimited soft drinks but no free bar all evening. It helps that a good 1/3 of the guests won't drink for religious reasons.
Mind you it does occur to me that the Gospel precedent for a wedding is a lavish booze fest ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I have never received a wedding invitation without a gift registry card enclosed. It's just what people (at least, all the ones I know) in the UK do when they get married. Mind you, in my evo circles, the couple are usually setting up home for the first time, so need stuff.
I think that my favourite weddings have been ones where all the trappings and trimmings were contributed by friends and family. It makes for a lovely happy atmospere of love and goodwill.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
I thinkit ddepends on what you mean by a big dream wedding.
To me, it is really important to feed everyone who attends, because Ilike to host well and to show my love for people by hosting well. I am also unwilling to reduce a guest list because I would like all the people who are important to myself and Mr Shrew to be able to be there with us to celebrate. Again, this is about liking to show love through hospitality.
This is naturally making the whole thing a more expensive affair. You simply cannot feed 120 people for an evening without it being a bit costly.
http://www.bigroast.com/essex/hog-roasts/
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I attended one wedding where a buffet meal was served. Tables were called up one at a time to self serve. By the time they reached my table which was last, there was very little left for us to eat as some of the previous tables had 'pigged out'. Just a warning as I think served plates are more satisfactory in view of my experience.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Mind you it does occur to me that the Gospel precedent for a wedding is a lavish booze fest
Maybe we just invite Jesus and let him take care of the booze.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... cash is the assumed gift in many cultures, but generally this is already known by the guests and doesn't need stating tackily in the invites.
I don't know how to tell you this. If you are from a WASP or other culture, be warned that your mind may asplode:Yes, it is printed in the invitations. From the link: quote:
The invitation was beautiful - on heavy, creamy cardstock with engraved lettering, wrapped in a silky ribbon – all the stuff girls care about. Beneath the usual day-time-place details was a single word on its own line: presentation. I had no idea what this meant! I asked around... And then I called my mum, and she laughed and said, “It means they want money, not gifts”.
I was quite taken aback. What had the world come to? First, it was bad enough that people started printing their registry information on their invitations. Now they were just asking for money flat-out?
Well, it turns out that this is a totally common practice in Manitoba.
My wedding invitation said Presentation, and so did those of everyone I can think of. It not only indicates that cash gifts are welcome, but that the ritual presentation of them will take place, at around 10 pm, when a later lunch is also served.
If you think this is tacky, it only means that your own cultural m.o. is something different. Be assured that your own charming little ethnic/ethical/generational practices are weird to someone else. When it comes to weddings, all measures vary!
IMHO, everyone who mentioned "cultural differences" in this thread gets a point, or a cookie, or a wrapped slice of fruitcake, or a paper cup of peanuts and mints, or a bag of sugared almonds, or a cupcake. Expectations of marrying couples, hosts, and guests vary by culture.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I attended one wedding where a buffet meal was served. Tables were called up one at a time to self serve. By the time they reached my table which was last, there was very little left for us to eat as some of the previous tables had 'pigged out'. Just a warning as I think served plates are more satisfactory in view of my experience.
Were you not only at the same wedding, but at the same table, as me a few months ago?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Leaf: the ritual presentation of them will take place, at around 10 pm
Out of curiosity, what would that entail?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.
I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.
I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Presentation: The head table (marrying couple in the middle, attendants on either side) is set up at one end of a reception hall, facing the dance floor. People have typically been dancing for a few hours after dinner and speeches.
At 10 pm, as a lunch is being brought out, "presentation music" begins and the dance floor clears. That is the cue for guests to form a long line, in pairs, in front of the marrying couple. The room forms a gigantic "T" shape with the head table at the top of the "T".
The couple has a large bowl in front of them on the head table. Guests place the envelope with cash in the bowl, kiss the bride and kiss/shake hands with the groom. Then guest couple "splits": male guests move down the line kissing the female attendants, female guests move down the line kissing the male attendants. [This predates SSM; I don't know what the protocol is for gay and lesbian guests. However by that point people have had a few drinks and there's a lot of general kissing anyway.]
After presentation comes a rather terrifying ritual. It is 'supposed' that the groom has secretly stashed some of the presentation money for himself upon his person. To right this supposed theft, the bride's loyal, young, drunk, male relatives helpfully drag him to the middle of the dance floor in front of witnesses, strip off the groom's jacket, seize him, and throw him in the air above their heads/shake him upside down to make the money fall out. Grooms are typically equipped with a pocketful of change for this purpose. It can be nerve-wracking to watch a groom being gleefully shaken upside down by a large group of drunken men; try not to think about spinal fractures. The hopefully-unfractured groom is eventually returned, red-faced and dizzy, to the bride, and the reception continues with the late lunch and dancing.
The presentation money is entrusted to someone regarded as exceptionally trustworthy; they often leave the reception with the envelopes at that point. 95% of the envelopes contain cheques, not cash, so not much opportunity for theft anyway.
Congratulations. You are now prepared to attend a local wedding ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I believe presentation was Ukrainian in origin but is widely practiced here.
[ 26. June 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.
I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.
I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".
In my experience, UK weddings last longer than US ones, and there will be free wine (and champagne for toasts) for the meal but a cash bar for alcohol during the evening disco. Most people here get married at about midday/early afternoon, then have a sit-down meal with toasts, speeches etc and then an evening disco, often with a buffet and usually a cash bar - mostly because the disco will last well into the early hours!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I went to a bunch of weddings when I was a kid, and maybe two as an adult.
The childhood ones were relatively simple. Probably relatively inexpensive, if you keep in mind that there weren't many discount vendors available then. The weddings were at a church. (Mostly my small church.) The receptions were also at the church, usually in the basement. No alcohol, but punch and coffee. One main cake; sometimes some extra cakes; cookies; and little cups of pillow mints and mixed nuts. Some small favors--e.g., tiny pieces of wedding cake as mementos, a little lace bag of rice. Not sure what use of the church cost. (Back then, I don't think I was aware that anyone *would* charge.) Other than that, main costs were probably gown, flowers, and invitations. I think some gowns were homemade. But. with the possible exception of one wedding at another church (which I can't remember in detail), sit-down reception meals weren't done.
As an adult, I went to an RC wedding at a smallish church, with a sit-down reception. It was nice, and probably necessary because of people coming in from out of town. But probably hella expensive.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.
I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.
I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".
[Tangent alert]
I think the concern with alcohol is with host liability which is why open bar situations are now quite rare.
If someone gets drunk at your wedding, hops in a car, and kills someone, there is a very good chance, you might be held responsible.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.
I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.
I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".
Exactly. I've never heard of a wedding with a cash bar.
edited to add--for drinks to accompany the meal, anyway. I can see that if there's a disco or something going on afterwards, it's ok to ask people to buy their own drinks during that.
[ 26. June 2013, 07:14: Message edited by: Cara ]
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Presentation: The head table (marrying couple in the middle, attendants on either side) is set up at one end of a reception hall, facing the dance floor. People have typically been dancing for a few hours after dinner and speeches.
At 10 pm, as a lunch is being brought out, "presentation music" begins and the dance floor clears. That is the cue for guests to form a long line, in pairs, in front of the marrying couple. The room forms a gigantic "T" shape with the head table at the top of the "T".
The couple has a large bowl in front of them on the head table. Guests place the envelope with cash in the bowl, kiss the bride and kiss/shake hands with the groom. Then guest couple "splits": male guests move down the line kissing the female attendants, female guests move down the line kissing the male attendants. [This predates SSM; I don't know what the protocol is for gay and lesbian guests. However by that point people have had a few drinks and there's a lot of general kissing anyway.]
After presentation comes a rather terrifying ritual. It is 'supposed' that the groom has secretly stashed some of the presentation money for himself upon his person. To right this supposed theft, the bride's loyal, young, drunk, male relatives helpfully drag him to the middle of the dance floor in front of witnesses, strip off the groom's jacket, seize him, and throw him in the air above their heads/shake him upside down to make the money fall out. Grooms are typically equipped with a pocketful of change for this purpose. It can be nerve-wracking to watch a groom being gleefully shaken upside down by a large group of drunken men; try not to think about spinal fractures. The hopefully-unfractured groom is eventually returned, red-faced and dizzy, to the bride, and the reception continues with the late lunch and dancing.
The presentation money is entrusted to someone regarded as exceptionally trustworthy; they often leave the reception with the envelopes at that point. 95% of the envelopes contain cheques, not cash, so not much opportunity for theft anyway.
Congratulations. You are now prepared to attend a local wedding I believe presentation was Ukrainian in origin but is widely practiced here.
Yikes, Leaf. Where is "here" ? Talk about cultural differences, indeed! I was a bit shocked as a Brit when I first arrived in US and went to Italian-American weddings where money envelopes are more common than they are (or were) in the UK...I guess your reminder that we must allow for cultural differences before judging something as "tacky" is a necessary one...However, it's when things within our own culture slide towards tacky that it becomes alarming!
It's true, though, that the whole wedding thing has gone crazy. There's so much pressure on couples to do it "right," starting with pressure on the man (in hetero couples, I guess I need to say) to create the perfect proposal, and to give the perfect ring. And so on, from there...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leaf: quote:
Expectations of marrying couples, hosts, and guests vary by culture.
That's true - and although I don't qualify for the free mints, or whatever, I did wonder to myself whether culture clash was the problem here. But I'd have thought intentionally hurting a friend's feelings would be considered rude in any culture.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Can I pin some money on the bride's gown?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
http://www.bigroast.com/essex/hog-roasts/
Relatively cheap, yes. But not small change. Once you've factored in a party venue (because if you're not having a religious wedding you can't use a place of worship for the reception, and most people don't live in houses big enough for 120 people to sit down to dinner in), drink, tableware and some (cheap) decorations and flowers, options for people who don't eat pork for whatever reason as well as clothes to get married in, registrar fees and so on you're back to the aforementioned four figure sum. Now, whether or not you allow that to become a five figure sum (fancy car, more flowers, more drink options, bridesmaid outfits, serving staff, people to clear up, someone to do the bride's hair and makeup, hotel rooms for people from out of town, wedding favours, some kind of music at the ceremony/reception rings, a honeymoon - note that all of this is considered pretty standard stuff) is a matter of personal choice. But if you're on a low income to begin with, the task of hauling together the cash for even a pretty basic celebration can be pretty daunting.
[ 26. June 2013, 09:44: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
True - but if "the average" wedding costs £20,000 - I think you could have something fun with 150 guests for between £2000 to £2500, including venue hire, service and outfits.
(I would think you could also buy enough beer and cider with the hog roast not to need to charge the guests, or provide an amount to be going on with and invite people to byob for a shared bar.)
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Even buying fish and chips for 120 people would cost something like £1k - and how do you keep them all warm?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
True - but if "the average" wedding costs £20,000 - I think you could have something fun with 150 guests for between £2000 to £2500, including venue hire, service and outfits.
(I would think you could also buy enough beer and cider with the hog roast not to need to charge the guests, or provide an amount to be going on with and invite people to byob for a shared bar.)
Oh, I agree that you don't need to spend £20k on a wedding, and that many of the expectations have become overblown. The position I'm arguing against is the "you don't need to wait and save up for a wedding" because for many people there are three options:
1: wait and save up for the wedding
2: have the wedding now and get horribly into debt
3: have the wedding and cut back the guest list to only a very small handful of people
If you don't have relatives who can pay, and if you don't have a few thousand in the bank that you can use for this, these are your options. If the third option isn't acceptable because you're a socially oriented person with a lot of family and friends and you want them to be there (and moreover you don't want to hurt them by not inviting them, or offend them by asking for money) then you've only got the other two. And I think fewer people would go for option 2 if there weren't so many people being judgemental about option 1.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The position I'm arguing against is the "you don't need to wait and save up for a wedding" because for many people there are three options:
1: wait and save up for the wedding
2: have the wedding now and get horribly into debt
3: have the wedding and cut back the guest list to only a very small handful of people
Or option 4: have as many people as you like but do it within your means.
Many people have suggested ways of doing so above but still can't get past the idea of "having it all". Everyone wants to hire a private venue, have a sit-down waiter-service meal laid on for everyone followed by a week abroad in the sun.
Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone. This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people. My gran remembers weddings from her day where the 'meal' was a scotch egg and a pork pie and a natter at the bride's mother's house, and their honeymoon was a weekend in a cheap London B&B.
The idea of a wedding breakfast with sit down waiter service, and elaborate table decorations in an expensive hotel is ridiculously extravangant and out of the price range for most people who have it. Even a pork roast is very expensive for what it is, but its fashionable so many people want one.
Luxurious venues and silver-service meals used to be only for the very rich, who thought nothing of spending such wealth on extravagant luxury. But then it became fashionable and now everyone wants a rich-person's wedding, even if they aren't rich enough to pay for it.
Cultural differences vary, but across all cultures, it appears that most people want more than they can afford to pay for themselves. They want what rich people have, whether it's the venue, or the dress, or the bowls of cash. In all cultures people feel the pressure to put themselves in debt just to put on a show so their friends will think they are richer than they really are.
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I attended one wedding where a buffet meal was served. Tables were called up one at a time to self serve. By the time they reached my table which was last, there was very little left for us to eat as some of the previous tables had 'pigged out'. Just a warning as I think served plates are more satisfactory in view of my experience.
At ours we didn't call tables, we just let people help themselves. We made sure the hotel staff kept replenishing the dishes so there was plenty for everyone as well. Personally I think sit-down meals are stuffy and too formal. Also you're forced to chat to the people at your table for hours, which I always find claustrophobic and difficult since I'm an introvert. And at most weddings people have to wait ages for the food to be served, and may not like/be able to eat what they're given. It's a mass of problems IMO. Buffets may not be considered impressive enough for many people, but they allow people more freedom to socialise and mingle and have a good time.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It all depends on what you want to go for. Mrs M made her dress and the bridesmaid's dresses. For our daughters we made the cakes and a friend decorated them and so on. The most expensive (last daughter) was a sit down meal at a nice venue for 100 people. The total cost for the whole thing was less than £5K.
There was one glass of wine plus a toast glass. People paid for any other drinks - we didn't go more on wine as probably 30% of the guests don't drink alcohol.
I accept that we had a lot of support and help from friends including the flower arranging, suit hire, cake, service in the church, disco Pete but it can be done.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Or option 4: have as many people as you like but do it within your means.
Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone.
I think I've pretty much already covered this, but fine. If you want to invite over 100 people (or even over 50 people) there is a minimum cost which is not ever nothing. For the very many people who struggle to pay the bills, it's a large amount of money.
Not a church hall or garden? Because you're not religious and hence not getting married in a church, and because you're on a low income, as are your friends and family, and most people you know live in flats, bedsits or even single rooms without a massive garden that you can host a party in. This is a typical situation in which being poor to begin with will cost you more. Even if you go for the back room of the pub, which is probably the cheapest option available, you will have to pay for the room hire, or for food and drink, or for *something* because nobody's giving the room out for free. Many venues will not let you provide your own catering because of hygiene laws.
quote:
This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people. My gran remembers weddings from her day where the 'meal' was a scotch egg and a pork pie and a natter at the bride's mother's house, and their honeymoon was a weekend in a cheap London B&B.
This was also a time when buying or renting a fairly big house with a garden was relatively cheap compared with today. If you live in London today and you have a house with a garden which is big enough that you can have a party for 100 people in it, you're probably not fretting about the cost of a simple wedding anyway. Otherwise, you have to pay for something. Even if you go to the local park with a picnic with 120 people you're going to be regarded as a nuisance if you haven't got council approval for your event beforehand - and good luck with that.
As I've already said, I'm not a big fan of big weddings. But I'm not a big fan of shaming people into having the cheapest possible option either. And the poorer you are, the more ideas people have about what is an acceptable use for your money.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Around when we live there are plenty of sports halls or local social clubs that will let you have the room for free if they can open the bar to your guests.
We have had a couple of budget weddings around church in the last year or so. Dresses etc were sources of the internet. The reception was in a free hall. They were not small weddings either
Both of the couples self catered, one from the local cash and carry, the other borrowed equipment to keep food hot and made it themselves in advance froze, it and had friends sort it out on the day.
They both had cars, photos, lots of bridesmaids etc the hired entertainment for the kids and a disco. They both cost under £4000. They were lovely happy joyful days.
I went to a family wedding 3 years ago where the bride’s father had paid an absolute fortune for the venue and food, it was a £20,000+++ day. At the evening buffet I was sitting waiting my turn watching table by table go up, when I took my turn, there was no food left. The venue told the bride’s father it was because the ‘guests had been greedy going up several times for more food’ this was not true as I was watching waiting for my turn.
I was also chatting to a cake maker a few weeks ago and was told openly that if you say you are shopping for a wedding the price is dearer than if it for another occasion. He said the caterers know people will pay silly money for a wedding..
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Hawk: quote:
Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone. This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people.
Having a house with a big garden used to be much more common too, as Liopleurodon has already pointed out. I don't know anyone with a garden big enough for a hundred guests - ours certainly isn't that big, unless several neighbours let us take the fences down and extend the party into their gardens.
Many couples are now getting married from their own homes rather than the bride's parents' home, so asking relatives to help provide food is a bit more complicated than getting Aunty Mary to carry a few sandwiches across the road; they might have to travel several hundred miles to be there.
We got married nearly 25 years ago on a shoestring, and even then it cost about £500 (not including the honeymoon). About half of that was the cost of the reception; generously paid for by my parents and catered by a consortium of my relatives - and yes, in a church hall. I can quite understand how someone could run up a four-figure bill for a wedding nowadays without being extravagant.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
We got married nearly 25 years ago on a shoestring, and even then it cost about £500 (not including the honeymoon). About half of that was the cost of the reception; generously paid for by my parents and catered by a consortium of my relatives - and yes, in a church hall. I can quite understand how someone could run up a four-figure bill for a wedding nowadays without being extravagant.
IMO, it is quite ridiculous to run up a debt on the first day of your married life. Finances are often a serious bone of contention for couples, and to add another stress at the very beginning?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Shrew
Ship's Mother
# 8635
|
Posted
It doesn't have to be a debt though, Lil'Buddha:
We are saving to pay for ours in advance, so althoguh it will be a four figures affair (aiming at about £3k, most of which is food and drinks for our guests) we will certainly not be in debt for it.
But I couldn't have done this even a year ago - we are lucky to have felt that it was the right time to get married at about the same time we were able to pay for it, but I would have waited if we couldn't afford it.
--------------------
"The goal of life is not to make other people in your own image, it is to understand that they, too, are in God's image" (Orfeo)
Was "mummyfrances".
Posts: 703 | From: York, England | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Badger Lady
Shipmate
# 13453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone.
Because (in my case) It is not that simple:
(1) We wanted to get married in our local church
(2) We have 180+ guests. The church hall isn't big enough
(3) We live in a city. The small patio masquerading as a garden to our house would not fit 180+ people
(4) in any event the vagaries of the British 'summer' weather mean some cover for guests would be needed
(5) There is nowhere local to erect a marquee and - initially explorations indicated that the costs or hire, erection, furniture hire, providing loos etc would mean it was as expensive as hiring a venue.
(6) there is a limited choice of (local) venues that will accommodate the number of guests required.
(7) the two possible venues do not allow you to bring your own food/alcoholic drinks and so you have to use their catering. Venue (a) is hugely expensive but does offer a buffet option. Venue (b) is only a sit down meal.
(8) the alternative would be to have the reception miles from the venue (assuming one could be located). This would lead to additional costs of travelling from the church to the venue.
Posts: 340 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I am another one in a culture where fruit squash really isn't an option.
The culture in France is that you have (usually) an afternoon ceremony, followed by champagne and petits fours for everyone, and then a nice sit down dinner in the evening for a more select group of guests. Not to have wine here would be the insult of the century. It just kind of has to be done.
I do detect a current on this thread also that it's *always* wrong to spend extravagantly on a wedding and I'm not sure that's right. I agree you shouldn't spend what you really can't afford, but if you can afford it, then AFAIC what people do with their own money is none of my business.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
lilbuddha: quote:
IMO, it is quite ridiculous to run up a debt on the first day of your married life.
What did I say that sounded like 'We had to go into debt to get married so it's OK for anybody else to do the same'?
First of all we didn't go into debt, although we might have had to wait a bit longer to get married if my parents hadn't offered to pay half the cost. Who are you to judge whether their generosity was justified?
Secondly, a couple of thousand pounds might not sound like much to you, but for a lot of couples with mortgages and student loans to pay off it could represent a year's savings. When I got married I was earning less than £500 a month and most of it went on living expenses - mainly rent and the infamous poll tax.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
But I'm not a big fan of shaming people into having the cheapest possible option either. And the poorer you are, the more ideas people have about what is an acceptable use for your money.
Although if you're poor it's not your money is it? It's debt that's the problem, people should have a wedding they can afford, otherwise its silly. People are hardly being shamed into having cheap weddings. At least no-one I've ever heard of. I feel most people are shamed by our prevailing culture into having huge expensive weddings that stress them out, and cost money they can't afford to spend.
I chose to break with my family's cultural expectations at my wedding and have a buffet, and also to forgo the traditional greeting line since me and my bride hate such stiff formality. My family were a bit surprised since many had never been to a wedding without a sit-down meal or a greeting line. But it was our wedding, not theirs, and I think they still had a good time despite their surprise.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am another one in a culture where fruit squash really isn't an option.
The culture in France is that you have (usually) an afternoon ceremony, followed by champagne and petits fours for everyone, and then a nice sit down dinner in the evening for a more select group of guests. Not to have wine here would be the insult of the century. It just kind of has to be done.
Everyone in every culture is told certain things are 'expected' at a wedding and without them everyone would be scandalised or insulted. Bollocks. If guests are scandalised or insulted they shouldn't come. They should be there to celebrate your marraige, not to drink free wine at your expense. A wedding is the vows before witnesses. Anything extra you can afford to provide for your guests should be considered a bonus, not an expectation. And IMO any guest who doesn't understand that can go sulk in a corner by themselves.
And regarding people who have 180+ guests and can't find a free/cheap place to hold a reception. The simple answer is, if you can't afford a reception don't have a reception. It's not an essential requirement.
But I think in most cases if you don't know anyone at all among those 180 friends and family who can provide contacts to get a free/cheap place for people to gather then you're probably not trying hard enough. Everyone knows someone. You might not be religious, but one of your friends might be. I hired a venue for my wedding because we could afford it. But our engagement party was held for free at my mum's amateur dramatics group hall for instance. It was a bit down market, but when filled with people, and with a few balloons up, no one cares.
We could have had our reception there if we chose to. Food provided by aunts and uncles. Cost £0. For our wedding we did get our cake for free as a wedding gift from my wife's aunt, photos were free as a gift from my uncle. Flowers provided by a women my MIL is friends with. But most people don't even try to ask around to get things done cheaply. They go straight to the wedding catalogue with all the shiny pictures and ridiculous price tags and act like a kid in a candyshop.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
I guess I'm old fashioned. But my expectation is that the wedding, including reception is paid for by the bride's father. Also, the invitations to the reception are from the bride's mother, and it is the bride's parents who are at the head of the receiving line. The reception is put on not by the couple, but by the bride's family for the couple.
Presents are for the couple, primary in the case where they are young and are (or will be) setting up a home for the first time. For weddings at other stages of life, presents are tokens of friendship.
If I am invited to an event, I do not expect to pay, unless that is clear up front, and acceptance is indicated by paying up. At a different kind of event, there is a difference between 'RSVP' by itself at the bottom of the invitation, and "RSVP, PBAB".
If funds are tight, then get the family and friends to rally round, as has been illustrated up-thread. And cut your coat to fit the cloth. The pattern which La Vie en Rouge gives is not confined to France, i.e. you have the 'general' reception first, perhaps at the venue for the ceremony - just drinks and nibbles. Then a small party of close family and friends goes to a nice venue for a meal. And if funds are tight, it is obviously a lot easier to ask these people for a contribution as they know the couple's circumstances.
The story in the OP suggests that the invitees with the rejected present were not close friends to the couple, as they did not know about allergies. Were they invited in the expectation that the couple would get a cash present which was greater that the cost of the guests?
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Although if you're poor it's not your money is it? It's debt that's the problem, people should have a wedding they can afford, otherwise its silly. People are hardly being shamed into having cheap weddings. At least no-one I've ever heard of. I feel most people are shamed by our prevailing culture into having huge expensive weddings that stress them out, and cost money they can't afford to spend.
Given that all of this is in response to me saying that people should not be criticised for saving up and waiting until they can afford to have a wedding... yeah, I'm against people getting into debt too.
Some people are shamed into having extravagant weddings but there is also a very strong voice saying that nobody should have anything other than the cheapest possible option. I don't see that you can deny that that voice exists - it is all over this thread. It's not just here that I hear it either. It pops up a LOT. Hell, when people are poor people get judgemental about them spending money on anything at all.
quote:
I chose to break with my family's cultural expectations at my wedding and have a buffet, and also to forgo the traditional greeting line since me and my bride hate such stiff formality. My family were a bit surprised since many had never been to a wedding without a sit-down meal or a greeting line. But it was our wedding, not theirs, and I think they still had a good time despite their surprise.
Fine - and the "it's our wedding, not theirs" is exactly the point I want to back up here. The buffet was what you wanted. The no-reception-whatsoever was what I wanted. Not everyone wants the same thing. I have no time for the industry vultures who try to persuade people that they need every possible extravagance or the day is a failure. But that's not completely different from the "you should just have sandwiches in the garden" lot - it's the other side of the same coin. Both are part of the "I know better than you do how you should be getting married" brigade.
quote:
And regarding people who have 180+ guests and can't find a free/cheap place to hold a reception. The simple answer is, if you can't afford a reception don't have a reception. It's not an essential requirement.
Or, you know, save up until you can afford it if you really want one. Like I'm suggesting that people do.
quote:
But I think in most cases if you don't know anyone at all among those 180 friends and family who can provide contacts to get a free/cheap place for people to gather then you're probably not trying hard enough. Everyone knows someone. You might not be religious, but one of your friends might be.
Or you might feel that because you're not religious it wouldn't be right to use a place of worship. There's enough complaining among Christians about non-Christians who use churches for weddings and are never seen the rest of the time that you might feel a bit uncomfortable doing this.
quote:
I hired a venue for my wedding because we could afford it. But our engagement party was held for free at my mum's amateur dramatics group hall for instance. It was a bit down market, but when filled with people, and with a few balloons up, no one cares.
We could have had our reception there if we chose to. Food provided by aunts and uncles. Cost £0. For our wedding we did get our cake for free as a wedding gift from my wife's aunt, photos were free as a gift from my uncle. Flowers provided by a women my MIL is friends with. But most people don't even try to ask around to get things done cheaply.
No, none of this was free. What you mean by "free" in this context is that you didn't pay for it - someone else did. Which is fine if they're happy to do that. The hall was not free - there was the cost of bills and the opportunity cost of not renting it out to someone else who would pay. The food, cake and flowers were not free - it's just that they were paid for by other people. I'm pleased for you that people were able to do that. Many people who have little money, and have friends and family who likewise have little money, are reluctant to ask other people to pay for stuff for their wedding, or have personal reasons why they can't or won't impose like that.
quote:
They go straight to the wedding catalogue with all the shiny pictures and ridiculous price tags and act like a kid in a candyshop.
Show me anywhere on this thread where anyone has suggested that anyone should do this.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I know a couple - good churchgoing folk so no problem with church services - who wanted to start a family, but be married first. They also wanted a lovely big celebratory wedding with family from far away overseas over to visit. But the funds for that were a long way off.
They decided to go first of all for a registry wedding, so they could start living together and have babies; and of course it was as cheap as chips. And are now saving up for the huge celebration which'll involve lots of far away family and many friends; centred on a Dedication (or blessing) service in church.
It'll be a celebration of their marriage, rather than a wedding. And while it took me a while to get my head round it, knowing the couple and what it means to them, I think it's a fantastic idea.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Hawk: quote:
For our wedding we did get our cake for free...
No, you didn't. Your aunt paid for it.
We didn't pay for ours either; it was a gift from my sister's fiancée (now my brother-in-law) who is a baker. I didn't pay for a wedding organiser, or for my hair to be done, or for musicians and a caller at the barn dance, or for a chauffeur to take us to the station for our honeymoon trip. All these things were done for us without any cash incentives, but they weren't free; they were very much appreciated gifts from various relatives and friends.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
