Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » We've already explained why sometimes a bald refusal isn't really an option without causing difficulties or hurt feelings.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Yes and thats fair enough . I just don't like people criticising every move a bride makes . Some brides are very reasonable and accomadating
iamwhoiam wrote: » People are kind enough to invite you to their wedding and then get ripped apart for not " doing it as you would have done it "
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » The problem though is that some weddings now make huge demands of the guests in terms of time, money and convenience. So really people are entitled to comment if they find those weddings a bit of a trial. I am more than happy for Bob and Sarah to get married in the middle of nowhere and to spend 3 hours being photographed in front of the lake and so on. But if there's pressure on me to attend, using up 3 days annual leave, spending hundreds of euro, and hanging around bored on one of my precious days off work, then I think I am entitled to have a view.
jk23 wrote: » Agreed. See flash mob dances at churches or singing by bride or bridesmaid after the initial one went viral at a reception!
JohnnyFlash wrote: » And you have to give 150 as a gift if you’re single, or 300 if you’re a couple.
meeeeh wrote: » What is 'their own thing'. Going for some food after civil ceremony with small party? Plenty of people do that you just probably won't be invited because they are smaller. Civil ceremony in the venue - fairly standard but there are less humanist celebrants available so there won't be as many. Eloping is hardly original, destination weddings are common, I've been to few. I enjoyed myself at my own. We had about 65 guests, around 80 were invited. It was traditional wedding, we just made sure there was plenty of food and booze was free everywhere. I got one comment that people were hungry waiting for dinner. About half of finger food that was provided before dinner wasn't eaten (and I know the person complaining likes the type of food that was there). I just shrugged my shoulders. We had one other complaint from a relative that they didn't felt a bit sick because they 'had' to eat too much food. You just can't please everyone. Once you make a decent effort to accommodate people you just have to accept that not everyone will be happy no matter what you do. Personally I just don't like the constant bickering about the stuff people that they know in advance will happen. I don't like people who can't wait to complain about something just so they can say something bad about the others and make themselves feel better. If you don't want to go to traditional/small/destination/humanist wedding then don't go.
DaeryssaOne wrote: » Have you honestly taken three days of annual leave to attend a wedding in the middle of nowhere where you had to wait around bored for three hours waiting for the bride and groom to come and entertain you, you couldn't possibly speak to anybody else or realise that their wedding day didn't centre around one guest? The amount of whinging in this thread is so ridiculous, having been to 20+ weddings in the last number of years I have never heard a single person complain like people are here. Yes - sometimes the speeches go on far too long, yes sometimes there noticeably isn't enough food / wine or the band may not be to my taste but you know what - the day wasn't organised for me and 99% of the time it's a lovely day out, I understand it can be a racket and some couples get carried away but the negativity here is just silly
DaeryssaOne wrote: » The amount of whinging in this thread is so ridiculous, having been to 20+ weddings in the last number of years I have never heard a single person complain like people are here.
splinter65 wrote: » Anyone who makes a point of complaining to the host after any party is a **** anyway. My grudge about Irish weddings is not personal it’s about the Irish wedding culture. I actually feel sorry for the couples either saving or borrowing a whole load of cash a little bit like sheep thinking that there is no alternative.
NIMAN wrote: » OP is bang on. Hate weddings, only attend to not offend the bride and groom. If I had my way, I wouldn't be at another. One coming up soon, will have to laugh at the jokes I've heard 20 times already, the same best man speech, applaud the bridesmaids (aren't they looking lovely), applaud the priest, the hotel for a lovely meal (which they are getting handsomely paid for, they are a business after all), and listen to the same old songs for hours on end by the band.
jk23 wrote: » This is exactly it, when you hear of upwards of 20,000 being spent on one day it’s overboard. All the things that type of money could be used on while still have a nice wedding for a whole lot less.
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » Except that nowadays, much of that 20,000 comes from the guests 'covering their plate'.
jk23 wrote: » Absolutely crazy! There does seem to be an emotionally driven pressure for the guests to give money. Seems to be 150 for a couple minimum ��
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » I'm beginning to think the world is divided into those who love weddings and those who hate them.
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » Yes, wedding presents were originally about guests rallying around to provide young couples setting up house together for the first time with all the basics - pots and pans, crockery, cutlery, bed linen and so on. Nowadays it seems to be about covering the costs of an extravagant wedding that the couple can't afford, or an expensive holiday in the Maldives. Times have really changed.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
_Dara_ wrote: » One thing that amazes me is the level of analysis some couples put into planning their wedding. I kinda get it. It's costing a lot of money and you are asking people to spend time and money to attend. So I can understand the fretting. But looking at the wedding forum can be eye-opening (well, when it was busier a few years back at least) in how analytical people can be about a day that people will enjoy well enough but quickly forget about if it's not somebody really, really close to them.
jk23 wrote: » Absolutely crazy! There does seem to be an emotionally driven pressure for the guests to give money. Seems to be 150 for a couple minimum �� 150 euro x 150 guests = 22,250 euro
meeeeh wrote: » Well if it's 150 per couple and you had 150 guests then it's 75 x 150 = 11,250 Just in case you are planning to organize your wedding like that because you might end up with a bit of hole in your finances.
jk23 wrote: » Absolutely crazy! There does seem to be an emotionally driven pressure for the guests to give money. Seems to be 150 for a couple minimum �� 150 euro x 150 guests = 22,250 euro
qwerty ui op wrote: » This is true and people who want to bury their heads in the sand and say "if you don't want to go then just don't go " or " you don't have to put X amount in the card" are just not facing up to the issue here. This threads OP has 115 thanks and counting! why would so many people say they are under pressure to go along with this madness , if they weren't
