Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » Yes, I imagine a lot of brides start out wanting a smaller, more personal wedding and then get brainwashed by friends or sisters into believing that their wedding will be a disaster if they don't have it in a proper hotel, with a sit down meal, and a loud band, and a burger van for the 'afters' and a photo booth and a load of other gimmicks that might have been unusual and quirky the first time somebody thought of them but not after they've been copied a million and one times.
LirW wrote: » You'd be surprised how many people involve themselves in the planning. Weddings are these occasions that bring the crazy out in people and slumbering conflicts to the surface.
LirW wrote: » I constantly get to hear what cake we need to have, what shoes I need to wear and the list goes on. Now I can easily tell people off, no problem, but I know a lot can't and might even get blackmailed into doing things.
meeeeh wrote: » I found that if you don't discuss the wedding then you don't have to suffer other people's opinions about what you should do.
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » I think Qwerty was actually agreeing that guests are being put under undue pressure to attend extravagant weddings and put a minimum amount of cash in a card.
LirW wrote: » What issue exactly? That the couple decided to get married in a super fancy location that puts them out of pocket in the first place? I don't really see why the guests should be expected to pay for the couple's choices. If you can't afford getting married in Castle X, then there are a lot other, more budget friendly options or save for it. If I can only afford 50 quid and a tin of biscuits, that's what I can afford to give them.
A lot is to do with the pressure on the bride and groom to have certain things at weddings seen in the media or at friends weddings I think!
splinter65 wrote: » Over on the weddings forum I remember a poster telling of being in the bridal suite the morning after a wedding as the B&G desperately tore open the accumulated envelopes desperately trying to gather together the cash to pay the hotel bill which was to be settled of course at departure. The foul language at the sight of a solitary €50 was in stark contrast to the demure couple standing at the alter not 24 earlier.
LirW wrote: » That mentality is really awful. It really doesn't sit right with me and I'd find it financially unwise to speculate with presents to cover the cost of my wedding. Main thing why I'm having a small thing is because I couldn't justify spending more than the amount we are going to. That's what we can shoulder ourselves without help, so we're not going to be in debt or a financial predicament when the whole thing with presents doesn't pan out :pac:
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
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
_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.
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » I'm beginning to think the world is divided into those who love weddings and those who hate 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 ��
Meadow Freezing Newsman wrote: » Except that nowadays, much of that 20,000 comes from the guests 'covering their plate'.
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.
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.
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
