Things I don't get about Irish weddings MOD WARNING POST #322

We got a full breakdown of the tab for our free bar. We could see exactly who ordered things like brandy or scotch who never buy them themselves, mainly family members and one or two friends, but it was 90% pints, shorts and mixers and soft drinks. We had decided we weren't going to let the few scabby feckers dictate the free bar, and thankfully most just appreciated the gesture and didn't take the piss.

Tasden wrote: »

But that's the issue, its not their drink of choice, its the drink they order when its not coming from their pocket.
I think the fact it is needed/advised is sad but I wouldn't say tacky. Personally I think it should be glass of wine or beer or soft drink and thats it, tough if you want something else.
That's exactly the point the barman was making, people don't realise its in someone's nature until they're presented with the offer and then they show that side. Its not necessarily that they feel ah I'm gonna bleed them dry here, more just ah sure may as well get something nice since its on them, but when everyone thinks the same it all adds up. Not malicious against the couple, more just not fully aware that just because its free for them doesn't mean someone isn't paying.

stinkle wrote: »

Yup - taking the mick with open bar/toast isn't even a new thing. My parents had an open toast at theirs back in the 70s and were stung by, for example, people who normally only drank pints went and ordered double whiskies, brandies, that sort of thing. Stuff theyd never touch any other day if the week.. It worked out a bit of an expensive surprise for a pair of 21 year olds who had scrimped and saved for their wedding. Also open bars could cause extra hassle if any guests have a drinking problem that they haven't faced up to.

A recent wedding I was at had a free bar most of the night, we were v well behaved buy it occurred to me that you could easily get a bunch of people stockpiling drinks for when the tab ended.we'd all like to think our mates wouldn't behave that way but some family members could be a different story.

They are all fair points......

but

I was at my friends wedding where my other friend I were drinking cocktails all day -I bought the bride one too and we all sat and chatted together and enjoyed our drinks.

When the staff member came around to take our drinks for the toast I ordered the cocktail that I was drinking - and my friend was about to also.

The staff member however then proceeded to bark loudly at all at our table (who I barely knew) "No doubles, no cocktails, only beer,wine singles"

Not only was I mortified for myself I was also embarrassed for the B&G. I understand why they made the rules (as outlined by the other posters above) but it just made them appear stingy. I'm sure they also didn't want to be mortifying their guests like I was (I was made to feel like I was taking advantage of the free drink on offer) ......maybe it was just a staff member who was a little tactless in getting the message across???

Toots* wrote: »

Easy way to avoid that is to give everyone a glass of champagne/prosecco for the toast that way everyone gets a drink for the toast but there's no chance of people being embarrassed by servers telling them they're not allowed to order xyz and the drink tab for the night doesn't run into outrageous figures.

This was one thing that really concerned me at my wedding, my parents were paying for it and I didn't want them getting a massive bill for the toast drinks at the end of the night, particularly considering there was a lot of drink laid on for the arrival bit and during the meal. I had a word with the wedding co-ordinator on the sly and got her advice.

We ended up deciding that doubles would be grand, and cocktails were ok too because the most expensive one on they did was something like €7 so it wouldn't be too bad. We drew the line at trebles though, personally I don't know anyone who'd go out and order a treble at a bar for themselves so it'd just be them being a cheeky fecker because the drink was being bought for them. IMO it's the same as if you were buying a round for your friends in the pub. If one of your friends was drinking singles and mixers all night but then decided they wanted a treble when you were buying I don't think anyone would blame you for telling them to cop on.

Trebles!!!! Now that is taking the piss!!!

All of the above sounds great! Good call going with the cocktails......sure a vodka and coke would nearly be €7 so no difference to a cocktail

I disagree with you on almost all your points but I'm only going to address these ones so I've cut the others.

Fair enough you don't get certain elements of an Irish wedding and granted some things are idiosyncratic but I don't get any sense that you have tried to understand why they are the way they are and you've dismissed some explanations in thread with a simple "I don't get it". perhaps the thread would be better titled "things that aren't readily apparent to me about Irish weddings.":P

amdublin wrote: »

2. The obsession with church weddings for non practicing/non religious people.
I'd wager 9/10 b&g's don't see the inside of a church from one year to the next but they must have a church wedding. Doubt they see the inside of the church again for a long time after.
I just don't get it.



I just don't get it. Loads more of stuff I don't get either. I'll add to it later.

What you think about above? Anything you don't get?

My own experience in relation to church weddings is the exact opposite to yours, over the last 3 years I've been to or been invited to 10 or 12 weddings and only 2 of them have Church weddings.

I think there are a number of reasons why non Church goers would opt for a church wedding. Some people have simply always wanted to get married in a Church, perhaps it represents tradition and marks the occasion for them, It wouldn't be my choice but I think its a valid reason and easy to understand.

Other people my choose a Church wedding because it makes their parents or other family members happy, it could be argued that they shouldn't have to do that but it may not be a question of having to do it. Certainly one of the weddings I was at last summer was held in a Church because the Bride's father would have been deeply upset otherwise. It made him happy and proud to have it in the church in his home town and both the Bride and Groom were pleased to do it simply because it him happy. Certainly I can get that.

amdublin wrote: »

Ah yes that reminds me of another thing I don't get

6. Start time and dinner time
Early ceremony (12.30/1pm etc) and then dinner not until 5.30 with no food in between.
Why not just married at 3.30/4pm and go straight into dinner?
OR (please!) provide food in between - and not cupcakes, cocktail sausages or something!

8. Long speeches
Imo only really close family find the speeches interesting/entertaining.
Imo everyone finds them tedious and boring but we are all too polite to say this so we labour under the pretence that we enjoyed sitting there for 45 minutes while we'd rather be at the bar.

You've said elsewhere in thread that you are usually bored and starving between the ceremony and the meal, is everyone else bored at these weddings? Again my experience is entirely different. I'm never bored during this time (often called the champagne reception) It's a great opportunity to spend time circulating, catching up with old friends meeting the families of the bride and groom and simply relaxing and enjoy the setting before sitting down to dinner where you won't get to interact with so many people when you are at your tables. I'd be very disappointed if this wasn't a feature at a wedding or reduced to a short time. I don't think thats hard to understand.

I do agree that some sort of food should be served during this time but agian every wedding that I have been to recently has served some sort of canape. I went to a wedding in New York a few years ago where they had "cocktail hour" where they essentially served what I would describe as "Dinner" about an hour before we actually sat down to dinner. Perhaps thats what you're used to (I'm presuming you are American from your name) but I thought it was total overkill and in at n irish wedding I think it would risk being either confusing to guests or seen as a display of extravagance. Lord knows thats a Cardinal Sin in Ireland (now more than ever!).

Its also worth considering whether its logistically possible to have the ceremony and Dinner closer together, I'm sure that in many cases later times for the ceremony simply aren't available and serving the meal early isn't ideal if the party is to continue into the early hours.

As for the speeches I agree that a poor speaker who drones on for 30 minutes is terrible but a good or even reasonable speaker (as most tend to be in my experience) is great, I've been to many weddings where the speeches were the stand out highlight for everyone present.

As for the duration well I think that is obvious, other's have mentioned that its not all that often that people have others make loving public speeches about them but look at it from the perspective of the speakers. How often do you get to speak to a room of family and friends about how wonderful you think your Friend/Brother/Sister/Son/Daughter are? Many Fathers of the bride look forward to this speech for years upon years and likewise all the best men I have known have relished it and considered it a great honour.

I don't think everyone should speak for 25 minutes but I can easily see why so many people want to speak for 10 minutes or so and furthermore why most guests are more than happy to listen to them!

I'm getting married myself next year (to an American as it happens), some of these elements we'll include and others we won't but I think that with a little consideration its easy to see why people do choose to have them.

hoodwinked wrote: »

are you sure that wasn't just part of the hotel package? i know some hotels were offering toasts with wine or beer as part of the package, which would explain why the staff was so snappy, as it would be on their head when the hotel/bar manager was down a cocktail when it should have been the cheaper wine/beer....

Maybe. Perhaps the B&G should have advised the hotel that they would compensate them for cocktails - especially when the bride knew that some of her friends liked a cocktail or two! ;-)

Thumby wrote: »

i'm not Catholic and my oh is and he's been told in no uncertain terms that's he has a snowballs chance in hell of having a church wedding. It's ridiculous imo that i should be expected to "stand before god" and all that other malakry when to me i'll just be standing there spouting lies to a deity that I don't believe in. My oh understands my reasons for not wanting a church wedding, even though "one or two"(ready my mother aarrgghh) of the parents do but it's not happening. I really don't understand why people who don't go/believe in the church insist on having a wedding there. You can have just as wonderful a wedding (decorated and all) by getting married in the same place as your reception. Most places actually throw in the wedding room and decorations for free as well once you have a certain number of sit down guests. So yeah that bugs me lol

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

ronjo wrote: »

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

As someone similar to the Op it would've been a deal breaker for me if my partner insisted ona church wedding. I wouldn't be compatible with someone religious or a hypocrite who.wanted a church wedding despite not believing any of it. Luckily I married someone who didn't want to start married life telling lies in a church.

amdublin wrote: »

What, so you both can be hypocrites?

Seriously, if you are genuinely serious about your faith then super. But seriously if you don't even know when to kneel, when to stand, resent the premarital course etc etc what is the point?

You might as well find a building that just looks like a church to get the same effect.

It was a question for Thumby. I am just genuinely interested.

hoodwinked wrote: »

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

Thats what I was getting at with my question. I dont personally understand how it can be a deal breaker. (just my opinion)