Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
wrongfunds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:37 pm

The usual problem is that mother-in-law(s) think it is their wedding rather than their child's wedding! Yes, it is somewhat sexist but generally father-in-law(s) don't think in similar terms.

stoptothink
Posts: 6791
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by stoptothink » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:14 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:37 pm
The usual problem is that mother-in-law(s) think it is their wedding rather than their child's wedding! Yes, it is somewhat sexist but generally father-in-law(s) don't think in similar terms.
My anecdotal experience was the opposite. My former FIL was the primary reason for the big, expensive wedding...of course he didn't have the means to pay for it so a huge amount of pressure was put on me to open my wallet. That family tension never really died down in the 5yrs of marriage.

BeneIRA
Posts: 687
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 8:43 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by BeneIRA » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:16 pm

DaftInvestor wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:52 am
BeneIRA wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:48 am
OP,
I had a destination wedding. I knew what the downsides were, but my now spouse and I liked that much better than the alternative. We knew people wouldn’t be able to come and we were fine with that. We also had it on a weekday to further cut the cost. It ended up being, all/in, around $5,000. If we had a non-destination wedding, tons more people would have come and the cost would have been exorbitant. It is a cost cutting move. From what I have seen, for an average wedding, you basically pay $100 a head. Having less people come lowers the cost substantially. It also weeds out people who we were obligated to invite but who we didn’t care if they came. We paid for it all by ourselves, so no one had a right to say anything.

If I were you, I am leaving this one alone. The people who really want to get to the wedding will get there and the couple has almost definitely assumed most won’t be able to make it, which they are fine with if they make this choice.
You mean it was $5,000 all in for you? This didn't include all the guests rooms and transportation did it?
I helped set some of that stuff up, but paid for very little of it for others. We referred people to a couple of cheaper hotels and guests were fine with it. Flights round trip averaged around $200 per person and the hotel average was $95 for One night. Not too big of an expense for people, but man, did it weed people out. :)

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 58705
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:22 pm

I removed several off-topic posts conjecturing on a slang comment. As a reminder, see: General Etiquette
We expect this forum to be a place where people can feel comfortable asking questions and where debates and discussions are conducted in civil tones.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

wrongfunds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:02 pm

BeneIRA wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:16 pm
DaftInvestor wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:52 am
BeneIRA wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:48 am
OP,
I had a destination wedding. I knew what the downsides were, but my now spouse and I liked that much better than the alternative. We knew people wouldn’t be able to come and we were fine with that. We also had it on a weekday to further cut the cost. It ended up being, all/in, around $5,000. If we had a non-destination wedding, tons more people would have come and the cost would have been exorbitant. It is a cost cutting move. From what I have seen, for an average wedding, you basically pay $100 a head. Having less people come lowers the cost substantially. It also weeds out people who we were obligated to invite but who we didn’t care if they came. We paid for it all by ourselves, so no one had a right to say anything.

If I were you, I am leaving this one alone. The people who really want to get to the wedding will get there and the couple has almost definitely assumed most won’t be able to make it, which they are fine with if they make this choice.
You mean it was $5,000 all in for you? This didn't include all the guests rooms and transportation did it?
I helped set some of that stuff up, but paid for very little of it for others. We referred people to a couple of cheaper hotels and guests were fine with it. Flights round trip averaged around $200 per person and the hotel average was $95 for One night. Not too big of an expense for people, but man, did it weed people out. :)
All inclusive destination is even better for the bride and groom because realistically you pay pretty much nothing for the guest to attend your wedding. Guests pay directly to the hotel and to the airline.

ThriftyPhD
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by ThriftyPhD » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:44 pm

Dottie57 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:12 pm
FlyAF wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:20 pm
Destination weddings are WAY cheaper on the couple than traditional weddings. What they're doing is smart if they're as broke as you say they are. It is obviously way more expensive on guests. We paid less than 5k for our Mexico wedding and the guests got to go for less than 2k if they wanted. We had about 50 people show up. A lot of family wasn't able to make it. Oh well, it wasn't their wedding. If anyone in my family had suggested that I change my plans to accommodate them and spend 5x the money, I'd have told them to go piss up a rope.

Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Don’t you think it is a racket to expect your guests to pay for the wedding? They get to spend 2k! In order to be at wedding.

If you can’t afford a big wedding, don’t have one.
But... that's exactly what a destination wedding ensures. Instead of a big wedding, you have a small wedding with a small group of only your closest family and friends. If someone very close truly can't afford $2k for flights/hotel for the wedding, you can subsidize one or two of them and still likely come out MUCH cheaper than renting the big hall and paying to feed and water everyone.

If you have the wedding in your hometown where all your family lives, you CAN'T have a small wedding. Try inviting just mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa. You'll have your favorite aunt who will want to come. Well if one aunt comes, all the aunts and uncles need to come. And of course your cousins will need to come. And your cousins kids. Soon you have hundreds who 'have' to come, and if you don't invite third cousin susie then aunt mildred will never speak to you again. The only way to avoid the headache is a destination wedding.

It seems ironic to complain about a new young couple just getting started inviting you to a wedding where you would need to pay to fly/hotel if you choose to come, and then demand that they instead outlay tens of thousands of dollars so that you get a free meal, liquor, and a band.

Weddings are expensive. Rent a hall for a birthday, they'll charge you $50. Rent it for a wedding and they'll charge $5,000. Similar markup for cakes, photos, flowers, etc. I guess you could lie and say it's for a party, but generally you need to get everything coordinated and it would be clear that it was for a wedding.

I suppose you could have a backyard bbq where all the relatives bring a dish, uncle steve takes the photos, neighbor jim brings flowers from his garden, but is this really more thoughtful? You're demanding that mom hosts a party and cleans up afterwards, uncle steve is now expected to spend his day taking photos and getting them organized, neighbor jim has to deal with flowers, everyone has to spend time making food and bringing it. In the end, you're still demanding that your relatives contribute, just trading cash for time and cash.

As a guest, I would much prefer a destination wedding. If I'm not that close, I don't want to go to any wedding so a destination wedding makes it easy to decline. If I'm close, a destination wedding would be much more enjoyable.

CedarWaxWing
Posts: 746
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:24 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by CedarWaxWing » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:38 pm

over45 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:32 pm
Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Got that right.
Which is why we did my son and his sig other's wedding in the back yard on a sunny June day. Was still about 5k... renting tables, decorations, flowers, modest catering. Excellent time. A lot of out of town relatives helped do the decorations and set up right up to the moment. Wine at a discount due to bloodline connections to a winery. The "kids" wanted to keep it small and simple... which we did but still costs 5k. :) He 3 good college friends flew in for it... which surprised my son. Over all a much better memory imho than an overpriced rent a place kind of wedding... and everyone stayed late and played hard. :)

PhilosophyAndrew
Posts: 642
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:06 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by PhilosophyAndrew » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:27 pm

Their wedding is their business, and if they don’t already understand that their decision will limit attendance they will learn that. The only advice I would proffer is to invitees who tell you they feel guilty about declining the invitation — I would advise them to drop the guilt.

I second the idea of planning a local reception to go or the marriage. My wife and I didn’t have a destination wedding, but we were from different parts of the country and had the wedding in her hometown and a separate reception in mine a few weeks later. Both were lovely, and both remain meaningful experiences thirty years later.

Andy.

Dottie57
Posts: 7513
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Dottie57 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:44 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:12 pm
FlyAF wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:20 pm
Destination weddings are WAY cheaper on the couple than traditional weddings. What they're doing is smart if they're as broke as you say they are. It is obviously way more expensive on guests. We paid less than 5k for our Mexico wedding and the guests got to go for less than 2k if they wanted. We had about 50 people show up. A lot of family wasn't able to make it. Oh well, it wasn't their wedding. If anyone in my family had suggested that I change my plans to accommodate them and spend 5x the money, I'd have told them to go piss up a rope.

Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Don’t you think it is a racket to expect your guests to pay for the wedding? They get to spend 2k! In order to be at wedding.

If you can’t afford a big wedding, don’t have one.
But... that's exactly what a destination wedding ensures. Instead of a big wedding, you have a small wedding with a small group of only your closest family and friends. If someone very close truly can't afford $2k for flights/hotel for the wedding, you can subsidize one or two of them and still likely come out MUCH cheaper than renting the big hall and paying to feed and water everyone.

If you have the wedding in your hometown where all your family lives, you CAN'T have a small wedding. Try inviting just mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa. You'll have your favorite aunt who will want to come. Well if one aunt comes, all the aunts and uncles need to come. And of course your cousins will need to come. And your cousins kids. Soon you have hundreds who 'have' to come, and if you don't invite third cousin susie then aunt mildred will never speak to you again. The only way to avoid the headache is a destination wedding.

It seems ironic to complain about a new young couple just getting started inviting you to a wedding where you would need to pay to fly/hotel if you choose to come, and then demand that they instead outlay tens of thousands of dollars so that you get a free meal, liquor, and a band.

Weddings are expensive. Rent a hall for a birthday, they'll charge you $50. Rent it for a wedding and they'll charge $5,000. Similar markup for cakes, photos, flowers, etc. I guess you could lie and say it's for a party, but generally you need to get everything coordinated and it would be clear that it was for a wedding.

I suppose you could have a backyard bbq where all the relatives bring a dish, uncle steve takes the photos, neighbor jim brings flowers from his garden, but is this really more thoughtful? You're demanding that mom hosts a party and cleans up afterwards, uncle steve is now expected to spend his day taking photos and getting them organized, neighbor jim has to deal with flowers, everyone has to spend time making food and bringing it. In the end, you're still demanding that your relatives contribute, just trading cash for time and cash.

As a guest, I would much prefer a destination wedding. If I'm not that close, I don't want to go to any wedding so a destination wedding makes it easy to decline. If I'm close, a destination wedding would be much more enjoyable.
Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited. And yes, my 30 something manager did just that for a small wedding of < 20people.

Small weddings can always be had in your home town. You draw up your list. You can send announcements after the ceremony. You don’t need a dance. You don’t need a feast. You donn’t Need a bar. It is not a party. You don’t need a ton of flowers. The nicest wedding I attended was one where family made all of reception food for a reception in a modest backyard. Drinks were coffee and lemonade. It was not a big blowout wedding, but blessed with happiness, joy, fun, a few fiends and family.

ThriftyPhD
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by ThriftyPhD » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm

Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

remomnyc
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:27 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by remomnyc » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:30 pm

OP, it's not your wedding. Go or decline. Tell the others to do the same. The wedding couple should have whatever wedding they want. The couple can decide how to spend their money and so can the invited guests. People can decide to attend or not.

I said no to Hawaii. A friend wanted to marry in Hawaii and asked us if we would come. We said no, and I suspect others did as well because they changed their mind and ended up marrying in California. On the other hand, I said yes to Italy. We attended a destination wedding in Italy, which was not the hometown of either bride or groom, whose families lived on different continents. Nevertheless, everyone attended. It was one of our most memorable vacations.

PFInterest
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:25 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by PFInterest » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:33 pm

over45 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:21 pm
I am looking for some advice as to how to address a situation with an upcoming wedding for a close relative. They are getting married and have decided to have a "destination wedding" at a resort in Mexico. The couple is getting by financially (with some loans and credit cards) but they will go into large debt to have this wedding and I get the sense they are feeling pressure to hold a "event" because many of their friends have had large nice weddings in the past couple of years. They can do what they want but I just know the pain and agony that comes after the fact with having to pay large bills. Brides family has limited resources to chip in. Both their cars have in excess of 150k on them.

To make matters worse - the average cost for lodging and airfare for attendees is going to be north of $2,000 per couple. Two thousand dollars plus. I have been told privately by at least 50% of close relatives that they can't afford the cost and won't go. I am guessing another 25% or more also won't go due to distance and cost. Family should really be present IMHO. A wedding date was announced but formal invitations have not been sent - though the venue was chosen.

Many in the family really want to see them get married and be part of their special day, and have asked if I can talk with them about an alternative arrangement. Something close to family and not so expensive to attend. I want to take the right approach to this and am looking for advice on if I should be direct with them -- or what to say.

Help...
seriously? dont say anything, and dont go.

Dottie57
Posts: 7513
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Dottie57 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:45 pm

ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

So the invitations at best are for show or at worst are there to pay for your wedding.

We obviously don’t agree on weddings, who pays etc.

Your first sentence says volumes.

TravelGeek
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by TravelGeek » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:02 pm

Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
You are apparently assuming that only destination weddings involve people traveling from afar and staying in hotels. That is not my experience. People today don’t necessarily live close to all their friends and family. See my earlier post for details.

momvesting
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:18 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by momvesting » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:27 pm

Like others have said, I think it’s their choice and I personally wouldn’t be offended or care if I was a family member, although I probably wouldn’t attend.

One big concern I would have though is managing the engaged couple’s expectations of their guests. I had one bridezilla friend a few years ago who was sure that her wedding would, of course, be her friends’ top priority financially. She even made suggestions about how much we should be setting aside monthly during their year-long engagement so we could afford the pricey bridesmaid dresses, fancy bridal shower brunch, etc. that she wanted.

I think I would ask them conversationally about this because if they are realistic then there isn’t a problem, but if they think grandma is going to eat cat food for a while so she can afford to attend then someone will need to set them straight before the situation gets out of hand.

User avatar
FlyAF
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by FlyAF » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:32 am

Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:44 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:12 pm
FlyAF wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:20 pm
Destination weddings are WAY cheaper on the couple than traditional weddings. What they're doing is smart if they're as broke as you say they are. It is obviously way more expensive on guests. We paid less than 5k for our Mexico wedding and the guests got to go for less than 2k if they wanted. We had about 50 people show up. A lot of family wasn't able to make it. Oh well, it wasn't their wedding. If anyone in my family had suggested that I change my plans to accommodate them and spend 5x the money, I'd have told them to go piss up a rope.

Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Don’t you think it is a racket to expect your guests to pay for the wedding? They get to spend 2k! In order to be at wedding.

If you can’t afford a big wedding, don’t have one.
But... that's exactly what a destination wedding ensures. Instead of a big wedding, you have a small wedding with a small group of only your closest family and friends. If someone very close truly can't afford $2k for flights/hotel for the wedding, you can subsidize one or two of them and still likely come out MUCH cheaper than renting the big hall and paying to feed and water everyone.

If you have the wedding in your hometown where all your family lives, you CAN'T have a small wedding. Try inviting just mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa. You'll have your favorite aunt who will want to come. Well if one aunt comes, all the aunts and uncles need to come. And of course your cousins will need to come. And your cousins kids. Soon you have hundreds who 'have' to come, and if you don't invite third cousin susie then aunt mildred will never speak to you again. The only way to avoid the headache is a destination wedding.

It seems ironic to complain about a new young couple just getting started inviting you to a wedding where you would need to pay to fly/hotel if you choose to come, and then demand that they instead outlay tens of thousands of dollars so that you get a free meal, liquor, and a band.

Weddings are expensive. Rent a hall for a birthday, they'll charge you $50. Rent it for a wedding and they'll charge $5,000. Similar markup for cakes, photos, flowers, etc. I guess you could lie and say it's for a party, but generally you need to get everything coordinated and it would be clear that it was for a wedding.

I suppose you could have a backyard bbq where all the relatives bring a dish, uncle steve takes the photos, neighbor jim brings flowers from his garden, but is this really more thoughtful? You're demanding that mom hosts a party and cleans up afterwards, uncle steve is now expected to spend his day taking photos and getting them organized, neighbor jim has to deal with flowers, everyone has to spend time making food and bringing it. In the end, you're still demanding that your relatives contribute, just trading cash for time and cash.

As a guest, I would much prefer a destination wedding. If I'm not that close, I don't want to go to any wedding so a destination wedding makes it easy to decline. If I'm close, a destination wedding would be much more enjoyable.
Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited. And yes, my 30 something manager did just that for a small wedding of < 20people.

Small weddings can always be had in your home town. You draw up your list. You can send announcements after the ceremony. You don’t need a dance. You don’t need a feast. You donn’t Need a bar. It is not a party. You don’t need a ton of flowers. The nicest wedding I attended was one where family made all of reception food for a reception in a modest backyard. Drinks were coffee and lemonade. It was not a big blowout wedding, but blessed with happiness, joy, fun, a few fiends and family.
There is nothing to "object" to lol. Don't want to spend the money to go? Don't go. This isn't a court room where you get to object.

User avatar
8foot7
Posts: 1732
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by 8foot7 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:57 am

The key to interpreting the destination wedding: if you are talked to about coming before the invitations are sent, the couple wants you there. If you just receive an invitation out of the blue for a destination wedding with no prewire, the couple doesn’t want you there. This metric should also apply to the gift giving. Don’t give a gift to people who don’t want you to show up.

dbr
Posts: 31225
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by dbr » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:15 am

We know a young person who told her mother that she, the mother, would not be at the wedding because "You can't afford to go where we are going." I guess it worked. The mother was not able to go.

alfaspider
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by alfaspider » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:29 am

momvesting wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:27 pm
I had one bridezilla friend a few years ago who was sure that her wedding would, of course, be her friends’ top priority financially. She even made suggestions about how much we should be setting aside monthly during their year-long engagement so we could afford the pricey bridesmaid dresses, fancy bridal shower brunch, etc. that she wanted.
Yikes. Did she have any bridesmaids left after those suggestions?

deltaneutral83
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by deltaneutral83 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:43 am

fposte wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:19 pm
I think wedding threads are like car and house threads. No matter what the actual question is, the thread turns into divvying up sides between those who believe that frugality is the key to satisfaction and take pleasure in contemplating theirs and those who found it worth spending money. (I'm on different sides depending on whether we're talking wedding, car, or house.)
Fortunately there is middle ground, as usual with emotions (and what's more emotional than money?) people take their sides in total opposites sides of the spectrum. We either have the justice of the peace or the blowout 75k+ weddings. Cost is never something I think about so much as can you afford it without blowing up your credit cards, which plenty of upper middle class incomes do. A $75k wedding with 300 guests and full liquor bar where father of the bride cuts the check out of his $3M net worth vs a $20k wedding where $10k goes on a credit card(s) of bride and groom are two totally different things. This is the mainstream problem, not the blowout weddings that you read about.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2321
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by IlliniDave » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:46 am

Didn't read the whole thread so apologies if this is a rehash. Maybe they sent out announcements but not invitations because they don't want/expect large numbers of people to attend, and "getting away" was how they chose to do that.

My youngest daughter struggles with panic attacks and didn't want to be the center of attention at a social gathering (and all the planning and build up) so they got married with just the two of them and had no gathering whatsoever. They had considering "going away" to do it for a while because her at-the-time future MIL had some issues with the plan initially, and for a while insisted on some sort of largish accompanying social event (she was pretty free with the idea of spending my money, haha).

I guess the point is that they have their reasons for their decisions, and even though those reasons may not line up with the desires of others, it's probably best to accept them. If you can't (or don't want to) participate, they should be equally accepting, as that is a lot of money to expect people to spend to attend someone else's wedding.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

stoptothink
Posts: 6791
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by stoptothink » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:50 am

Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:45 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

So the invitations at best are for show or at worst are there to pay for your wedding.

We obviously don’t agree on weddings, who pays etc.

Your first sentence says volumes.
I've definitely been put in situations where ThriftyPhD's first statement ("People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come") was unequivocally not the case. In fact, a situation like that was kind of the final straw in my first marriage; my ex had a childhood friend who put great pressure on a few people not only to attend a destination bachelorette party (which happened to occur at the same time as one of my ex's dental school finals), but also a destination wedding as well. As I was working more than full-time to put her through dental school, I didn't appreciate the constant hounding from her friend and a few others in the wedding party that she had to attend, which ultimately cost me several thousand dollars (we split, she went less than a week later to the bachelorette party and then soon after to a totally different destination for the wedding, funded by the credit card in my name).

You can't make sweeping generalizations like ThriftyPhD did. Everybody has their own anecdote and every situation is different. My experience is that with most destination weddings, some level of pressure is unnecessarily/unfairly placed on some to attend. I essentially had a "destination" wedding the first go-round (I was from California and all my family friends were there, I was married in Houston where I was living and her family was from), so as the groom I didn't send anybody outside of direct family members and my best friend an invitation; I also made it clear that they were not expected to come because I understood the cost. My mother and one brother did end up coming and I was very grateful. I did formally invite several friends I had already made in the area, and I believe all of them came. I also did not receive a single comment from anybody that they were offended that they didn't receive an announcement or invitation. IMO, the idea that you are "obligated" to invite anybody to your wedding is kind of silly and in reality, very few (if any) people will care.

Slacker
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 8:40 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Slacker » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:26 am

LiterallyIronic wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:43 pm
FlyAF wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:20 pm
Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Only if you're crazy. Ours was in the US and it was under $5,000, including my wife's $800 dress.
+1

Under $5000 had about 100 in attendance.

For one, we used a local church (that we are members of) and skipped on the venue, tables, and chairs cost.

peseta
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:40 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by peseta » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:12 am

One thing I've always wondered about destination weddings: is it "required" that you stay at the all-inclusive resort?

Let's say a family member has wedding at all-inclusive on Riviera Maya. What if a guest says, great, I'll fly in on Frontier and use my hotel points for the Hyatt Place in Cancun and cab it to the wedding at the all-inclusive?

Is that allowed? And, what if word about this "alternative" got out to other guests and the couple was faced with 50+ attendees with only 20 staying at the resort, requiring them to pick up a lot of the check?

peseta

alfaspider
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by alfaspider » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:15 am

peseta wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:12 am
One thing I've always wondered about destination weddings: is it "required" that you stay at the all-inclusive resort?

Let's say a family member has wedding at all-inclusive on Riviera Maya. What if a guest says, great, I'll fly in on Frontier and use my hotel points for the Hyatt Place in Cancun and cab it to the wedding at the all-inclusive?

Is that allowed? And, what if word about this "alternative" got out to other guests and the couple was faced with 50+ attendees with only 20 staying at the resort, requiring them to pick up a lot of the check?

peseta
Short of them dis-inviting you to the wedding, there's likely nothing to stop this. Even non-destination weddings have a designated "wedding hotel" with a group rate, but many will not stay in it for one reason or another.

rebellovw
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by rebellovw » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:20 am

It sounds completely awesome as you have an excuse not to go. All weddings should be like this.

LiterallyIronic
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by LiterallyIronic » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:22 am

peseta wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:12 am
One thing I've always wondered about destination weddings: is it "required" that you stay at the all-inclusive resort?

Let's say a family member has wedding at all-inclusive on Riviera Maya. What if a guest says, great, I'll fly in on Frontier and use my hotel points for the Hyatt Place in Cancun and cab it to the wedding at the all-inclusive?

Is that allowed? And, what if word about this "alternative" got out to other guests and the couple was faced with 50+ attendees with only 20 staying at the resort, requiring them to pick up a lot of the check?

peseta
Heh. Reminds me of the time I flew to San Francisco for a 49ers game. Landed a couple hours before the Monday night game, took the public transportation to the stadium, watched the game, and immediately went straight back to the airport and took the red-eye back home. I suppose you could do the same thing for a wedding.

LarryAllen
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:41 am
Location: State of Confusion

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by LarryAllen » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:24 am

I don't really see that it's your business.

Go or don't go is your only choice it seems to me.

In my experience every person I know who has had a destination wedding specifically told me they didn't want a big wedding with a bunch of people. Easy way to keep costs down is by doing a destination. Wouldn't be my choice but to each their own.

I say you should not go as you won't have fun. You'll be too stressed about things that aren't your concern.

FYI, I have in-laws who I could write a book about their financial poor choices but, even though they likely will be my problem one day, it's not my business. Really hard to stay out as poor choice after poor choice is made but that's reality.

User avatar
FlyAF
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by FlyAF » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:34 am

peseta wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:12 am
One thing I've always wondered about destination weddings: is it "required" that you stay at the all-inclusive resort?

Let's say a family member has wedding at all-inclusive on Riviera Maya. What if a guest says, great, I'll fly in on Frontier and use my hotel points for the Hyatt Place in Cancun and cab it to the wedding at the all-inclusive?

Is that allowed? And, what if word about this "alternative" got out to other guests and the couple was faced with 50+ attendees with only 20 staying at the resort, requiring them to pick up a lot of the check?

peseta
Totally acceptable and many did this for our wedding. There isn't a "check" per say. The wedding couple pays for their rooms, etc.....and buys a wedding package. IIRC, basic package was like a grand and there were several levels above and beyond. Our "check" at the end would've been the same if nobody came and/or everyone stayed at a different property. If staying off property, the guests had to pay for a "day pass", call it 50 bucks, but we picked that up.

peseta
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:40 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by peseta » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:37 am

FlyAF wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:34 am
Totally acceptable and many did this for our wedding. There isn't a "check" per say. The wedding couple pays for their rooms, etc.....and buys a wedding package. IIRC, basic package was like a grand and there were several levels above and beyond. Our "check" at the end would've been the same if nobody came and/or everyone stayed at a different property. If staying off property, the guests had to pay for a "day pass", call it 50 bucks, but we picked that up.
Interesting, thanks! I guess the all-inclusive takes a calculated risk for their bottom-line as to whether most of the on-site guests will actually materialize.

peseta
Last edited by peseta on Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Whakamole
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Whakamole » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:51 am

So from reading the thread: the idea (I'm tempted to use another word) is that by having a destination wedding:
- bride and groom get to have a wedding in an exotic place, and they don't have to spend as much.
- in return, everyone else who wants to go ends up paying for the wedding because the resort/etc. is making money off guests who probably wouldn't be going to that particular resort otherwise.
- it's not even clear that any money is actually saved. B+G (and their parents) pay less but everyone else pays much more. The wedding could be just as costly but now the actual cost is obfuscated.
- it's a convenient way of keeping some people away from the wedding, but the flip side is that a lot of pressure is put on guests who B+G want to attend and haven't maxed out their credit cards.

I'd just stay out of it and wouldn't go to the wedding. If you have $2K or $5K burning a hole in your pocket, go to a place you want to go on vacation.

wrongfunds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by wrongfunds » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:25 pm

seinfeld "nobody wants to go to your wedding"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA2C_bS5ZYs

fourwaystreet
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by fourwaystreet » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:39 pm

A wedding invitation is not subpoena.......if you don't want to go, then don't
When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure.

Whakamole
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Whakamole » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:40 pm

peseta wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:37 am
FlyAF wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:34 am
Totally acceptable and many did this for our wedding. There isn't a "check" per say. The wedding couple pays for their rooms, etc.....and buys a wedding package. IIRC, basic package was like a grand and there were several levels above and beyond. Our "check" at the end would've been the same if nobody came and/or everyone stayed at a different property. If staying off property, the guests had to pay for a "day pass", call it 50 bucks, but we picked that up.
Interesting, thanks! I guess the all-inclusive takes a calculated risk for their bottom-line as to whether most of the on-site guests will actually materialize.

peseta
Is there a guarantee of this? I could see a resort, seeing not many guests and perhaps not enough for them to make the expected profit, doing the ceremony very cheaply (giving one of the employees a cell phone as photographer, buying a cheap cake from a local store, etc.) It's not like you have much recourse, especially if the wedding is in another country.

EddyB
Posts: 1137
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by EddyB » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:00 pm

Whakamole wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:51 am
So from reading the thread: the idea (I'm tempted to use another word) is that by having a destination wedding:
- bride and groom get to have a wedding in an exotic place, and they don't have to spend as much.
- in return, everyone else who wants to go ends up paying for the wedding because the resort/etc. is making money off guests who probably wouldn't be going to that particular resort otherwise.
- it's not even clear that any money is actually saved. B+G (and their parents) pay less but everyone else pays much more. The wedding could be just as costly but now the actual cost is obfuscated.
- it's a convenient way of keeping some people away from the wedding, but the flip side is that a lot of pressure is put on guests who B+G want to attend and haven't maxed out their credit cards.

I'd just stay out of it and wouldn't go to the wedding. If you have $2K or $5K burning a hole in your pocket, go to a place you want to go on vacation.
I only know the details of my wedding, which I think would be characterized as a destination wedding, but there was no thought that it was a cost-saving approach. Rather, there was no obvious choice of location that was best for even half the people we hoped would attend, and we knew where we wanted to get married, so we just had it where we preferred. At the margin, having it in a place that wasn't particularly convenient for any large group (either of the families or our adult-life friends) may have cut down on the number of guests (and so the number of dinners we bought, the bar bill, etc.), but maybe not, as it was a fun location and likely more of our friends made the trip than would have made it if we'd had it near where my wife grew up. Some guests spent more than they would have if we'd had it in one of the three "natural" locations (where we had been living, where my wife grew up or where I grew up (not ever even considered)), but two of those three major groups would have been traveling either way. So I'm not sure your first bullets are fair conclusions.

Texanbybirth
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Texanbybirth » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:13 pm

PhilosophyAndrew wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:27 pm
Their wedding is their business, and if they don’t already understand that their decision will limit attendance they will learn that. The only advice I would proffer is to invitees who tell you they feel guilty about declining the invitation — I would advise them to drop the guilt.

I second the idea of planning a local reception to go or the marriage. My wife and I didn’t have a destination wedding, but we were from different parts of the country and had the wedding in her hometown and a separate reception in mine a few weeks later. Both were lovely, and both remain meaningful experiences thirty years later.

Andy.
+1

In our two big Catholic families, I can only think of one member who would be offended if we didn't attend a $2k destination wedding. But then again, they're the one who wouldn't plan such a thing anyway.

OP, no need to be the go-between for other people's guilt. It sounds like you're reluctant enough to not go yourself, so I'd spend all my emotional energy keeping your relationship with the bride and groom on a good level. Let the other family members do the same.

(We have many friends who are still paying off their weddings 5-10 years later. It's really sad to see.)
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, | Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. | None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master: | His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.

Topic Author
over45
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by over45 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:23 pm

wow - 135 replies to this post. thanks for all of the varying points of view. going to do some more research on how this is setup at the resort -- but most family won't be attending.

wrongfunds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by wrongfunds » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:30 pm

If staying off property, the guests had to pay for a "day pass", call it 50 bucks, but we picked that up.
Did that cover all the foods and drinks on the property for the wedding day? Just out of curiosity, did you also contribute $50 towards the guests who did stay at the hotel and paid their own way or were you able to get discounted packages for them?

User avatar
FlyAF
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by FlyAF » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:42 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:30 pm
If staying off property, the guests had to pay for a "day pass", call it 50 bucks, but we picked that up.
Did that cover all the foods and drinks on the property for the wedding day? Just out of curiosity, did you also contribute $50 towards the guests who did stay at the hotel and paid their own way or were you able to get discounted packages for them?
Yes that covered everything for the day for the guests. No, the people staying on property didn't have to pay it as they were paying to stay at the resort. Honestly, it was a long time ago and I don't remember all of the nitty gritty, but I also remember the whole thing was a complete non issue. People that wanted to go went and those that didn't/couldn't didn't. We had lots of friends that we wouldn't even have invited to a local wedding make the trip just for the vacation aspect of it. There was no drama, no "conversations", no hurt feelings, no nothing. Wedding lasted about 10 minutes and everyone broke up and went about their vacation. The bulk of everyone that made the trip spent the day of our wedding at the pool and the beach drinking, eating, and getting to know one another, well into the night.

IngognitoUSA
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:54 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by IngognitoUSA » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:44 pm

Since this is a finance forum, it would be interesting to know how much cash gift is lost due to a destination wedding, both from reduced number of attendees and less cash given due to money spend out of pocket by attending guests.

Dottie57
Posts: 7513
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Dottie57 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:55 pm

FlyAF wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:32 am
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:44 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:12 pm
FlyAF wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:20 pm
Destination weddings are WAY cheaper on the couple than traditional weddings. What they're doing is smart if they're as broke as you say they are. It is obviously way more expensive on guests. We paid less than 5k for our Mexico wedding and the guests got to go for less than 2k if they wanted. We had about 50 people show up. A lot of family wasn't able to make it. Oh well, it wasn't their wedding. If anyone in my family had suggested that I change my plans to accommodate them and spend 5x the money, I'd have told them to go piss up a rope.

Weddings in the USA are the biggest racket on the planet. Absolutely financially stupid for young couples to participate in.
Don’t you think it is a racket to expect your guests to pay for the wedding? They get to spend 2k! In order to be at wedding.

If you can’t afford a big wedding, don’t have one.
But... that's exactly what a destination wedding ensures. Instead of a big wedding, you have a small wedding with a small group of only your closest family and friends. If someone very close truly can't afford $2k for flights/hotel for the wedding, you can subsidize one or two of them and still likely come out MUCH cheaper than renting the big hall and paying to feed and water everyone.

If you have the wedding in your hometown where all your family lives, you CAN'T have a small wedding. Try inviting just mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa. You'll have your favorite aunt who will want to come. Well if one aunt comes, all the aunts and uncles need to come. And of course your cousins will need to come. And your cousins kids. Soon you have hundreds who 'have' to come, and if you don't invite third cousin susie then aunt mildred will never speak to you again. The only way to avoid the headache is a destination wedding.

It seems ironic to complain about a new young couple just getting started inviting you to a wedding where you would need to pay to fly/hotel if you choose to come, and then demand that they instead outlay tens of thousands of dollars so that you get a free meal, liquor, and a band.

Weddings are expensive. Rent a hall for a birthday, they'll charge you $50. Rent it for a wedding and they'll charge $5,000. Similar markup for cakes, photos, flowers, etc. I guess you could lie and say it's for a party, but generally you need to get everything coordinated and it would be clear that it was for a wedding.

I suppose you could have a backyard bbq where all the relatives bring a dish, uncle steve takes the photos, neighbor jim brings flowers from his garden, but is this really more thoughtful? You're demanding that mom hosts a party and cleans up afterwards, uncle steve is now expected to spend his day taking photos and getting them organized, neighbor jim has to deal with flowers, everyone has to spend time making food and bringing it. In the end, you're still demanding that your relatives contribute, just trading cash for time and cash.

As a guest, I would much prefer a destination wedding. If I'm not that close, I don't want to go to any wedding so a destination wedding makes it easy to decline. If I'm close, a destination wedding would be much more enjoyable.
Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited. And yes, my 30 something manager did just that for a small wedding of < 20people.

Small weddings can always be had in your home town. You draw up your list. You can send announcements after the ceremony. You don’t need a dance. You don’t need a feast. You donn’t Need a bar. It is not a party. You don’t need a ton of flowers. The nicest wedding I attended was one where family made all of reception food for a reception in a modest backyard. Drinks were coffee and lemonade. It was not a big blowout wedding, but blessed with happiness, joy, fun, a few fiends and family.
There is nothing to "object" to lol. Don't want to spend the money to go? Don't go. This isn't a court room where you get to object.
Yes there is something to object to - lol. We obviously disagree - so let’s stop arguing now.

RollTide31457
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by RollTide31457 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:05 pm

We always decline to attend these destination type of weddings due to following poor assumptions the couples tend to make:

- assuming the guests have passports
- assuming guests can take off time from work, etc.
- assuming guests are willing to pay for travel and lodging

bungalow10
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Chicago North Shore

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by bungalow10 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:11 pm

I always thought destination weddings were less expensive for the couple - I tried to talk DH into one years ago and it was very reasonable.
An elephant for a dime is only a good deal if you need an elephant and have a dime.

wrongfunds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by wrongfunds » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:43 pm

IngognitoUSA wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:44 pm
Since this is a finance forum, it would be interesting to know how much cash gift is lost due to a destination wedding, both from reduced number of attendees and less cash given due to money spend out of pocket by attending guests.
It is gauche to even expect any presents at destination wedding. I would be inclined to give cheap but *humongous* gift to the couple so that they will be forced to pay excess baggage to take it back to their house :-)

By the way, I would be shocked that at any wedding, sum of all cash gifts would ever cover any significant part of the actual expenses incurred by the host even if guests were to be overly generous. Inviting more guests in the hope of making more money is a losing proposition. I am not sure why you are even bringing it up.

IngognitoUSA
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:54 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by IngognitoUSA » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:14 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:43 pm
IngognitoUSA wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:44 pm
Since this is a finance forum, it would be interesting to know how much cash gift is lost due to a destination wedding, both from reduced number of attendees and less cash given due to money spend out of pocket by attending guests.
It is gauche to even expect any presents at destination wedding. I would be inclined to give cheap but *humongous* gift to the couple so that they will be forced to pay excess baggage to take it back to their house :-)

By the way, I would be shocked that at any wedding, sum of all cash gifts would ever cover any significant part of the actual expenses incurred by the host even if guests were to be overly generous. Inviting more guests in the hope of making more money is a losing proposition. I am not sure why you are even bringing it up.
A Caribbean lady told me once they gift twice the plate amount to help the newly weds and they probably made money on the wedding. Total hearsay, I have no idea if that is factual.

Dottie57
Posts: 7513
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by Dottie57 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:22 pm

stoptothink wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:50 am
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:45 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

So the invitations at best are for show or at worst are there to pay for your wedding.

We obviously don’t agree on weddings, who pays etc.

Your first sentence says volumes.
I've definitely been put in situations where ThriftyPhD's first statement ("People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come") was unequivocally not the case. In fact, a situation like that was kind of the final straw in my first marriage; my ex had a childhood friend who put great pressure on a few people not only to attend a destination bachelorette party (which happened to occur at the same time as one of my ex's dental school finals), but also a destination wedding as well. As I was working more than full-time to put her through dental school, I didn't appreciate the constant hounding from her friend and a few others in the wedding party that she had to attend, which ultimately cost me several thousand dollars (we split, she went less than a week later to the bachelorette party and then soon after to a totally different destination for the wedding, funded by the credit card in my name).

You can't make sweeping generalizations like ThriftyPhD did. Everybody has their own anecdote and every situation is different. My experience is that with most destination weddings, some level of pressure is unnecessarily/unfairly placed on some to attend. I essentially had a "destination" wedding the first go-round (I was from California and all my family friends were there, I was married in Houston where I was living and her family was from), so as the groom I didn't send anybody outside of direct family members and my best friend an invitation; I also made it clear that they were not expected to come because I understood the cost. My mother and one brother did end up coming and I was very grateful. I did formally invite several friends I had already made in the area, and I believe all of them came. I also did not receive a single comment from anybody that they were offended that they didn't receive an announcement or invitation. IMO, the idea that you are "obligated" to invite anybody to your wedding is kind of silly and in reality, very few (if any) people will care.
Your wedding wasn’t a destination wedding but a wedding where you lived. Sounds fine.

likegarden
Posts: 2937
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:33 pm

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by likegarden » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:47 pm

Sometimes a local wedding can become a destination wedding for some of the guests. We had a local wedding in the US where we lived, but my parents had to fly in from Germany, and my best man had to fly in from Chicago. I do not remember if I even thought about their costs, was probably too much involved in the wedding setup. Coworkers wanted to be invited to the wedding, but I kept it to family only.

User avatar
celia
Posts: 9971
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by celia » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:16 pm

In fairness, if the bridal couple expects the guests will show up and thus subsidize their wedding by staying and eating at the same hotel, they need to know the reality so they don't get stuck with a big bill for having a fancy wedding since few guests are paying for it (if this is how it works).
MnyGrl wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:28 am
"Your wedding plans sound amazing! We are unfortunately not going to be able to make it. I was talking to ______ and _______ and they won't be able to make it either. How do you feel about having a party when you two return?"
Then after talking about the possible later party, add "If the destination wedding costs go down when more people show up, you might consider taking a straw poll of who is planning on coming, just so you aren't surprised at the last minute."

This should be early enough so they have time to change the plans, if they wish. Hopefully, they don't send formal invitations with one response on the RSVP: "Yes, ___ people will attend". They also need feedback for the "No, sorry we won't be able to make it" group.

ThriftyPhD
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by ThriftyPhD » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:44 pm

stoptothink wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:50 am
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:45 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

So the invitations at best are for show or at worst are there to pay for your wedding.

We obviously don’t agree on weddings, who pays etc.

Your first sentence says volumes.
I've definitely been put in situations where ThriftyPhD's first statement ("People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come") was unequivocally not the case. In fact, a situation like that was kind of the final straw in my first marriage; my ex had a childhood friend who put great pressure on a few people not only to attend a destination bachelorette party (which happened to occur at the same time as one of my ex's dental school finals), but also a destination wedding as well. As I was working more than full-time to put her through dental school, I didn't appreciate the constant hounding from her friend and a few others in the wedding party that she had to attend, which ultimately cost me several thousand dollars (we split, she went less than a week later to the bachelorette party and then soon after to a totally different destination for the wedding, funded by the credit card in my name).

You can't make sweeping generalizations like ThriftyPhD did. Everybody has their own anecdote and every situation is different. My experience is that with most destination weddings, some level of pressure is unnecessarily/unfairly placed on some to attend. I essentially had a "destination" wedding the first go-round (I was from California and all my family friends were there, I was married in Houston where I was living and her family was from), so as the groom I didn't send anybody outside of direct family members and my best friend an invitation; I also made it clear that they were not expected to come because I understood the cost. My mother and one brother did end up coming and I was very grateful. I did formally invite several friends I had already made in the area, and I believe all of them came. I also did not receive a single comment from anybody that they were offended that they didn't receive an announcement or invitation. IMO, the idea that you are "obligated" to invite anybody to your wedding is kind of silly and in reality, very few (if any) people will care.
"People choose" should be "Some people choose" and not interpreted as "All people choose". That said, "with most destination weddings, some level of pressure is unnecessarily/unfairly placed on some to attend" doesn't conflict with what I said. One can choose a destination wedding to cut down on the wedding list while trying to make sure those that you're most close to can attend.

ThriftyPhD
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Wedding - financial burden on couple and attendees

Post by ThriftyPhD » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:14 pm

Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:45 pm
ThriftyPhD wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:54 pm
Dottie57 wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:21 pm

Destination weddings put the cost on other people. I object to that. It makes me cringe to think of it unless you are willing to pay airfare and lodgings for everyone invited.
People choose destination weddings so that they can invite the people they're obligated to invite without having them actually come. If you feel this way when invited to a destination wedding, you're probably one of the guests they hope declines. You're under no obligation to accept the invitation, and if they wanted to ensure you come they would run it by you before the invited were sent. If they didn't, they're probably weeding you out.

Perhaps your family is different but in most you can't invite a subset to get a small wedding, it would cause endless fighting. You invite none or everyone. Having the wedding elsewhere lets you invite everyone you're obligated to invite and weeds out the family you're not close too.

So the invitations at best are for show or at worst are there to pay for your wedding.

We obviously don’t agree on weddings, who pays etc.

Your first sentence says volumes.
I think we just interpret it differently. I see it more as only wanting people to attend if they REALLY want to attend. Let's be honest, many people who attend weddings don't want to be there and are only going because they feel obligated. I can see not wanting people like that at your wedding. If it's a smaller destination wedding, you're much more likely to only have people attend who are very close and really want to be there.

You seem very focused on the monetary side of it. I've never attended a wedding that didn't require me to book a flight and hotel, even those that weren't "destination" weddings. Gone are the days where both families grew up and stayed in the same town. When in the wedding party I had to rent tuxedos and help with some incidentals. As a normal guest, I still had to buy a suit. I never interpreted it like I was paying for the wedding. I never felt like the wedding couple should reimburse me for my flight and hotel. That's the cost of going. I've declined invitations when I was less close to the married couple and couldn't justify the cost.

As for who pays for the wedding, traditionally this was the parents of the couple. However, many of my millenial friends got zero help from their family for wedding costs. They had many DEMANDS from family as to how/when/where the wedding should be held, and a huge list of people who HAD to be invited, but no money was pitched in. It seems very strange to demand a young couple just out of school to pay thousands of dollars to throw a party.

Post Reply