Would you be angry?

KiKi

Person_one wrote: »

It does actually, etiquette tells couples to have the wedding they can afford. If you have to be rude to pay for your wedding, scale it back.

Maybe they already have.

Why should they have to conform to 'etiquette' and scale back just because some people think they should? It's their choice whether to do things by etiquette or not.

Again, at the end of the day (although I appreciate your opinion is different) I would rather have a wedding that I want rather than scale back just to meet someone else's expectations.



KiKi

Person_one

KiKi wrote: »

Maybe they already have.

Why should they have to conform to 'etiquette' and scale back just because some people think they should? It's their choice whether to do things by etiquette or not.

Again, at the end of the day (although I appreciate your opinion is different) I would rather have a wedding that I want rather than scale back just to meet someone else's expectations.



KiKi

Well if you've made your peace with being selfish, that's your call.

Its not scaling back because someone thinks they should, its having the wedding they can afford without being rude to their guests or expecting guests to foot the bill (which came up in another thread recently).

If you can't afford to invite both halves of a couple who are a social unit, you cut back until you can afford it or you invite neither.

Put the shoe on the other foot, how nice does it feel when your husband isn't wanted at your friend's weddings?

If you want your wedding to be all about you with no consideration for your guests then you don't actually need to invite any!

Brighton_belle

Person_one wrote: »

Put the shoe on the other foot, how nice does it feel when your husband isn't wanted at your friend's weddings?

My husband is utterly delighted,lol.

(N.B. when I made reference to my friends volunteerring not to bring their husbands, given the restriction of numbers in a registry office, we had very happily invited them. And the reception couldn't have been cheaper - cake and sandwiches made by friends and borrowed china).

Edited to add - for the record, I would have invited the girlfriend.

KiKi

Person_one wrote: »

Well if you've made your peace with being selfish, that's your call.

Hey, that's not called for. I have a different opinion, and recognise it's different to yours, but that's no reason to call me selfish because our opinions are different.

I'm not putting you down for your opinion, simply saying that I feel differently.

Its not scaling back because someone thinks they should, its having the wedding they can afford without being rude to their guests or expecting guests to foot the bill (which came up in another thread recently).

We don't know if they can or can't afford it - that was just a possible reason I offered for them not having her there. They haven't asked her to foot the bill, and maybe they don't consider it rude. They may not realise they've upset the mother of the cousins. Trouble is, as no-one's talked about it or asked, they'll never know what's behind it.

If you can't afford to invite both halves of a couple who are a social unit, you cut back until you can afford it or you invite neither.

You're quoting that as if it's a rule that everyone has to abide by. My point is that although some people believe this, not everyone does. It's a choice.

Put the shoe on the other foot, how nice does it feel when your husband isn't wanted at your friend's weddings?

I'm not married so can't speak for that. But I wouldn't expect a boyfriend who my cousin has only met a few times to necessarily be invited to the whole thing, no.

If you want your wedding to be all about you with no consideration for your guests then you don't actually need to invite any!

They've probably invited who they want - and that's their choice. Some people may feel it's rude, which is fair enough. But you can't say that's the 'rule' that everyone has to work to as if it's a law, and if they can't meet it then they have to do things differently. Not everyone has the same approach to life (as everyone on here knows!).

There may be many reasons for not being invited, but as I said in my first post, unless they ask to find out why, they'll never know.

KiKi

Bitsy_Beans

Personally I feel the invite to the actual ceremony is a bit of smack in the face and a rather cack handed attempt at some sort of inclusion. If the GF is good enough to be included on the ceremony then to my mind that suggests she ought to be good enough for the sit down meal at the reception.

Sorry but the sort of behaviour that goes on these days under the guise of "it's my day so I'll do what I want" beggars belief. Since when did having the wedding of your dreams preclude basic manners?

Welshwoofs

When I read threads like this I am SO glad that I've never got married....the entire thing sounds awful beyond words; spending an absolute fortune only to have family and friends grumbling over the details.

Op - I personally see no need to be annoyed over it; if they're not co-habiting or married, simply boyfriend and girlfriend. It's a big ask for her to go to a wedding in place of someone who's probably closer to the bride and groom (as most weddings are limited on numbers). It's obviously not the nicest choice for your brother, but the day isn't about him. Why don't you and your brother go and leave the girlfriend at home for the day? You appear to be single too so why not revel in a rare day of sibling hanging-out?

Person_one

KiKi wrote: »

Hey, that's not called for. I have a different opinion, and recognise it's different to yours, but that's no reason to call me selfish because our opinions are different.

I'm not putting you down for your opinion, simply saying that I feel differently.

You said "Please don't blame them for being selfish on their wedding day."

To me, that looked like an acknowledgement that it is selfish, but you still think its ok. Is that not what you meant?

Person_one

KiKi wrote: »

You're quoting that as if it's a rule that everyone has to abide by. My point is that although some people believe this, not everyone does. It's a choice.


They've probably invited who they want - and that's their choice. Some people may feel it's rude, which is fair enough. But you can't say that's the 'rule' that everyone has to work to as if it's a law, and if they can't meet it then they have to do things differently. Not everyone has the same approach to life (as everyone on here knows!).

KiKi

It kind of is a rule. Its like saying please and thank you and not pushing to the front of queues, you won't be arrested if you don't but you still should.

There are lots of things that are considered rules in a polite society that aren't law. They exist to give people a framework for behaviour to help everybody get along and avoid causing hurt feelings.

mishkanorman

is it not the case that you cannot exclude anyone from a church wedding/ceremony ?

meritaten

The one golden rule about weddings is - you are going to upset SOMEBODY! unless you are as rich as the Beckhams and can invite everyone to everything!
I DO understand that the OPs brother has a longstanding gf and they know this. to invite her to the ceremony and then only to the evening do - its bad manners. it would probably have gone down better if gf was only invited to the evening do.
and while I believe its the Bride and Grooms day - if they want a traditional wedding, then at least show some manners! or at least an explanation of why some people are excluded from the reception.