'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

Gloomendoom

My first wedding was as about as minimalist as is legal. Me, my wife (and ex) to be, the registrar, two witnesses we didn't know and a cheque for £90.

Mrs G and I did our wedding on a strict budget by stripping out many of the traditional must haves... morning suits, bridesmaids etc. We didn't provide wedding favours, sweet tables or chocolate fountains (yuck!) but I would defend anyone that wanted to.

Even the Amish make an effort for a wedding. Just because something isn't essential, doesn't mean that it is a waste of money.

lostinrates

Gloomendoom wrote: »

My first wedding was as about as minimalist as is legal. Me, my wife (and ex) to be, the registrar, two witnesses we didn't know and a cheque for £90.

Mrs G and I did our wedding on a strict budget by stripping out many of the traditional must haves... morning suits, bridesmaids etc. We didn't provide wedding favours, sweet tables or chocolate fountains (yuck!) but I would defend anyone that wanted to.

Even the Amish make an effort for a wedding. Just because something isn't essential, doesn't mean that it is a waste of money.

All those points are agreed by me, but.....some spending in life IS essential, and IMO takes priority. That way when you can afford more than the 'bread' or the bread and butter of life the jam is enjoyed. I have no problem at all with 'proper' weddings, nor ones that are improper come to think of it, but I do think its unfortunate both that people think they cannot get married with equality unless they do that and that people do tha rather than look at things like financial security. Where both are possible, even with compromise on expectations for both, then.....its a non issue, surely?

supersaver2

justanopinion wrote: »

Can I ask a question? Those who say you can get married for about £400.

Yes, of course you can do so. However, getting married tends to be built up to be one of the most monumental points of your life. Why would you want to do something that is just in a legal way of dotting I's and crossing T's? When you can celebrate that?

I am not advocating spending a fortune, but by turning what could be construed as a business transaction into a great day? Is that so bad?

I am not getting involved in the children side, but people who spend money on a wedding appear to be derided to some extent.

Apologies if I'm way off.

I stated earlier that I got married for approx £400.00 and me and my wife have no regrets. We aren't skint, both have well paid jobs as teachers but just didn't want a big do. Me wife is quite shy and would hate to be the centre of attention all day, plus we both have other things we would rather spend our money on. Its a personal decision to each couple at the end of the day, but saying we can't afford to get married is often untrue, what people often mean is they can't afford a wedding.

catkins

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think your expectations are reasonable.

I think my expectations are perfectly reasonable. I got married over 30 years ago and the fee I paid at the registry office was a set fee. They didn't ask me if I were having 2 guests or 22 guests. Why should it be different now? Possibly because weddings have become rip off business?

Also as I said, I know the Essex registry offices charge a flat fee and the post below yours states that a flat fee was charged on a recent wedding.

justanopinion wrote: »

Can I ask a question? Those who say you can get married for about £400.

Yes, of course you can do so. However, getting married tends to be built up to be one of the most monumental points of your life. Why would you want to do something that is just in a legal way of dotting I's and crossing T's? When you can celebrate that?

I am not advocating spending a fortune, but by turning what could be construed as a business transaction into a great day? Is that so bad?

I am not getting involved in the children side, but people who spend money on a wedding appear to be derided to some extent.

Getting married was important to me and OH but I personally have never bought into "the greatest/happiest day of your life". If that is true then you may as well get married and die. So you are never going to have happy days after your wedding? Surely your wedding day should hopefully be the start of some of the happiest days of your life?

Me and OH wanted to be married, wanted to spend our lives together. We got married 5 months after meeting and as we did not want to live together first we didn't want to wait ages and save for the one day.

We had a lovely wedding with only close relatives at the service and then a reception for family and friends which cost very little. Everyone helped with the food, a friend was the DJ although we did pay for ALL the drink.

We didn't hire cars for the day (don't see the point) so that saved a lot of unnecessary money.

If people want to spend a lot of money on a wedding with all the bits that aren't at all necessary then fine but you don't have to. Also I know plenty of couples that did have big expensive weddings and then regretted spending all that money (especially when the marriage didn't last).

I've been to weddings that didn't cost a lot and expensive weddings and, on the whole, I've enjoyed the cheaper ones the most.

Mojisola

catkins wrote: »

I think my expectations are perfectly reasonable. I got married over 30 years ago and the fee I paid at the registry office was a set fee. They didn't ask me if I were having 2 guests or 22 guests. Why should it be different now? Possibly because weddings have become rip off business?

Also as I said, I know the Essex registry offices charge a flat fee and the post below yours states that a flat fee was charged on a recent wedding.

I think things are changing and there are now enough people wanting just a "signing wedding" rather than a "ceremony". That's why some RO are offering an office for a formal signing at a very basic price rather than one of their event rooms.

I think it's unreasonable to expect to get an event room at the same price as an office.

catkins

Mojisola wrote: »

I think things are changing and there are now enough people wanting just a "signing wedding" rather than a "ceremony". That's why some RO are offering an office for a formal signing at a very basic price rather than one of their event rooms.

I think it's unreasonable to expect to get an event room at the same price as an office.

I am not sure what an "event" room is. I have been to lots of registry office weddings and they have all been held in a "room". The size of the room varies but it has never been so small that it could be called an "office".

It seems a shame that even some registry offices are jumping on the bandwagon of "how much can we rip this marrying couple off".

I would be sorely tempted not to use a registry office that for reasons only known to themselves decide having more than 4 guests attend your wedding is going to cost you in the region of £700. If enough couples boycotted these ones I am pretty sure they would bring their prices down in line with other sensible registry offices

aileth

I really don't understand the arguments of whether an expensive wedding is 'better' than one done on the cheap. Surely it's down to each individual couple and sod the rest of them.

We had a medium-priced wedding and half the in-laws thought we had spent too much, the other half thought we had been 'cheap.'

You really can't win and EVERYONE has an opinion. It's your day, do it how you want.

However, I really don't understand people that say they can't afford to get married and use that as an excuse. Totally fair enough if you don't want to get married, but using that excuse is total tripe really, because as soon as they tell you they can't afford it they'll be jetting off on holiday or buying a new TV for the same cost.

unicorn1984

If someone says they cant afford to get married, then goes and buys a TV, so what? Maybe they need that new TV?

I want to go on a holiday to the Maldives, but cant afford it, yet in the New Year I am going to buy a car, because I NEED it. It will cost the same, but the NEED for the car is greater than my WANT for the exotic holiday.

Yes, most people probably CAN afford to get married, paying £400 or whatever to have a cheap, registry office wedding, but maybe they don't WANT to do that? Perhaps they are waiting for a day when they CAN afford to have the wedding they want, rather than one people say they can afford to have? Or maybe they want to put that money to use somewhere else, like a pension, house, savings etc?

It really makes no odds if a couple is married because they want to, need to or can afford to be does it?

Some people are saying "if they cant afford to get married, they cant afford to have children", well that's rubbish. Maybe they are saving every penny they have (like my best friend and her fianc!e) for their child, because she is in her mid 30's and didn't meet her dream man until a couple of years ago, and they were going to spend their life savings on a wedding, but then decided having their baby daughter and keeping that money to put towards her future was more important.

Does that make them a "less stable" family because they aren't married?

lostinrates

unicorn1984 wrote: »

If someone says they cant afford to get married, then goes and buys a TV, so what? Maybe they need that new TV?

I want to go on a holiday to the Maldives, but cant afford it, yet in the New Year I am going to buy a car, because I NEED it. It will cost the same, but the NEED for the car is greater than my WANT for the exotic holiday.

Yes, most people probably CAN afford to get married, paying £400 or whatever to have a cheap, registry office wedding, but maybe they don't WANT to do that? Perhaps they are waiting for a day when they CAN afford to have the wedding they want, rather than one people say they can afford to have? Or maybe they want to put that money to use somewhere else, like a pension, house, savings etc?

It really makes no odds if a couple is married because they want to, need to or can afford to be does it?

Some people are saying "if they cant afford to get married, they cant afford to have children", well that's rubbish. Maybe they are saving every penny they have (like my best friend and her fianc!e) for their child, because she is in her mid 30's and didn't meet her dream man until a couple of years ago, and they were going to spend their life savings on a wedding, but then decided having their baby daughter and keeping that money to put towards her future was more important.

Does that make them a "less stable" family because they aren't married?

Unless other legal agreements are made, then it can do yes. NOT NECESSARILY, I hasten to add.

It can their personal financial future in jeopardy, particularly if not well advised or protected over things like property. It means when things fall apart, or if things do 't fall apart but other things go wrong then their position is not as secure. For example. DH and I had a problem as a youngish couple with him being treated seriously as my NOK in hospitals. When I could not speak for myself this was problematic. I made a choice of my then boyfriend over my family for a reason. Marriage resolved that instantly. I was very unsettled at times in the intervening year between our engagement and our marriage that if I needed him to be my NOK and couldn't make that clear myself it might not be taken seriously.

It often means they are avoiding the 'serious' discussions that are the foundations of relationships and setting a pattern for poor communication (again, not by any means a given at all)

Dunroamin

unicorn1984 wrote: »

Some people are saying "if they cant afford to get married, they cant afford to have children", well that's rubbish. Maybe they are saving every penny they have (like my best friend and her fianc!e) for their child, because she is in her mid 30's and didn't meet her dream man until a couple of years ago, and they were going to spend their life savings on a wedding, but then decided having their baby daughter and keeping that money to put towards her future was more important.

Does that make them a "less stable" family because they aren't married?

It may not make them less stable but it doesn't explain why they've chosen not to marry.