Are we being mean ?

gettingtheresometime

Nicki wrote: »

So what is your expectation then? That the cousins should have chosen to space their weddings out to one a year so as not to put your friend to expense? Or that the wedding should not take place in the bride's home town because it is too far away from where your friend lives, even if it is close to where the brides family and friends live? It's unfortunate if your friend can't afford to attend but if she can't surely it is better that she declined rather than that the cousins delay their weddings or change the location of the weddings to suit one aunt. That is guestzilla not bridezilla.

(I had a tiny wedding nearly 30 years ago so have no axe to grind here from my perspective but your friends gripes are selfish and unreasonable. It's not all about her, or about her at all. She is an aunt and one of many guests not a parent or sibling or part of the bridal party!)

So you think it would have gone down well if she had said to one niece that she wasn't going to her wedding but going to the other 2?

missbiggles1

Nicki wrote: »

I think it IS mean spirited to begrudge a couple inviting people to participate in celebratory events provided no overt pressure is put on you to take part. If you would like to participate but can't afford to, that's a shame but not a reason for others to miss out or a reason not to at least invite you. And if you don't want to participate, just politely decline and let other enjoy it without you, as OP here has done. Bellyaching about 3 relatives getting married in 10 weeks and putting you to expense, or the cheek of people having an americanised rehearsal dinner is selfish and petty IMHO.

The trouble is that it isn't just the actual celebratory event (ie wedding ceremony and reception) that people are expecting you to take part in as it now seems to extend over several days of superfluous activities like pre wedding dinners and post wedding breakfasts.

When people living only 14 miles away are expected to pay for hotel accommodation for 2 nights for 4 people (as well as several extra meals), on top of the expenses involved in the main event, it really is getting ridiculous and to call these people "guests" is adding insult to injury!

Nicki

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The trouble is that it isn't just the actual celebratory event (ie wedding ceremony and reception) that people are expecting you to take part in as it now seems to extend over several days of superfluous activities like pre wedding dinners and post wedding breakfasts.

When people living only 14 miles away are expected to pay for hotel accommodation for 2 nights for 4 people (as well as several extra meals), on top of the expenses involved in the main event, it really is getting ridiculous and to call these people "guests" is adding insult to injury!

The OP was INVITED to stay over and take part. She has now politely declined this part of the invite and that has not caused any offence or ripples. Had it just been a question of expense her FIL would have paid for her.

Most of the extended family it would seem want to stay for 2 night and have these extended celebrations. (I would too if my family was doing this). Should the groom not have been allowed to organise this because OP might not have wanted to take part even though all the others do want it? Or should he have missed OP out of the invitation because he should have known she wouldn't want to attend?

These are invitations. There is no compulsion to attend. And to suggest that the bride or groom should take into account how many other weddings each member of their distant extended family are attending that year when choosing their own wedding date takes the guest's narcissism to hilarious heights. Go to one, none or all depending on your budget but don't blame them for inviting you or expect them to pay your travel and accommodation expenses if you decide to attend!

jaylee3

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

So Brother-in-law is getting hitched this year in a no expense spared bash. He wants all immediate family to stay overnight at the venue both the night before & the day of the wedding. Trouble is that will cost us in excess of £300 as we have to pay for our children too.

There is no option just to stay on the wedding day itself.

All other family members are staying both nights but they are only paying for 2 not 4 people (none of them have kids) so cost to them is half what we would have to pay. DH agrees that we cannot justify that sort of money before we even start on stag/hen dos, present, drinks, outfits etc. But I do feel mean.

What do you think?

The venue is 14 miles from where we live so we could taxi and still save a large amount of money but this wedding is the be all and end all for my b in l - are we being mean spirited ?

No you aren't being mean. There is no need, or point, in staying when you live so close.

I actually dislike weddings. I used to like going to the odd wedding of a friend when I was younger, and the odd family wedding every few years, but not so much now, and I have a number of friends who feel the same; for the reasons outlined by you, and a number of others on this thread.

The problem is - as a friend of mine put it the other week about her husband's half sister who is getting wed :- Some people are so precious, that they think their relatives and friends etc should be honoured to be invited to their flashy wedding that is being held in a castle or in another country, and they are utterly incensed when people are hesitant because of the cost, or *shock horror* they turn down the invitation.

It's like they think you should be grateful to be invited. Well I am not; I would rather not be.

At the end of the day, if someone wants you to attend their wedding and it's going to be out of the county, (or country,) and you are forced to stay in a hotel and incur train fares or plane fares, then they should pay the costs for you - and your family. If they are not prepared to do that, then they shouldn't get huffy when you don't go.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Like many people I know, personally, I couldn't even tell you how many cousins I have, much less put names to more than half a dozen. I certainly wouldn't recognise any of them if I tripped over them!

Fortunately most of my parents' brothers and sisters (can't name all of them either) moved away from their home area for work in the Depression and only kept in touch (Christmas cards apart) with the couple of them they actually liked.

Really? Seriously? You don't know who your own cousins are? I mean like your first cousins? That strikes me as very odd. :huh:

I don't think think I know one single person who doesn't know their cousins. I have got 8 first cousins, and know the names of all of them, and their partners/husbands/wives, and the names of all their children (7 so far.)

I think that is very strange to not know your first cousins.

I agree with you on this though (below.)

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The trouble is that it isn't just the actual celebratory event (ie wedding ceremony and reception) that people are expecting you to take part in as it now seems to extend over several days of superfluous activities like pre wedding dinners and post wedding breakfasts.

When people living only 14 miles away are expected to pay for hotel accommodation for 2 nights for 4 people (as well as several extra meals), on top of the expenses involved in the main event, it really is getting ridiculous and to call these people "guests" is adding insult to injury!

Errata

Weddings seem to be becoming very chavvy and less than elegant.
Draped chairs? mm lovely, can't beat a bit of s&m tying up at a wedding!

missbiggles1

Nicki wrote: »

The OP was INVITED to stay over and take part. She has now politely declined this part of the invite and that has not caused any offence or ripples. Had it just been a question of expense her FIL would have paid for her.

Most of the extended family it would seem want to stay for 2 night and have these extended celebrations. (I would too if my family was doing this). Should the groom not have been allowed to organise this because OP might not have wanted to take part even though all the others do want it? Or should he have missed OP out of the invitation because he should have known she wouldn't want to attend?

These are invitations. There is no compulsion to attend. And to suggest that the bride or groom should take into account how many other weddings each member of their distant extended family are attending that year when choosing their own wedding date takes the guest's narcissism to hilarious heights. Go to one, none or all depending on your budget but don't blame them for inviting you or expect them to pay your travel and accommodation expenses if you decide to attend!

You don't invite someone to something and then expect them to pay for it - it'd be like inviting friends over for dinner and presenting them with the bill at the end of it!

missbiggles1

jaylee3 wrote: »

No you aren't being mean. There is no need, or point, in staying when you live so close.

I actually dislike weddings. I used to like going to the odd wedding of a friend when I was younger, and the odd family wedding every few years, but not so much now, and I have a number of friends who feel the same; for the reasons outlined by you, and a number of others on this thread.

The problem is - as a friend of mine put it the other week about her husband's half sister who is getting wed :- Some people are so precious, that they think their relatives and friends etc should be honoured to be invited to their flashy wedding that is being held in a castle or in another country, and they are utterly incensed when people are hesitant because of the cost, or *shock horror* they turn down the invitation.

It's like they think you should be grateful to be invited. Well I am not; I would rather not be.

At the end of the day, if someone wants you to attend their wedding and it's going to be out of the county, (or country,) and you are forced to stay in a hotel and incur train fares or plane fares, then they should pay the costs for you - and your family. If they are not prepared to do that, then they shouldn't get huffy when you don't go.



Really? Seriously? You don't know who your own cousins are? I mean like your first cousins? That strikes me as very odd. :huh:

I don't think think I know one single person who doesn't know their cousins. I have got 8 first cousins, and know the names of all of them, and their partners/husbands/wives, and the names of all their children (7 so far.)

I think that is very strange to not know your first cousins.

I agree with you on this though (below.)

My parents each had 5 siblings (I think), so about 30 cousins in total, spread throughout the south east. I think I met a couple of them when I was a child and I know the names of about half a dozen more.

Don't forget, when I was a child, working people didn't run cars or have the money to take 3 or 4 children on long train journeys on day trips to meet family. My husband, in a similar situation, only knows one of his cousins well (she was brought up with him) and can't name his cousins on his father's side.

Perhaps a generational thing?

Nicki

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You don't invite someone to something and then expect them to pay for it - it'd be like inviting friends over for dinner and presenting them with the bill at the end of it!

Really?

When we socialise, friends will often suggest meeting for a meal in a restaurant. My expectation is that the bill will be split not that they are paying. Or if I go on holiday with someone, that I pay my own share of travel and accommodation. That's just normal surely?

I have never ever heard that the bride and groom should pay for their guests travel and accommodation and it sounds insane to me. I think if this is your expectation, you should perhaps just tell all of your unmarried family up front that you never attend weddings or other events unless your travel and accommodation is paid, or go out for dinner unless the host is picking up the bill and then don't be offended if you are never asked if you would like to participate in such events.

missbiggles1

Nicki wrote: »

Really?

When we socialise, friends will often suggest meeting for a meal in a restaurant. My expectation is that the bill will be split not that they are paying. Or if I go on holiday with someone, that I pay my own share of travel and accommodation. That's just normal surely?

I have never ever heard that the bride and groom should pay for their guests travel and accommodation and it sounds insane to me. I think if this is your expectation, you should perhaps just tell all of your unmarried family up front that you never attend weddings or other events unless your travel and accommodation is paid, or go out for dinner unless the host is picking up the bill and then don't be offended if you are never asked if you would like to participate in such events.

Quite normal but not an invitation and certainly not an invitation to be a guest, which is what happens at a wedding. They are, after all "wedding guests".

Of course you don't pay for accommodation and transport to a normal wedding but neither do you expect to dictate when the guests are there (apart from the wedding itself) much less where they stay. You invite your guest to your wedding - the rest is up to them. If you invite them to a a couple of nights in a hotel then, obviously, you pay as the host should do.Anything else is terribly ill mannered.

Nicki

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Quite normal but not an invitation and certainly not an invitation to be a guest, which is what happens at a wedding. They are, after all "wedding guests".

They are a guest at the wedding ceremony and the reception afterwards. That is, I assume, being paid for by the couple. Separately from this, the groom has suggested that the family might like to have a meal together the night before as the hotel has a 2 night stay policy. He has also told OP that most of the family are staying over and suggested it might be nice if she did too. It would never occur to me that this was also to be paid for by the groom and I'm amazed that anyone thinks it should be. It is of course open to everyone not to come to the meal the evening before and not to stay overnight whether or not they attend that meal. It seems unreasonable to me to say that no one should be allowed to attend the meal though, or that the groom should not have suggested it even though the other members of the family would enjoy it, just because OP doesn't want to attend or thinks it is too much money. The key is that there is no awkwardness if OP refuses, which there wasn't here apparently