Are we being mean ?

Mojisola

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Spending a fortune on a "nice wedding" which is way beyond your normal spending range is definitely trying to be something you're not.

And expecting other people to spend money they don't want to spend for 'your special day' is just plain rude!

Errata

Homeownertobe wrote: »

Who's the say what's beyond your normal spending range? Who has a normal spending range when it comes to weddings?

Normal people.

missbiggles1

Homeownertobe wrote: »

Who's the say what's beyond your normal spending range? Who has a normal spending range when it comes to weddings?

What I mean is that, if you're really rich (not just comfortably off) then spending many, many thousands of pounds for a wedding would be a comparatively normal expense for you. However, for most people that means years of saving or years of debt because it's outside what you would normally spend on your own pleasure or entertainment.

"Pretending to be something you're not" expresses it very well.

Goldiegirl

Are we being mean?


If you have the money and the only reason for not wanting to attend the full event is that you don't want to spend the money, then that is mean.


You say that you can't 'justify' the expenditure, so that's saying to me you have the money, but it's earmarked for something else. That's fair enough, just give the BIL this explanation.


The FIL has offered to pay for you all, so you could still attend.... but you are not keen on this either.


So, this is saying to me that you don't want to stay at the hotel overnight, and you're using the money as an excuse. If this is the case, I think you'd be better off telling the truth, and just say you'd be happier to stay at home overnight, and just go to the wedding

Homeownertobe wrote: »

I've just realised where I remember the OP from and I have to say I am shocked that she would not stay, even when it's clear her father in law wants them all there.

The man has terminal cancer, for crying out loud. If he wants all his family there for what may be his last family event, then just go and stop being so selfish OP.

Of course, this puts an entirely different light on it, and as this could be the family's last chance to all be together with the FIL still alive. In this context, the OP's reluctance could certainly be construed as financially mean and also mean-spirited as well.


I there are other issues involving money and the in- laws too..... a recent post from the OP complains about the way the bills are split after family meals out


Considering all the evidence..... yes, you probably are being mean

Homeownertobe

Errata wrote: »

Normal people.

Which is? If someone's going to be accused of 'trying to be something they're not' then at least put some hard figures down, so we all know.

Though what this 'something' they're trying to be, I don't know.

Pollycat

calleyw wrote: »

I agree. I would never stay over for a wedding that was 14 miles away.

I know someone who had to go on a weeks holiday to attend a siblings wedding as they got married abroad.

Umm no.

Yours

Calley

No. They didn't HAVE to go
Nobody HAS to attend a wedding

missbiggles1

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Are we being mean?


If you have the money and the only reason for not wanting to attend the full event is that you don't want to spend the money, then that is mean.


You say that you can't 'justify' the expenditure, so that's saying to me you have the money, but it's earmarked for something else. That's fair enough, just give the BIL this explanation.


The FIL has offered to pay for you all, so you could still attend.... but you are not keen on this either.


So, this is saying to me that you don't want to stay at the hotel overnight, and you're using the money as an excuse. If this is the case, I think you'd be better off telling the truth, and just say you'd be happier to stay at home overnight, and just go to the wedding







Of course, this puts an entirely different light on it, and as this could be the family's last chance to all be together with the FIL still alive. In this context, the OP's reluctance could certainly be construed as financially mean and also mean-spirited as well.


I there are other issues involving money and the in- laws too..... a recent post from the OP complains about the way the bills are split after family meals out


Considering all the evidence..... yes, you probably are being mean

Do you think they're all gong to spend the night together in the same room?

What earthly difference does it make if, at the end of the evening, the OP's family turn left out of the hotel entrance while everybody else turns right and goes upstairs? How does that make them lesser participants at the wedding?

Mrs_Optimist

Wow so many replies ! Thank you for all perspectives.

B in l is insecure and is very much one who likes to splash the cash which is his perogative. We could afford to stay both nights but cannot justify the cost. F in l does have terminal cancer and did offer to pay for us but we explained our thoughts behind it and he both agreed and understood. It isn't his wish for us to stay he thought we couldn't afford it - now he realises that we have other reasons he fully understands.

I am close to my siblings but still couldn't justify £300 plus just for a bed to sleep in for two nights ! B in l is lovely but very showy - my dh has had final say & he is not happy with the thought of spending that much money either!

The rest of the family fully understand our thoughts on it and no one has tried to talk us out of it.

Had there been some compromise of just paying for one night we would have probably considered it further but it has been made clear to everyone that both nights are compulsory if they want to stay the night of the wedding.

Errata

Of course, this puts an entirely different light on it, and as this could be the family's last chance to all be together with the FIL still alive.

He won't be sharing a bed with them. The OP and their family can spend the evening before and the time before the ceremony with him without spending money staying overnight.

Pollycat

bagpussbear wrote: »

No you are not being mean. Your brother in law is being unreasonable here, but he has his head in wedding dizziness so won't be seeing it like that at the moment.

I think the b-i-l is being a groomzilla.
It's a new one on me.