Why do people think less of a couple who aren't married?

POPPYOSCAR

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Plus 2 x £35 for the Notice of Intention to Marry, so £116 total.

Manchester's bargain price is £50 for the ceremony with 2 witnesses only. Wonder if they'd bend the rule to let us take littl'un ...

We paid the 2 x £35 to give notice.


Paid £50 including cost of certificate,regardless of day etc. no restriction on numbers, although room holds max of 30.


It was perfect for us apart from having to say a few meaningless words as it was all over in a flash.


For us we are still partners, not husband and wife.

missbiggles1

geerex wrote: »

Yes, and after spending a lifetime with your loved one, I'm sure you'll have happy memories sitting reminiscing about your "big day" when you confirmed your love for each other in the cheapest most cost effective way possible, counting every penny and making it all about the cash savings.
Nothing says "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" quite like a tesco value wedding. :rotfl:

If, after a lifetime of marriage, the best thing you can look back on is your extravagant wedding day then all I can say is that you must both have had very empty, arid lives together.

Buzzybee90

I like the idea of having a small wedding ceremony and a small reception. Might seem a bit strange having a church ceremony with so few people though.

That's not to save money though.

missbiggles1

Kynthia wrote: »

My husband has a civil service pension that is very common as it was the main one for all civil service and public service employees to join up until 12 years ago. It only pays out to a spouse/civil partner and not an unmarried partner. So I imagine there's an awful large number of couples affected by this.

As I quoted earlier, the teachers' pension scheme pays out far lower benefits to an unmarried partner than it does to a spouse - it really isn't unusual.

missbiggles1

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

I like the idea of having a small wedding ceremony and a small reception. Might seem a bit strange having a church ceremony with so few people though.

That's not to save money though.

My first wedding was in a lovely church and we had fewer than that in attendance. The vicar suggested that we had it in the side chapel which we did. It was just the right size, quiet and very intimate.

Buzzybee90

missbiggles1 wrote: »

My first wedding was in a lovely church and we had fewer than that in attendance. The vicar suggested that we had it in the side chapel which we did. It was just the right size, quiet and very intimate.

That sounds lovely, sadly we don't have a chapel but the church itself isn't absolutely massive, but still.

Tigsteroonie

I kinda like the idea of a 'Tesco Value Wedding' but I bet Lidl would be even cheaper

BarryBlue

geerex wrote: »

Well done for spectacularly missing the point.
I didn't say that you needed to spend countless thousands, but at the other end of the scale, its pathetic to wring every last penny out of the costs and get married in a soulless registry office in Milton Keynes on a wet Tuesday afternoon. You're right that it's not my business if that's what they want to do, but I still have an opinion on it.
Anyway, its not my problem if you could only find 20 people who liked you enough for you to invite, still, kept the costs down, eh? :rotfl:

And you think others have missed the point?:rotfl:

Spending thousands was exactly what you were implying, since you were so disparaging of people who wanted a small, low key wedding. At your end of the scale we see gratuitous wasting of money on utter rubbish that the bridezilla just can't do without as she has to be a "special princess" for a day. Ludicrous and sickening, invariably tacky and in monumentally bad taste.

I have no idea what MK's register (not registry) office is like. However, getting married there would no doubt be preferable to going to some musty, draughty church in the ridiculous pretence of being religious because "that's what people do" or "my dead granny would have been appalled if it wasn't in church".

As for the number of people to invite, the idea of inviting dozens of people who are distant relatives you never see, friends who have lost touch, and work colleagues who are of no consequence, is far more ridiculous than keeping it intimate and informal. I have been to weddings where the bride and groom are so up themselves all day that they never get to speak to most of their guests. Never again! 20 sounds like the top end of the ideal range for guests to me.

As for the "wet Tuesday afternoon", am I to think that a weekday is less suitable than a Saturday which is no doubt when yours will be? And I suppose yours will be in blazing sunshine. Or maybe it will chuck it down for you!;)

lulu_92 wrote: »

I don't think taste necessarily goes down the drain as costs rise.

I'm equally sure that they do. After a certain point, everything is just frilly nonsense and invariably in bad taste. Favours, chair covers, wishing wells, save the day invites, and a dozen other silly ideas - all just nonsense!

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

I like the idea of having a small wedding ceremony and a small reception. Might seem a bit strange having a church ceremony with so few people though.

That's not to save money though.

Some register offices have various size rooms depending on how many are attending. No need for churches at all, just another add-on.

The idea of a Tesco Value/Smartprice wedding actually appeals to me. If I were invited to one I would accept like a shot. It could be a complete mickey-take of a lavish bridezilla one - the possibilities are endless.

Buzzybee90

BarryBlue wrote: »

And you think others have missed the point?:rotfl:

Spending thousands was exactly what you were implying, since you were so disparaging of people who wanted a small, low key wedding. At your end of the scale we see gratuitous wasting of money on utter rubbish that the bridezilla just can't do without as she has to be a "special princess" for a day. Ludicrous and sickening, invariably tacky and in monumentally bad taste.

I have no idea what MK's register (not registry) office is like. However, getting married there would no doubt be preferable to going to some musty, draughty church in the ridiculous pretence of being religious because "that's what people do" or "my dead granny would have been appalled if it wasn't in church".

As for the number of people to invite, the idea of inviting dozens of people who are distant relatives you never see, friends who have lost touch, and work colleagues who are of no consequence, is far more ridiculous than keeping it intimate and informal. I have been to weddings where the bride and groom are so up themselves all day that they never get to speak to most of their guests. Never again! 20 sounds like the top end of the ideal range for guests to me.

As for the "wet Tuesday afternoon", am I to think that a weekday is less suitable than a Saturday which is no doubt when yours will be? And I suppose yours will be in blazing sunshine. Or maybe it will chuck it down for you!;)



I'm equally sure that they do. After a certain point, everything is just frilly nonsense and invariably in bad taste. Favours, chair covers, wishing wells, save the day invites, and a dozen other silly ideas - all just nonsense!



Some register offices have various size rooms depending on how many are attending. No need for churches at all, just another add-on.

The idea of a Tesco Value/Smartprice wedding actually appeals to me. If I were invited to one I would accept like a shot. It could be a complete mickey-take of a lavish bridezilla one - the possibilities are endless.

I don't doubt that, but having a religious ceremony is important to me. I went to my first reg office wedding recently and was pleasantly surprised how cheerful the room was.

Piggywiggy

I'd like to think that if me and my OH do get married we could do it for around the 2k mark with a private ceremony and then a BBQ/hog roast or something to celebrate with everyone else. However that just can't be justified whilst saving for a house and I would want to have a celebration of the day, even if not overly extravagant. Each to their own really.