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

Jagraf

Fireflyaway wrote: »

I guess because its a public display and legal commitment and most couples share a surname so you seem more of a couple than 2 individuals.

I found that people took me more seriously after I married even though I had already been with my partner 7 years before we actually got married. For me it was important for my child to know mum and dad are married and religiously I felt it was correct for me.

Yes but why still a mans name? I'm only asking because marriage seems to be lagging behind the times with its traditions. Name change used to mean "ownership" which obviously isn't the case any more, so,why do we continue with it?

Tigsteroonie

I took Marley's surname by deed poll after our son was born, so that we had a family surname.

After my parents split, I kept my Dad's surname but lived with Mum who remarried. I saw how many times she got called by my (i.e. her Ex's) surname; and I got fed up of having to explain "My Mum has a different name". It's probably more common now, but I still swore that I wouldn't put my children through such awkwardness.

Anyway, Marley's surname is far more unusual and classy than anything I've had before :rotfl:

seven-day-weekend

We wanted to double barrel our names, but they sounded awful together, and his was nicer than mine, so when we married I took his. Even though we got married in 1971, for us this was not set in stone, had mine have been nicer he may have taken mine. We decided together what to do.

coolcait

duchy wrote: »

... (I actually don't regard it as a "Free meal" ....

Ah. That wasn't clear from the post I originally replied to.


Maybe you also don't mean the increasingly dramatic pronouncements which have followed?


I'm not sure how it helps the bridal couple if their guests don't tell them honestly that their chosen venue has failed them over things like the catering.


It probably won't help future couples either, if the venue hasn't been challenged on those failings or given the opportunity to fix them.


As with everything else, you can make the point politely - while emphasising how much you've enjoyed the rest of the wedding.


That's really all I have to say on the matter. Especially as this side discussion has really taken us down the path of focusing on 'weddings' rather than 'marriage'.

Gloomendoom

coolcait wrote: »

I'm not sure how it helps the bridal couple if their guests don't tell them honestly that their chosen venue has failed them over things like the catering.


It probably won't help future couples either, if the venue hasn't been challenged on those failings or given the opportunity to fix them.


As with everything else, you can make the point politely - while emphasising how much you've enjoyed the rest of the wedding.

Sometimes you just need to know when to keep your mouth shut.

Let the bridal couple enjoy their day in blissful ignorance. If you have issues with the food you have been given and you think the caterers and future couples could benefit from your negative feedback, moan to the caterers directly... after the wedding.

coolcait

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I don't think I have ever been to a wedding where the hosts intentionally served up inedible food. Why add to their stress and embarrassment by openly moaning and whinging about it?
....

There does seem to be something about threads which are about, or drift into being about, weddings, which brings out a lot of dramatic pronouncements.

I've been to weddings where the food was dire, or unsuitable for the dietary requests - and that was obviously not what the hosts had intended. Therefore, they had been failed by their chosen venue or caterers.

In one instance, it was the bride who was the recipient of a non-veggie vegetarian meal!

The bridal couples coped perfectly well with the matter of fact comments about the quality of the food (comments which they could use when following things up with the venue/caterer later), and were reassured by the positive comments about how well everything else was going.

I must have been born without the bridezilla gene, as large chunks of my wedding video could have sent to 'you've been framed', yet none of 'ruined' my wedding day - much less my marriage. We've certainly faced far worse things during our marriage.

missbiggles1

Fireflyaway wrote: »

I guess because its a public display and legal commitment and most couples share a surname so you seem more of a couple than 2 individuals.

I found that people took me more seriously after I married even though I had already been with my partner 7 years before we actually got married. For me it was important for my child to know mum and dad are married and religiously I felt it was correct for me.

This is going to sound rather old fashioned (I almost didn't post it for that reason) but I do wonder whether most children would be happier if their parents were married to each other and whether leaving it to later so you can afford a big party is actually a rather selfish choice.

(I'm getting ready to duck the flack as I post this!)

Torry_Quine

Jagraf wrote: »

Yes but why still a mans name? I'm only asking because marriage seems to be lagging behind the times with its traditions. Name change used to mean "ownership" which obviously isn't the case any more, so,why do we continue with it?

Have to admit it never crossed my mind to do anything other than change my name to his! I still remember practising.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Sometimes you just need to know when to keep your mouth shut.

Let the bridal couple enjoy their day in blissful ignorance. If you have issues with the food you have been given and you think the caterers and future couples could benefit from your negative feedback, moan to the caterers directly... after the wedding.

That's what I would do if it ever occured to me. the idea of spoiling the couple's day by pointing out the deficiencies of the meal seems cruel.

coolcait

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Sometimes you just need to know when to keep your mouth shut.

Let the bridal couple enjoy their day in blissful ignorance. If you have issues with the food you have been given and you think the caterers and future couples could benefit from your negative feedback, moan to the caterers directly... after the wedding.

It is possible to make a point without it being a 'moan'.


Most couples, no matter how blissed out they may be, will notice that no one who had the chicken has eaten it - for example. The bride will certainly notice when she gets served up a non-veggie vegetarian option - and will wonder if the same thing has happened to her vegetarian guests.


You can tell them that the food is wonderful. Will they believe you, when they can quite clearly see that it's not being eaten? And they'll probably have been served the same thing, so will have formed their own judgement.


Or you can say "You're right, there's something odd about the chicken - but we're enjoying the craic too much to be bothered. It's been a great day/night! Have a word with caterers tomorrow if you want, but come and have a word with us just now. [add complimentary remarks about the couple and the wedding day so far]".


I don't know what images you and duchy have conjured up, but they bear no resemblance to the weddings I actually attended. From what Barry has said, he's having a similar experience.


A wedding is the first day of a marriage.


Luckily, most bridal couples are capable of dealing with the very minor 'problems' that can arise on the wedding day. If they can't, then that may not bode well for their resilience in facing problems in the marriage.


Which, I hope, pushes us back towards the idea of 'commitment' - or whatever it was that was actually said in the OP!

Gloomendoom

coolcait wrote: »

Luckily, most bridal couples are capable of dealing with the very minor 'problems' that can arise on the wedding day.

I wouldn't know. I don't have enough (or any) experience of pointing out minor problems to bridal couples.