Money Moral Dilemma: Do I give a gift when it's a 'pretend' wedding?

Brigantia4444

Oh-oh!

Does the poor fiancee know her potential 'spouse' isn't legitimate?? Sounds very dodgy to me.

And what about the deserted wife?

Why are you proposing to give gifts of money or anything to such a man? Is he also deserting his children, too? Is he hoping for your money to pay the maintenance for them?

Divorce 'problems' probably mean he's not playing fair with his wife, whilst stringing this other lady along. Sounds like he has 'form': he may even bounce back to his wife (again) when he gets bored with this 'fiancee'.

None of this is real until it's legal, in ink on paper.

So? Give nothing, apart from some advice to the fiancee to do some overdue background checking on this paramour (and to also maybe....just have a quiet, civilised coffee with the wife). It's all way too fishy to be true.

Honestly, you can't be too careful, when someone is showing this much lack of respect for the basic rules of marriage and fair play to everyone.

Good luck.

seven-day-weekend

Welshwizard50 said:

Two things going on here. One is the 'deception' that he is not yet divorced, but perhaps that's just a matter of timing. However many many couples have a humanist wedding ceremony every year and this maybe the case. There is no legal standing to these in England and Wales, although they are legal in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Couples regard their humanist ceremony as their "wedding day " as its more personal than a church or registry offic and is a super occasion. They usually pop along to a Registrar at some stage to complete the legal formalities, sometimes months later or maybe not at all, preferring the ceremony to be one of 'commitment' rather than legal marriage. So cut them some slack. To them this IS their wedding day whatever their circumstances. Oh and buy them a present. Not compulsory to give money. And in case you're wondering, I'm a Humanist Celebrant conducting many such weddings every year. You can marry where, when and how you want. 

Not legally in England and Wales, in a humanist wedding.  Whatever the couple regard as their 'wedding' they can't ever pretend it is legal.

Pollycat

Ringo90 said:

Pollycat said:

All posters can do is go with the limited information provided.

And that says "the divorce isn't through yet".

No, that says, "But I've found out that the divorce isn't through yet" and there is a clear difference between "I've found out that" and "He has told me that". That could be the meaning, or maybe not.
Nevertheless, the idea of "pretend" wedding is down to each one of us. They might not be able to get married legally (yet) but their friends and family might still want to celebrate what is de facto a union. Obviously, if they were to obtain legality in the future, they shouldn't have another party. Whatever your idea of a "pretend" wedding might be, it is very simple: either don't go or go with a gift, according to your own ideas. By going to the party you're showing support to the couple so you should also give them a gift, exactly as you do at other parties.

Years ago I was invited by a relative to a wedding that was perfectly legal and even celebrated in a church. They were getting married even though they had been dating for a short time, just because she "mysteriously" got pregnant and the groom was pressured into doing that. From the circumstances, you could even guess that she had done that on purpose. Anyway, guess what? They divorced after a year or so. I didn't attend the wedding for a series of reasons, and I don't repent that: would you say THAT is a real wedding?

You have missed my point.

The only information we have to go on is what is contained in the 4 lines of text posted by MSE.

MSE_Laura_F said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I'm going to a family 'wedding' that has been years in the planning while the groom waited for his divorce to go through from his previous marriage. The couple have told the family he's now divorced and the wedding is going ahead, and they've asked for money as a wedding present. But I've found out that the divorce isn't through yet, so it won't be an official ceremony in law and is probably little more than a party in reality.

There is absolutely no point in talking about 'judging without knowing'.

We are never going to know.

We are never going to know if he has lied about the divorce.

This is what MSE say about MMDs:

They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value.

So you have to take it at face value that the author of the MMD really has "found out that the divorce isn't through yet".

Marvel1

Sadie73 said:

Pollycat said:

‘I really don't like anyone asking for wedding presents.

It was different many years ago when couples got engaged, set a date for the wedding and lived at home until after the wedding, then set up home together.

Towels, irons, kettles were welcome gifts.

A lot of people nowadays seem to want money so they can spend it on a honeymoon.’

As a parent involved in two weddings at the moment whereby my children both own houses with their partners, it seems very reasonable to me when they are spending upwards of £200 per guest to have them share their special days to prefer money to another iron or toaster. People may wish to buy something cheap or not disclose by a monetary amount how much they spend on a gift, but please bear in mind that if you are one of the favoured few deemed worthy of spending a great deal of money on to be a guest at a wedding, then please think more kindly of the happy couple. If you’d rather keep your money in your pocket then my suggestion would be to politely decline the invitation rather than giving a pointless gift. I very much hope that the wonderful guests at my children’s long awaited weddings will feel after the delays they’ve experienced, a honeymoon is the very least they deserve.

Registry office, all that money saved for a honeymoon then.

ajwid01

I was divorced once.

Some people that came to the 2nd marriage had already been to the 1st.

Money was tight at the time; and I had to think hard about who to invite. I went with inviting "key" people from particular branches of family - so that there was some "general" representation. Still: I felt bad at not inviting all and sundry.

So - I felt bad about not inviting some people (because I couldn't afford it at the time), and also giving people the dilemma about "giving twice". So?  I told people that gifts were not required or expected.

For my wife; this was her first marriage - so it was a big deal to her: but at the same time - she was really only there for ME, so didn't really give a damn about what people chose to give or NOT give.

I scrimped on my honeymoon because of the amount I spent on the wedding; for the people I felt I ought to invite. So: indirectly - not receiving any gifts at all had a financial impact. Receiving money in lieu of gifts would have been an enormous help/gesture; but I couldn't bring myself to tell anyone that.

Now - some people bought gifts regardless, and I MASSIVELY appreciate those gifts to this day - whether they were big or small. I remember those people especially - because they CHOSE to gift, when they were told not to be too bothered.

Some people are very judgemental, and would baulk at the idea of "this is not a REAL marriage"; so people can tell white-lies - just for ease of passage.

I would gift what feels right to me, for any kind of celebration of marriage (be it a legal ceremony or not).

Ultimately, I wouldn't judge anyone. If someone takes advantage of my gifts or generosity (with money in kind) - then it's THEIR karma that is affected, not mine.

Try not to focus on the rights/wrongs/ethics, and do what feels the "right thing" TO YOU. That way, you have clear conscience TO YOURSELF, by your owns rules/viewpoint - not dictated by the public at large who are NOT YOU.

The general public can never really tell you the right thing to do for you; as they don't have the full facts (and important nuances) for your situation.  Sleeping easy at night - having the feeling that you have done the right thing is paramount. Bad karma to those that abuse you; is what I say.

GaleSF63

Pollycat said:

adventerous_tea said:

Like someone else has previously said, they could’ve had a date set for the divorce which has been pushed back for whatever reason, so they’re still going ahead with the celebration but then doing the official service another time with just a few witnesses. Personally I would get them either a gift or money whichever you would do for a wedding now. Then in the future if they have a second celebration and ask for a second gift I wouldn’t get one then. 

As for people saying people now ask for money, I understand not wanting to receive gifts you ultimately don’t like/want and don’t want them to just get thrown out. Money means you can get something you actually want, or spend it on a honeymoon as most people already have a home set up. However people shouldn’t judge the amount people give 😊 

But why lie to the family?

Why not be up-front and say 'we're really disappointed that Joe's divorce hasn't come through as soon as we expected it to and we've made all the plans now so it won't be an actual ceremony but we're still having the party and we'd still like you to come and celebrate it with us'?

MSE_Laura_F said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I'm going to a family 'wedding' that has been years in the planning while the groom waited for his divorce to go through from his previous marriage. The couple have told the family he's now divorced and the wedding is going ahead, and they've asked for money as a wedding present. But I've found out that the divorce isn't through yet, so it won't be an official ceremony in law and is probably little more than a party in reality.

Why not be honest?

Thinking about it, this MMD doesn't make sense.

How can you have people attending a wedding that isn't official?

Won't someone notice that it isn't "an official ceremony in law"?

I went to a "wedding" that wasn't real. It had been planned and arranged on the basis the legalities would all be sorted out by that date, but they weren't. However everything went ahead as planned, including the church service, and I couldn't see the difference. It wasn't kept secret though; everyone knew it wasn't a legal ceremony and of course the usual certificates etc. weren't produced and signed. The vicar was quite happy to do it like that. 

The legal bit took place when it was able to, without any fuss. I suppose it was a bit like what people are doing now because of Covid, only the other way round - having the ceremony quietly and planning a big do when it's possible. 

Some people have a church ceremony and a big do to renew their vows - no legal stuff there either. 

Perhaps he has his decree nisi and calls that being divorced, on the basis the absolute will be through before the wedding date. 

Pollycat

GaleSF63 said:

Pollycat said:

adventerous_tea said:

Like someone else has previously said, they could’ve had a date set for the divorce which has been pushed back for whatever reason, so they’re still going ahead with the celebration but then doing the official service another time with just a few witnesses. Personally I would get them either a gift or money whichever you would do for a wedding now. Then in the future if they have a second celebration and ask for a second gift I wouldn’t get one then. 

As for people saying people now ask for money, I understand not wanting to receive gifts you ultimately don’t like/want and don’t want them to just get thrown out. Money means you can get something you actually want, or spend it on a honeymoon as most people already have a home set up. However people shouldn’t judge the amount people give 😊 

But why lie to the family?

Why not be up-front and say 'we're really disappointed that Joe's divorce hasn't come through as soon as we expected it to and we've made all the plans now so it won't be an actual ceremony but we're still having the party and we'd still like you to come and celebrate it with us'?

MSE_Laura_F said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I'm going to a family 'wedding' that has been years in the planning while the groom waited for his divorce to go through from his previous marriage. The couple have told the family he's now divorced and the wedding is going ahead, and they've asked for money as a wedding present. But I've found out that the divorce isn't through yet, so it won't be an official ceremony in law and is probably little more than a party in reality.

Why not be honest?

Thinking about it, this MMD doesn't make sense.

How can you have people attending a wedding that isn't official?

Won't someone notice that it isn't "an official ceremony in law"?

I went to a "wedding" that wasn't real. It had been planned and arranged on the basis the legalities would all be sorted out by that date, but they weren't. However everything went ahead as planned, including the church service, and I couldn't see the difference. It wasn't kept secret though; everyone knew it wasn't a legal ceremony and of course the usual certificates etc. weren't produced and signed. The vicar was quite happy to do it like that. 

The legal bit took place when it was able to, without any fuss. I suppose it was a bit like what people are doing now because of Covid, only the other way round - having the ceremony quietly and planning a big do when it's possible. 

Some people have a church ceremony and a big do to renew their vows - no legal stuff there either. 

Perhaps he has his decree nisi and calls that being divorced, on the basis the absolute will be through before the wedding date. 

If that is the case, the author of the dilemma is wrong and there isn't an issue with the groom's marital status.

And there isn't a dilemma.

Ringo90

Pollycat said:

We are never going to know.

We are never going to know if he has lied about the divorce.

This is what MSE say about MMDs:

They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value.

So you have to take it at face value that the author of the MMD really has "found out that the divorce isn't through yet".

Right, so if we have to look at the little we know, we have to assume his divorce isn't through, but we can't assume he has deceived people on purpose like most people in this thread are assuming. So this has NOTHING to do with the bottom line question which is: do I bring a gift to the party or not?
The question the OP should rather ask themselves is, do I believe in this celebration or not? If not, don't go and don't give gifts. And I'm utterly disappointed at the number of people who have suggested they should go to the "pretend" wedding and bring "Monopoly money" or other "pretend" gifts. That is so disrespectful towards the couple who organise and pay for the party and who probably love each other despite their marriage being not legal yet.

Pollycat

Ringo90 said:

Pollycat said:

We are never going to know.

We are never going to know if he has lied about the divorce.

This is what MSE say about MMDs:

They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value.

So you have to take it at face value that the author of the MMD really has "found out that the divorce isn't through yet".

Right, so if we have to look at the little we know, we have to assume his divorce isn't through, but we can't assume he has deceived people on purpose like most people in this thread are assuming. So this has NOTHING to do with the bottom line question which is: do I bring a gift to the party or not?
The question the OP should rather ask themselves is, do I believe in this celebration or not? If not, don't go and don't give gifts. And I'm utterly disappointed at the number of people who have suggested they should go to the "pretend" wedding and bring "Monopoly money" or other "pretend" gifts. That is so disrespectful towards the couple who organise and pay for the party and who probably love each other despite their marriage being not legal yet.

Of course you can assume he has deceived people on purpose if you wish.

Or you can choose not to assume that.

But I choose to assume that the original post is accurate and therefore "the divorce isn't through yet".

And I choose to think the groom has deceived people on purpose because the original post - which is all we have to go on - says "The couple have told the family he's now divorce".

So if you are not divorced but are telling people you are divorced, doesn't that mean you are deceiving people on purpose?

FTR, when people submit these 'money moral dilemmas' they usually provide much more detail than you get to see posted.

It's MSE who paraphrase and condense that detail.

I agree that the people who have suggested gifting Monopoly money could be seen as petty but I personally didn't really think those posts were serious.

I wasn't one of those who suggested Monopoly money.

Or a battery.

My first post on this thread:

Pollycat said:

As for the 'dilemma' - as long as the ceremony is the only 'do' they're having i.e. they are not going to have another one when the real ceremony takes place - I'd do what I usually do when invited to a wedding - buy a gift.

NBLondon

Amazing how people are leaping to conclusions about the groom's motivation...

Perhaps we need to separate the terms "marriage" - the legal thing and "wedding" - the event.   As Welshwizard points out - you can have a Humanist wedding and a civil marriage as two sperate events and the latter is optional.

There might be a very good reason the divorce hasn't come through and the family are going through with the celebration, the reception etc. with the legal niceties to be added later.  Which is fine as long as a) no-one is deceived and b) they don't expect more money at a later stage.