Money Moral Dilemma: We're funding our child's wedding - do we get any say in how the money's spent?

Jm2207

keithyno.1 said:

A tattoo station and mixologist??! If I were you and your ex-partner I'd withdraw your offer to fund it all pretty damn quick and save yourselves a fortune. And tell your kid that if he/she and their partner want that kind of nonsense at their wedding they can pay for it themselves.

Nonsense? That's harsh, if that's in their interests that's fine but there's nicer ways to word your disagreement. Parading shy unwilling children as flower girls I would say is cruel but many like that so I keep Schtum. As many have said say you will pay for XYZ and if they still want a tattoo station (I think drunk tattoos are iladvised) it's up to them to fund it. How many decent tattoos can be done in an evening and also a reputable tattooist wouldn't tattoo inebriated people 

Eccentrica_Gallumbits

I think it's very kind of you to pay for most of the things for your child's wedding. Not all parents do. However, if you're paying for "most" things - but not "all" things, you need to specify what those things are that you are willing to pay for! It sounds like your child has already decided on a wedding that doesn't comply with your idea of what a wedding "should" be. It's their special day, though. Either offer them a certain sum of money towards it and ask no questions about what they're having because it's their choice, or tell them which things you will cover and limit it to those.

To offer them conditional cover (conditional on them choosing to have things at their wedding which they may not want to have) isn't very nice. It smacks of trying to control the wedding. The same might be said of your wish to have your friends on their guest list. If your child hasn't already suggested them, I'd say they probably shouldn't be invited. You could suggest them to your child but you shouldn't be surprised if they ask you why, given they don't know each other well. I'm afraid that putting money into their wedding doesn't (in my view) give you the right to influence the guest list.

I don't know. I get a bad feeling about this. As it is, I could foresee all sorts of resentments building up underneath the surface, and you and they won't want the memory of their special day to be tainted by things like that. I think you should be very clear about what you're willing to pay for, or how much cash you're willing to donate to their wedding celebrations. If it's the latter, then let them have their mixologist and tattoo station and say no more about it. It's not really my cup of tea, but it's not my wedding, so I would personally keep my nose well out of trying to influence them to have your idea of a wedding. Give the money by all means - just be clear about conditions if you feel you must have them, so that your child can choose to decline your offer, if they don't want to comply.

Q11

This is a really easy one to answer. 

No, no & no! Simple 

inthemix

If it makes your child happy, let them have what they want at their wedding. It's not your wedding. Like others have said, if you wanted your gift of money to be conditional, then you should have stated that in the beginning. I can't imagine they won't buy food/drink, it just may not be up to your standard, which doesn't need to be taken into consideration here. It's not your day.

As for your friends; if your child doesn't know them well, who are you inviting them for?! I wouldn't want people I barely know at my wedding and have to make small talk/niceties just so you would have a better time with your mates there. That's also added expense. 🤷‍♀️
Stop the selfishness and chill out.

Emmia

CapeTown said:

Emmia said:

CapeTown said:

A mixologist and a tattoo artist.... bad tattoos happen after a load of drink. And IMHO it is a very tacky thing. My ex (fb) and I agreed to pay a 1000 quid each for my son and his wedding.  We have given them money towards a deposit for a house and made sure all our  children left university debt free. I think  you would be better placed giving less money for the wedding and perhaps more to house purchase.  All of a sudden the tacky tattoo artist won't be so popular 

You don't have to have real ones - and actually there are lots of health and hygiene considerations in doing this. You could have fake ones though...

Still tacky though. 

I think the tack level depends on who you are. It's best not to judge. (I don't have any tatts). Just as you're not forced to drink champagne / bubbly or get up on the dancefloor at a wedding if you really don't want to. Some people like tattoos, some don't.

Realistically, if there was a tattoo station, and (unless it's a very small wedding) not everyone at the wedding would want or could be tattooed in the time available, so you couldn't be forced to have one, even if there was the option.

Personally I wouldn't offer proper tattoos at a wedding as
1.alcohol regret!
2.lots of people mixing means an increased risk of infection. And for the tattooist (or the couple) there's a risk of being sued by a guest afterwards if the tattoo has issues resulting from the sub optimal hygiene.

Fake ones like a henna tattoo, or those more like transfers can be fun and come off quite easily - so if you had kids attending they could have one. 

ZeroSum

Emmia said:

fuzzybee007 said:

If the wedding is to be a small one, say up to twenty people then I dare say that inviting strangers would not be appreciated but otherwise refusing your request to have three or four close friends share the celebration would just be churlish in my opinion.  They can always fund it themselves if they don’t like it.

The bride and groom could always self fund and not invite the parents?

What is the purpose of the parents friends attending? They don't know the couple, will probably incur expenses getting to / from the wedding... Accomodation, an outfit perhaps... A gift? Doesn't sound like a great proposition financially from a guest perspective.

They do know them, just not that well. The liklihood is if they were invited, they'd probably turn it down anyway. But the correct answer is just for parent to ask bride & groom if ok to invite x, y & z. 

Emmia

ZeroSum said:

Emmia said:

fuzzybee007 said:

If the wedding is to be a small one, say up to twenty people then I dare say that inviting strangers would not be appreciated but otherwise refusing your request to have three or four close friends share the celebration would just be churlish in my opinion.  They can always fund it themselves if they don’t like it.

The bride and groom could always self fund and not invite the parents?

What is the purpose of the parents friends attending? They don't know the couple, will probably incur expenses getting to / from the wedding... Accomodation, an outfit perhaps... A gift? Doesn't sound like a great proposition financially from a guest perspective.

They do know them, just not that well. The liklihood is if they were invited, they'd probably turn it down anyway. But the correct answer is just for parent to ask bride & groom if ok to invite x, y & z. 

And then if the bride and groom say "no, because we want to invite a, b & c..." the parent should accept that.

Edit: of course in  even asking if you can invite X,Y & Z you're making it very difficult for the couple to say "no" especially as you're putting money in...

They'll likely resent it though if your mates do attend, so personally I wouldn't even raise the question.

MattMattMattUK

A gift with strings attached is not a gift, it is a bribe.

You should not be inviting your friends to your children's wedding, it is their day, not yours. Trying to control their wedding will harm your relationship, not strengthen it.

Kittieslovefood

My nephew is getting married and his father wants a similar wedding as his own which was back in the 80s. My sister is no longer with us and he thinks he has the right to pick the guests, decide on the food for the wedding breakfast and to have a religious ceremony. He is constantly quoting that his wife wouldn't like what they are doing, which is totally out of order. My nephew has refused any contributions to the wedding for this reason. It has caused so much bad feeling and upset most of the remaining family yet he keeps on about it. Even the brides family didn't have a say and they are fine with it. It's their wedding and all about them, so they should do as they please, they are paying for it themselves.

Pollycat

Surely the time to set rules on how your money is spent is BEFORE any arrangements are made.
Not after.

Tattooist? At a wedding?
Beyond tacky.