Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

Original poster

Bloody weddings. Did anyone give up what they really wanted? Do you regret it?

25 replies

MrsWishyWashysMinky · 01/06/2019 13:28

DP and I are originally from towns about 1hr 30 mins apart. We now live in a city, which is in the middle.

Originally I hoped to get married in my parish church, and have a reception of sorts in the hall, but when we looked at our friends and families, they're huge. Even cutting out the extra cousins results in approx 100 guests. We also have both worked with big groups of people and tbf, have been invited to the night do of both those weddings.

Option a) get married in my parish and have a reception somewhere near there- feel like DH's lot would moan.
Option b) get married in my parish and have a reception back down near his family- seems like a hassle.
Option c) get married in the parish we attend in the city and choose a venue nearby. Everyone has the same amount of hassle.

Will I regret c?

OP posts:

60secondfacetimer · 01/06/2019 13:31

I would elope.

Gramgram · 01/06/2019 20:25

It is meant to be your day, so have the wedding and reception where you want it.
Have a wonderful day, whatever you both decide to choose.

Theworldisfullofgs · 01/06/2019 20:28

Most people get married where they live.

You usually have to live in the parish to get married in the church...

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Weddings

ShallICompareTheeToASummersDay · 01/06/2019 20:28

Is your preference option a? I would go with that. 1.5 hours isn’t so far that people would have to arrange overnight accommodation, although that does mean someone would have to stay sober. I guess you could lay on a minibus/coach? But that might be £££.

Personally I would do c. 45 minutes is fine and presumably friends live nearby? But it’s your choice!

TeenTimesTwo · 01/06/2019 20:32

Option c sounds most sensible. 45 mins is nothing - we'd just go home at the end of the night which makes the whole thing cheaper too.

Or a.

b Sounds like a total pain for everyone.

Whichever the two of you want actually.

PolarBearBubbles · 01/06/2019 20:33

Do whatever you would prefer and don't concern yourself with people moaning. You don't need to invite people just because you were once invited to their evening do. Surely you just invite people you really care about and want there?
We came to the conclusion that anyone we would put as 'just' an evening guest wasn't important enough to us to be invited at all, so we had full-day guests and nothing else. Made logistics easier too as there was no faffing round waiting for the evening guest timeslot for various things to start, or needing to wrap up dinner quickly so that the evening guests wouldn't turn up and be awkwardly stood at the side.

BeingATwatItsABingThing · 01/06/2019 20:38

I got married in November last year. Our whole day was in a converted barn about 40 minutes from where DH and I live. We live close to my parents so they and some local friends also had about 40 minutes to travel. DH’s family all had 2 hours(ish) to travel.

We did what suited us. If it was an issue for people, they had the right to say no and we weren’t offended by that.

choirmumoftwo · 01/06/2019 20:39

That hasn't been true for some time TheWorld. You can marry in almost any C of E church if you have a qualifying connection to it (and there are many!). Cathedrals are different.
OP, I'd go for option c or elope!

PenCreed · 01/06/2019 20:41

We got married 150 miles from my home town and 400 from where we live, because it's my favourite place and was in the church I consider home. Go for where you want and people will travel if they can. It's your wedding and I know everyone has opinions but you need to go with what suits you.

Original poster

MrsWishyWashysMinky · 01/06/2019 20:41

I feel like as a wedding guest, I've endured too many coaches down country roads and tried to get from A-B-C-A to inflict it on others

I know it's our day but I'd rather people came willingly and not mumping and moaning.

OP posts:

BeingATwatItsABingThing · 01/06/2019 20:45

No one moaned about mine and everyone travelled a minimum of 30 minutes. There were some horrendous roadworks close by as well which caused long delays but still no one complained. At least, not within earshot.

TheCraicDealer · 01/06/2019 20:54

Look, you can't keep everyone happy. Some people will have to travel and consider a hotel for the evening whatever location you choose, so you might as well have the day you want given you're paying for it. I think so long as there are plenty of reasonably priced accomodation options close-ish to where the reception is, travelling up to 1.5hrs is still a reasonable enough ask.

Remember as well the MN mantra, "it's an invitation, not a summons". If people don't want to travel, especially to the evening do, they don't have to go. And if they don't go, that cuts down your guest list without you offending anyone by just not inviting them.

SmarmyMrMime · 01/06/2019 20:57

If there are practical options for accomodation nearby, go with A. It's pretty churlish to whinge about 1hr 30 of travel when there's a perfectly sensible reason to host the wedding there... saying that we've willingly gone 8+ hours to the wilds of Scotland just because friends loved the place and Scottish law allowed an open air ceremony rather than having to be under a structure.

We did have 45 mins travel between our local parish church and reception. We were struggling for venues with appropriate capacity, and sensible costs any nearer to where we live, other than a couple of depressingly corporate hotels near the city centre which was not us at all. Given that most of our family and friends had come from all over and had to stay anyway, a scenic 45 minute drive on decent country roads was well within their capabilities and we tried our best to look after them there. Once back at the hotel/ reception they were able to relax. We did a later ceremony to allow more time for travel (And did we offered cheap camping options which some hardy friends enjoyed!)

Racheyg · 01/06/2019 21:00

I wanted to get married in Las Vegas, my parents and dh against it. I was gutted, but my parents aren't great flyers.

We ended up getting married in a pub which I was happy with but still would have loved the whole cheap and tacky style of a Las Vegas wedding.

If I was in your shoes I would probably go for option c.

BackforGood · 01/06/2019 21:02

I'd have thought Option C was most practical - easy enough distance for most people to travel home if they want to, but, more importantly, easiest for you to arrange, and finalise details if it is where you live now.

Then Option A is also fine.
Option B would be ridiculous. I wouldn't be impressed with a 90 minute journey between ceremony and Reception.

SmarmyMrMime · 01/06/2019 21:03

The only travel I did object to was the hour between the church and extortionate hotel up the arse end of nowhere. We ended up staying at relatives an hour away from both in a triangle as the hotel was too dear and there were no other local options, and no reliable taxis so had to drive anyway.

Then it was one of those days where without warning, the couple buggered off for ages for photos, and stopped off at a pub en-route and left everyone with only coffee and biscuits for refreshment between a 12pm ceremony and 8pm wedding breakfast.

I didn't object to the flight and weekend taken with going, it was the absence of any thought to the guests' comfort and practicalities.

Original poster

MrsWishyWashysMinky · 01/06/2019 21:08

Option C is definitely the most sensible.

OP posts:

mothertobe789 · 01/06/2019 21:17

We are similar to you we live in the middle of both families, about 45 mins away from each at other sides. We got married last year where my family are from, my dad was really ill at the time (has since passed away) so having him there was my priority. Our venue was a hotel with plenty of rooms for dh family and we also offered a bus. Ended up having to pay transport for only about 10 people as most of them stayed over. I would say option A or C, taking 90 minutes out of your day to travel will take up alot of time, your wedding day flies in so you don't want to waste alot of it travelling.

Animum2 · 02/06/2019 08:25

I have family that live in London and Northern Ireland and hubby has family that live mostly in Cambridge, all of whom had to come to London, there wasn't any other way that would of been easier to do it

I would of got married with just 2 witnesses if my husband had agreed but in the end we had a lovely wedding and reception enjoyed by all

Remember it's your day so the only people that you have to please is you and your partner

BarbaraofSevillle · 02/06/2019 08:38

If you pick C, in the city, would that mean that there is a reasonable selection of cheap hotels within walking or short taxi distance for anyone who wants to stay over? Or possibly buses to locations A and B until at least 11 pm?

If you pick either A or B, you'll have a lot of people faced with not drinking so they can drive home (yes I know drinking isn't compulsory, but it's nice to be able to have a glass or two when most other people are), very expensive taxis or limited and possibly expensive overnight accomodation, unless there is a Travel Lodge type place nearby.

Plus it's your wedding, and 45 minutes is hardly the other side of the world, so you choose what suits you best.

bl00dyminecraft · 02/06/2019 08:40

Almost 10 years ago, we had the church wedding that I really wanted, but it was a small do due to costs and we kept it all down to immediate family only.

It was a wonderful day, but part of me regrets this as it just felt it was more a do for everyone else rather than about the commitment we were making to each other. I wish we'd eloped away somewhere with a couple of friends at witnesses.

NailsNeedDoing · 02/06/2019 08:46

Go with option C. Definitely not option A, weddings like that are a complete chore for guests and limit enjoyment for everyone.

KnittingSister · 02/06/2019 08:47

Whatever you do, someone will moan, make sure the person moaning isn't you! Have the wedding you want, they'll have/had their chance.

We had my parent's wedding, because they paid, I've always wished we could have done things a bit differently.

CherryPavlova · 02/06/2019 09:07

Traditionally the wedding is from the brides home, arranged and mainly funded by the brides parents. Not everyone has to go with the traditional option but it means people understand.
Parish church definitely, if it’s important.
We’re doing parish church for our daughter next year with local wedding breakfast. People travel all over for weddings so I can’t see it makes a huge difference where they travel to. Even rurally q like who is that Clee leggings and a T-shirt in the world great big suitcase with a rusty old implement at her mothers yeah

CherryPavlova · 02/06/2019 09:09

Not sure where that last sentence came from - if sentence it is!

I meant even rurally we have pubs with rooms, B&Bs, Airbnb etc Plus friends with spare rooms.

Flip