Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

TO SAY Ed Mibands low-key wedding made a pleasing change in a time of struggle for many.

53 replies

ScousyFogarty · 28/05/2011 11:25

I do know it has become fashionable to spend a fortune on weddings. (Even
creating crucifying debt)

In that context, I suppose Ed Milibands low-key do was a change. And with their history they have a good chance of making it last.

These things are tricky because we have a very unequal country. And the "CUTS" which are to come will not really effect us all.

Do ostentation and poverty go hand in glove? Not very easily in my opinion

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 28/05/2011 11:27

Low key is not the same as cheap. I expect it cost a fair bob or two.

UrsulaBuffay · 28/05/2011 11:29

Bloody hell, an OP that's not as random as a duck's arse.

Original poster
ScousyFogarty · 28/05/2011 11:32

Yes, it probably did. But ordinary people are said to be putting themselves in debt to the tune of 20 grand these days.

People naturally want to show off at weddings; but their is showing off and
devil may care ostentation. (Weddings are of course public in the legal sense.)

It has to be said I did not jump in very quick

OP posts:
Original poster
ScousyFogarty · 28/05/2011 11:33

URSULA You are clearly more familiar with ducks arses than myself

OP posts:
TheSecondComing · 28/05/2011 11:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
ScousyFogarty · 28/05/2011 11:41

SecondComing. I have heard this story about Dave Camerooneys
700k hmmmm

OP posts:
Ariesgirl · 28/05/2011 11:53

The DM and all their little minion are being foul about this wedding. Predictably.

Elllllabellllla · 28/05/2011 11:58

Didn't plainasapikestaffJustine'snightie Temperley dress cost thousands?

edam · 28/05/2011 12:03

They both look very happy but that's an interesting choice of hairstyle for the bride...

motherinferior · 28/05/2011 12:07

I thought her dress was lovely. And I'm not usually a wedding person.

ccpccp · 28/05/2011 12:29

The Millibands are loaded and the CUTS wont affect them at all.

Its good of her to allow her wedding to be used to make an austerity statement for the Labour party though. No doubt he had to buy her off with a few extra carats of jewelery.

Original poster
ScousyFogarty · 28/05/2011 12:38

Austerity show for the labour party and public decency. Good manners if you like, ostentation does not go down well in full view of poverty

Thats why we split in classes and live different lives. I suppose. Ask Gabby Logan she knows the score

OP posts:
TheCrackFox · 28/05/2011 12:44

He only got married for political reasons. I honestly think that if he wasn't leader of the Labour party that they wouldn't have bothered getting hitched.

His suit was bloody awful, he looked like a complete prat.

socka · 28/05/2011 12:47

What crackfox said

Finallyspring · 28/05/2011 13:34

Wow ! What's happened Gabby ? I agree with you, and you've made your point without random sprinklings of capitals.

izzywhizzyletsgetbusy · 28/05/2011 13:36

The cost of a hastily arranged 'low-key' wedding at a boutique hotel is way beyond the reach of the majority of the population.

As is a Savile Row suit and a couture wedding dress even though these two have managed to make their costly attire look if they bought their clothes from their local Oxfam shop and got dressed in the dark.

This marriage took place for one reason only; namely, the political aspirations of the bride and groom.

The only thing remarkable about it is why a card carrying member of the Labour Party would choose to wear a blue tie?

ccpccp · 28/05/2011 14:19

Gabby is a card carrying Tory ScousyFogarty. Or so I've heard.

herbietea · 28/05/2011 14:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheSecondComing · 28/05/2011 14:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hairfullofsnakes · 28/05/2011 14:30

It wasn't that cheap and her dress was around £1,600 but even so, if people want to spend a fortune on their wedding why shouldn't they? As for the Camerons, they have a shit load of money and her family have a lot so if they want to spend a lot on a house why shouldn't they? I'm no massive fan of them but why shouldn't they spend their money as they want?

herbietea · 28/05/2011 14:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

troisgarcons · 28/05/2011 14:35

I wonder if he will bother to put his mname on the childrens birth certificates now:

*So indifferent is he to the formalities of family life that Mr Miliband is not even named on his son?s birth certificate. Following his unexpected elevation to the post of Leader of the Opposition, he is said to be planning to ?get around? to marrying Miss Thornton, 40.

Daily Telegraph, Sept 2010*

Political expediency I'm afraid.

Elllllabellllla · 28/05/2011 14:37

I just cannot bear either of them.
They strike me as the sort of tedious, politically right on, teetotal, tweed wearing vegan types that would bore the pants off a dinner party in seconds.
Oh, and loaded to boot whilst pretending to be in touch wiv da masses. The absolute very worst kind of organic elderflower wine champagne socialists there are.

AKissIsNotAContract · 28/05/2011 14:46

Maybe they are just not 'wedding people'. They obviously love each other and have shown their commitment by having children. They probably did marry because of his political career but it's not like it's a sham marriage.