to take my friend instead of my husband?

[TheUnMember]

My brother is getting married soon. We live abroad and didn't think we'd be able to make it because of the cost. I know that he is really tight on numbers and has rowed big time with his inlaws to be about it. The invite arrived yesterday. It says me, husband, daughter, daughter's fiancé. I got all upset because we can't go (until then didn't think I was that bothered). Husband has raided the piggy bank and thinks we could manage 2 tickets, for me and daughter. [happydance]

Would I be unreasonable to ask my friend to come with me in place of my husband? Would it be really cheeky to ask my brother? We don't have the best of relationships and I don't want to upset the apple cart. But at the same time, my friend is closer to me than most of my family and I rarely get to see her since emmigrating. If I don't get to bring her along, I won't get to see her for at least another year :(

Ask your brother! If the friend has been so close to the family for 20 years, she might be one of those that he would have liked to ask if there'd been more space.

If my sister called and said "Dave" can't come but can I bring "Julie" instead, I'd be happy for her to do that. Julie's not close enough to get an invite in her own right, but she's still someone I'd be pleased to see.

Can I ask out of interest why your daughter is going rather than your husband?

Can I ask out of interest why your daughter is going rather than your husband?

Because it's our side of the family. My husband is stepdad. Since we emigrated his whole family come over to visit several times a year. Nobody on my side (apart from my friend) has ever come over. So he knows it means far more to her than to him. He sees his family every few months, we see ours every few years.

You absolutely can't ask your brother this if he doesn't know the friend.

I'm organising a wedding where space is very tight at the moment (tiny chapel at my old college). It goes without saying that friends who are married/in a relationship/have DC are invited as families. But if one of a family can't make it for whatever reason then that frees up a space for someone else we'd like to invite.

I would be pretty pissed off if people started asking me if I minded them bringing people I didn't know to eat and drink at my and DP's expense, instead of people I actually want to celebrate my marriage with.

You can't bring random, uninvited people to a wedding. The invitations are not transferable. But I think that's been made clear already.

However, I still can't see why you can't fit some time in with your friend if she's prepared to do a bit of travelling.

I'm also somewhat surprised at the engaged schoolgirl status thing too. If your daughter is old enough to get engaged then surely she's old enough to start making a financial contribution to this sort of expense.

Of course you can't, that's beyond rude, it's a small family wedding not a village disco.

The wedding is about the bride and groom
And not some reunion for you.

I'm also somewhat surprised at the engaged schoolgirl status thing too. If your daughter is old enough to get engaged then surely she's old enough to start making a financial contribution to this sort of expense.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that here. Just like the UK, at 18 she's free to choose to marry who she likes and get engaged whether I like it or not. Unlike the UK I am still financially responsible for her until she finishes further education (normally 19 here) or reaches age 21 (which ever comes first).

Actually that's not correct. The system here is so confusing, I'm confusing myself. They can opt to stay in further education until 21 if necessary and parents are financially responsible. Once they enter higher education the state is responsible for financing them and housing them (if they get kicked out opt to move out). Once they start working they are responsible for themselves. Between education and starting work is a bit grey. I think it falls to parents upto 25, unless there are extreme circumstances, because unemployment type benefits are paid by the unions not the state and you have to have worked and paid into the union fund for 2 years to be eligible.