Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To expect wedding guests to book a room at the hotel we've booked for exclusive use not the hotel down the road

423 replies

maggiethemagpie · 25/02/2016 19:04

So we're getting married.... we have booked an exclusive use hotel which means we will be charged for all rooms that are not filled. The wedding is on a Sunday so quite a few guests are going home on the Sunday night and not staying over. That I don't have a problem with. But one couple have booked two nights in the sister hotel to our hotel (so similar prices) as they could not book a room on the Saturday (as it is being used for another wedding). Despite knowing we will have to pay for all the rooms in 'our' hotel they are refusing to move hotels as they don't want the inconvenience.

I probably am BU as I know it was our choice to take the risk of an exclusive, and they can stay wherever they want, but as we will likely not fill more than half of the rooms we are facing a massive bill now (like 1.5k) and it just seems a bit unfair if they're staying in the sister hotel down the road just because they can't /don't want to move on the morning of the wedding.

Really wish I had not booked an exclusive venue now, especially on a Sunday night.

OP posts:
FlipperSkipper · 26/02/2016 13:39

I've stayed at that hotel a couple of times, and it definitely only works as an exclusive use venue - there were four of us chatting in the lounge (not quiet, but not massively loud) at about 10pm and the people in the room above complained about the noise, you couldn't stay there when a wedding was going on without being part of the wedding.

I wouldn't pay £150 for one of their standard rooms I'm afraid, although some of the rooms are lovely, the standard ones aren't worth that.

lorelei9 · 26/02/2016 13:43

As a Londoner, I don't see the connection. Yes I know things are extortionate, the knowledge doesn't change the fact of it.

Especially when you've made it clear how you view your guests, what with only "the important" ones staying over and everything.

Original poster
maggiethemagpie · 26/02/2016 13:52

You're loving that I said it like that, aren't you!

OP posts:
Bearbehind · 26/02/2016 13:57

You're loving that I said it like that, aren't you

What an odd thing to say.

I'm sure no one is 'loving' the apparent disdain you are showing towards many of your guests.

Original poster
maggiethemagpie · 26/02/2016 13:59

Well you have mentioned it more than once so I think you are taking some enjoyment on some level, from being a bit goady.

You can say it again if you like - why stop now?

OP posts:
Bearbehind · 26/02/2016 14:02

oP, for a start you've mixed me up with lorelei, although we have both commented on your views on your guests, but you're really not coming across well now.

lorelei9 · 26/02/2016 14:02

Actually I find this thread really saddening so I'll clear off now!

zenaria · 26/02/2016 14:10

I must be unreasonable as well then, because I think they comments above are quite harsh! lol. I can totally see where you are coming from. I would assume you are inviting close friends and family to your wedding who care about you and the situation you are in. You cannot accommodate for everyone. It is your wedding and your guests should feel privileged to be invited. Its not nice to have to change hotels; yeah, it sucks; whatever - its a simple thing to ask for the honour in sharing your special day. Life it too short to cause someone such angst on one of their most important days in life. The only exception to this are people with special needs, of course, or young kids. Those issues make packing up properly difficult. Good luck. What is reverse?

zenaria · 26/02/2016 14:22

I should have read more before commenting - I'd only read the girst page, apparently. £150 a night at your hotel and therefore I would assume £300 for a couple to say in a hotel for a weekend.... hmmm. That puts their attitude in a bit more perspective. That's a heck of a lot of money for the inconvenience of not staying in the same place for two nights.

diddl · 26/02/2016 14:42

It's not just the money though, is it?

There's no advantage to them to moving or surely they would?

The only advantage is to the Op who would be able to take the cost of the room off her overall cost.

That would make me even less likely to move!

maydancer · 26/02/2016 14:58

I am a little surprised by some of these responses.If you were going to the wedding of someone dear to you and they approached you and said 'Look we have been awfully naive and the hotel has done a number on us by pushing us into exclusive use.We are going to be £2k out of pocket,it will cost you no more to stay at this hotel', would you really not want to help the B&G, your hosts, out on their big day,even if it meant a little inconvenience?'

LeaLeander · 26/02/2016 15:06

I think these are cautionary tales for people planning their own weddings.

In this day and age when most people being married have slept together, lived together and even had children together, the actual nuptials are not exactly a life-changing milestone and to everyone but perhaps the bride and groom, something of a major anti-climax. And in the past few years both in real life and in reading online etiquette/lifestyle/etc. message fora there seems to be a wedding-guest backlash brewing - people are becoming really fed up with the expectation they will travel, spend hundreds or thousands, use vacation time, buy gifts on demand from a registry and otherwise upheave themselves to "support" people who have been trundling along just fine without marriage vows.

There used to be a pattern of modest, local weddings that didn't suck up an entire day for guests, nor pose the expectation that people from afar must attend - followed by the bridal couple spending their budget on a private trip for two to a dream venue, whether that was a cottage down the road or a round-the-world cruise or something in between. In the last 20 years for some reason (wedding-industrial complex?) the pattern has shifted to where the bride and groom want everyone else to join them at their "dream venue." It's weird when you think of it. Wouldn't carefree time spent alone on honeymoon with one's beloved be more attractive than organizing a costly pageant that obliges so many other people to spend time and money for very little benefit to them? Even people who wish you well, past immediate family, likely would be satisfied with a photo or a YouTube video rather than going through the same old routine.

My carpenter got married the day after Christmas at his mother's home, with relatives on hand who already were visiting for holiday festivities. I spoke to him yesterday for the first time and he laughed "It was really nice, we had a nice pastor, everyone was happy, had a glass of champagne and we were on the road to our honeymoon within an hour of the vows! We were so excited to finally be on our wedding trip!" No fuss, no muss. Very happy bride and groom.

BabyGanoush · 26/02/2016 16:22

Lea, yes, I know what you mean. Times are changing, it's the sort of thing that makes me feel old. It is also due to people marrying at an older age, when they have acquired more wealth (and expectations)

I don't think a 26 room hotel (as per OP) is massively extravagant in itself. Hope you have a lovely time OP!

Original poster
maggiethemagpie · 26/02/2016 16:24

We did consider the idea of 'going small' but it is difficult. with a big family on both sides, we would have the disgruntled aunts/uncles not being invited issue. At one stage I did consider a destination wedding with just close family (parents/siblings and families) but even that is not easy. I have three brothers, two with families and young children. DH has a sister with three kids. My mum doesn't like travelling.

So that left either just doing a quick 'register office and meal' thing with close family and friends or going the whole hog. Maybe for some people the register office and meal thing would work but I thought it would feel like we'd not done it properly and as you only do it once i didn't want to forever feel like that.

As we have big families once you start inviting one cousin you kind of have to invite them all. So then we thought heck let's just do a big proper wedding and when I initially approached the venue concerned, I couldn't afford it. Having it at the end of their off peak season (April) and on a sunday cut the venue hire costs by half so I thought ok it's on a Sunday but it's the best compromise between venue/costs/time etc. I think I just need to accept that it is a compromise, that I can't have a saturday wedding on a sunday because most people will have to be at work the next day.

Weddings are stupidly expensive. I haven't been to a non saturday one myself but two colleagues have had or area planning weekday weddings - one said the cost saving was 7k as the venue costs was 3k rather than 10k and that was only for 40 people.

I think that non saturday weddings are on the increase for this reason, so guests will need to decide whether it is worth their while to go or not.

OP posts:
Bearbehind · 26/02/2016 19:06

I really don't understand your thought process OP.

The whole of your last post is about accommodating lots of your family, 'doing it properly', considering those with big families yet you end by saying you've basically chosen what you have because it was cheaper Hmm

Why bother with the first bit if you're going to do what suits you best and is the cheapest option anyway?

It's like you want to be seen to have invited everyone but are happy if they can't come because it's really difficult to attend due to day/ location, because at least you asked.

Runningupthathill82 · 26/02/2016 20:29

OP, I feel for you to some extent, but i think the combination of the cost and location of the hotel will also be putting people off.

I would - and have - happily paid £150 a room to stay over at a wedding at hotels in the likes of the Scottish Highlands, the Lakes and in central London. In places like that, I can tell myself it's a holiday for DH and me, and justify the cost that way.

But to stay in suburbia when there's a travelodge two minutes down the road at Parrs Wood? I wouldn't do it. The hotel itself is nice, but if I were travelling a distance and paying that cash, I'd stay either in a swanky city centre hotel or at a spa hotel type place in Cheshire.

I know and like Didsbury. I lived down the road for a long time. But a mini-break destination? No.

I hope you get this sorted out without being too out of pocket.

CobblerBob · 26/02/2016 21:54

•I bet you're not sick of eating the hideously expensive food or drinking the hideously expensive drink at these hideously expensive weddings Green goth? It's not like the bride and groom are doing anything for you is it?•

wow

It's only E150 - basically the cost of a nice lunch

really?

BabyGanoush · 27/02/2016 08:59

I get your thinking OP

But weddings don't need to be in hotels.

Another option would be a Saturday wedding, but a cheaper one. Hotels cost thousands.

You could rent a village hall, a barn, a field with a marquee, a pub with a garden...

So many non-hotel options

But I would attend a Sunday wedding happily, as I am sure do your guests.

And Shock at £150 for a "good lunch".... How other people live! To be rich!

Boredworkingmum020 · 27/02/2016 09:13

Yes YABU. It's up to people where they stay sounds v bridezilla. Mind you at least you have a choice of hotels. It's better than the people who book their weddings in the middle of nowhere with no accommodation within 10 miles

rookiemere · 27/02/2016 13:22

I do wish people would read the whole thread.

OP has taken a lot of the comments on the chin. Also it's true that there are lots of options where you can hold your wedding, but as OP has already booked her location they aren't terribly relevant or helpful to her.

Oh and all this "well in my day the local vicar would marry you in ten minutes on a Saturday and then people would enjoy a nice cup of tea and a shortbread biscuit that the WI pulled together before going back to the fields to bring in the harvest" seem a bit misplaced.

I remember weddings from 30 years ago that were huge events with a cast of hundreds in a posh hotel. It's really not a new thing. I think what is new or at least not so old, is that in a competitive market hotels have got wiser about how they package the weddings. With most people living locally OP never had a hope in hell of selling out 27 rooms on a Sunday night at £150 a pop.

OP you said you have friends staying at your house on the night of the wedding. Would an option be to contact them and offer them rooms at say £50 per room? That way at least you don't have to come back to other's mess and you've managed to recoup some of the money.

Original poster
maggiethemagpie · 27/02/2016 16:57

Yes I am going to offer last minute rooms to friends for a 'contribution '. About £30 sounds fair. As for the guests in the OPI have arranged a late check out/ early check in for them and they are now Ok to transfer. I visited the venue yesterday and remembered why I'd fallen in love with it so am glad we chose this venue. As it's on a Sunday we've had some people not able to come, mostly distant relatives that we didn't know too well so even with the extra rooms charge we're still coming in within budget for the rooms so should work out okay. Thanks to everyone who wished me well for my wedding!

OP posts:
Bearbehind · 27/02/2016 17:33

For the sake of a few 'contributions' I would rather leave the rooms empty.

If I was a guest who'd stumped up the full £150 I'd be furious that you've practically given the other rooms away.

Gobbolinothewitchscat · 27/02/2016 18:49

I think you have to share any discount across all of the guests or that is very unfair

I think the thing is that this kind of thing happens when people are having a wedding that they cNt really afford. If that's the case, be honest with people re: the room situation. It's not the guests fault if they are not aware that you are relying on their room "contribution"

PurpleDaisies · 27/02/2016 18:52

If I was a guest who'd stumped up the full £150 I'd be furious that you've practically given the other rooms away.

Me too-there's nothing that annoys people more than being treated differently in terms of financial contributions. It won't stay secret.

Costacoffeeplease · 27/02/2016 18:58

Oh god, me too, some paying £150 and some paying £30, that really won't go well when they find out - and I'm sure they will