Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To do a straw poll on people's opinions on weddings which are partially funded by the guests

75 replies

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 18:07

Not ATAAT but certainly inspired by one.

I believe that you should pay for the wedding you book but there seems to be a train of thought whereby you book an 'exclusive use' venue where the amount your guests spend on rooms is deducted from your bill.

It got me thinking- would you be happy to partially fund a couples wedding?

Would it make a difference if they were upfront about the fact they benefited from you choosing accommodation at their chosen venue?

Would you be annoyed if you subsequently found out your entire spend had been deducted from the wedding bill?

There's a lot of wedding talk in certain parts of my life ATM but this hasn't been an option anyone I know has even considered.

OP posts:
GinIsIn · 28/02/2016 18:10

Typically when you attend a wedding, you fork out as it is for outfits, gifts, travel, and often a hotel, sometimes for two nights. Surely the guest is already paying enough?! If you can't afford your wedding, you should plan something else!

Littleallovertheshop · 28/02/2016 18:10

I think you should book the wedding you can afford. They're not guests if they're funding your wedding.

Philoslothy · 28/02/2016 18:13

It depends, firstly if you are asking for any help you should not ask for presents. I also think that asking for cash is rude. However we have been to weddings where everyone has bought their favourite dish to make a buffet or donated a skill such as photography and that was lovely

doughnutslikefannys · 28/02/2016 18:13

I personally think you should get married within your means. I dislike when people ask for money for their honeymoon or bill guests for their dinner. I also dislike destination weddings because it simply puts costs and inconvenience onto your guests. Either so it abroad with no guests (like I will be doing in April) or else have t locally, invite everyone you want there and pay for it all.

doughnutslikefannys · 28/02/2016 18:14

Either DO it abroad*

elQuintoConyo · 28/02/2016 18:14

I give £50 cash and a handmade card. I'll stay in a budget hotel to avoid the expensive, and usually equally shit, wedding hotel, if at all possible.

Organise the kind of wedding you can afford. We had no help from family. Those who had flown in (we live overseas), were exempt from buying a gift. Although one lovely friend gave us $50 to go towards our honeymoon - we spent it on bike hire and crossed the Golden Gate Bridge. We had a great time, one of the highlights of our h'moon and she was delighted Smile

Griphook · 28/02/2016 18:15

Weddings are so expensive for guest anyway, mo way would I pay more. And the exclusive use hotel I'd only use if it was a fair and affordable price

YouMakeMyDreams · 28/02/2016 18:17

We looked at a venue that had exclusive use as an option. If the venue had been available we would have booked it regardless of exclusive use but one of the reasons we had looked into having the whole thing was because all our family and most of our friends were travelling and would be books no hotel rooms. By booking exclusive use everyone who was staying would actually have ended up paying much less per room than booking it individually. We would have and could have booked without hiring the whole place but it was t available on our date.
Everyone stayed at the hotel we did have our reception at and payed more than it would have been with exclusive use at the other venue.
I think there is a big difference between booking out a hotel and guests paying for rooms than say charging guests for food. If the guests are staying in a hotel anyway it can make sense to do it that way as it's often cheaper than a per room basis.

Katenka · 28/02/2016 18:18

My issue is that weddings can be expensive to attend.

Especially if add in stag and hen dos.

I have been to a wedding that was byob but it was in a church hall and invitations said strictly there was no dress code. All very chilled and relaxed. And no one needed a hotel as it was local to everyone.

If you have it in the middle of nowhere, where people have to book overnight or get taxis etc, get new outfits, stag/hen dos etc I think it's bloody cheeky

rookiemere · 28/02/2016 18:18

I think you're being a bit disingenuous.

As a wedding guest I'd always expect to pay for my hotel room. I wouldn't expect the B&G to pay it. I'd also expect to pay the going rate for that hotel.

If I found that the hotel normally charged rooms at say for a wild example and not related in any way to any other posts 150 and I was being asked to pay 200 then yes that 's not acceptable.

expatinscotland · 28/02/2016 18:18

If you cannot afford it, don't have it! You don't need a wedding to have a marriage.

TelephoneIgnoringMachine · 28/02/2016 18:19

No. I would never like to have my choices dictated or influenced. People should spend only what they can actually afford, it's one day (albeit a special day) & couples should make more effort to keep in mind that while it's their special day, to everyone else it may be one of a number of weddings that year.

This is precisely why DH & I had a small wedding. People could choose their own accommodation if needed, & the only thing they needed to pay for at the event, was their own drinks. We were very clear in the invitations that we did not expect gifts, but people kept asking so we said as were going on honeymoon, we would not object if people wanted to contribute to our spending money fund. Some people gave gifts, a lot gave various amounts of money, some just surprised us by travelling to spend the day with us. All very gratefully received & we all had a lovely day.

treaclesoda · 28/02/2016 18:21

I wouldn't be pleased at all if I thought I was funding the wedding. I would rather not be invited and the couple had a smaller wedding at their own expense.

Similarly, I would be really angry at being asked to pay towards the cost of a honeymoon instead of a wedding present. I wasn't able to afford to go on honeymoon myself and it would seriously piss me off to pay for someone else to go on their dream holiday.

treaclesoda · 28/02/2016 18:22

Although I don't actually mind giving money as a gift, as long as it is of my own free will. Obviously the couple can then spend it on a honeymoon if they choose. It is just the 'ooh, we don't need any gifts. But please contribute to our honeymoon instead' thing that would piss me off.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 18:23

As a wedding guest I'd always expect to pay for my hotel room. I wouldn't expect the B&G to pay it. I'd also expect to pay the going rate for that hotel

But if, in the case of an exclusive use venue, that room was effectively paid for anyway, would you be bothered that your payment went straight into the B&G pockets?

I have no issue with an 'everyone clubbing toegther' style wedding as everyone knows the score.

I just can't get my head round the sneaky 'getting guests to fund a wedding' option.

OP posts:
ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 18:30

If a wedding is booked at a hotel, I don't see why guests should have their stay at the hotel paid for by the b&g. We got married about 150 miles away from DH's family/friends and if they'd all expected us to pay for their hotel rooms then we wouldn't have invited most of them.

We didn't have exclusive use of the hotel. Guests knew where it was and either booked their own rooms there or stayed in the cheaper travel lodge down the road.

On the thread being discussed, the b&g weren't exactly profiting from people booking to stay at the hotel. More that they weere going to be penaised by paying for any unbooked rooms if guests didn't book to stay there. Fair enough - guests are getting the rooms they pay for and the b&g aren't getting any sort of 'kickback' on the rooms booked. OTOH, guests aren't obliged to stay there.

I still think the letters/poems with the invitation (or worse, 'keep the date' letter) saying 'we've lived together for 15 years and have 3 kids so we don't want any presents but could you send us some cash to pay for the honeymoon' are grabby.

BillSykesDog · 28/02/2016 18:36

Well it is a TAAT isn't it?

If I went to a wedding and I wanted to stay in the hotel where it was taking place I'd happily have that deducted from the bride and grooms bill - the way I look at it, they would just be paying for the room not to be occupied, I would be paying to occupy it so there would be no need for them to pay for it to be unoccupied. Not an issue for me. I would however, be cross if I wanted to stay elsewhere and was pressured not to.

rookiemere · 28/02/2016 18:37

Yes so again using a completely spurious example bearing no resemblance to any thread, if say the wedding was booked at an exclusive use venue with say 27 rooms, and there were more guests requiring rooms than that, how would the B&G decide who gets those rooms?

What about the people who don't get rooms in that scenario - would they feel second rate?

Our wedding was in a hotel, it wasn't exclusive use, but I sincerely hope that there wasn't anyone staying there not at the wedding as we did rather take over the place. Should I have paid for all the rooms at the hotel ? Just to make things clear I also provided details of cheaper options at a pub B&B down the road and we provided a free minibus taxi for the evening so people could get there.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 18:40

I suppose there are all sorts of wider questions. I can see a certain logic in the fact some people need to pay to stay somewhere so why not at the venue but that begs the question 'is a location where people need to stay over necessary?'

OP posts:
ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 18:40

However........ I think it depends on the 'finances' involved. If the b&g had paid, say, £1000 to book all the rooms in a 10 bedroom hotel but then they (b&g) charged guests £250 per room to stay there, I would think that was very cheeky. AFAIK, that is not the case in 'that' thread.

treaclesoda · 28/02/2016 18:40

I wouldn't expect to stay at a hotel for free, at the B&G's expense. I think I've misunderstood this thread though, I thought it was sort of getting guests to contribute to the costs or something? I'm all confused now!

ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 18:44

Bearbehind as I mentioned earlier, DH's family live half-way across the country from mine. Someone was going to have to 'stay over' somewhere, wherever we'd had the wedding. Having the reception in a hotel was logical.

I have been to weddings at lovely venues that have no accommodation. It's a pain as DH then always has to drive or we have to pay a fortune for taxis.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 18:45

It was treacle

It seems the done thing now is to book a venue that costs x then have your bill reduced by the amount the guests spend on staying at that venue.

It's the sneakiness I can't comprehend - I'm sure these guests don't know they are inadvertently funding this.

I've known similar with parties at certain venues where the price is x (ie what they'd usually take on a Saturday night) and the bill goes down if the guests spend more than that at the bar.

OP posts:
Original poster
Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 18:46

It was treacle

It seems the done thing now is to book a venue that costs x then have your bill reduced by the amount the guests spend on staying at that venue.

It's the sneakiness I can't comprehend - I'm sure these guests don't know they are inadvertently funding this.

I've known similar with parties at certain venues where the price is x (ie what they'd usually take on a Saturday night) and the bill goes down if the guests spend more than that at the bar.

OP posts:
Osolea · 28/02/2016 18:52

I wouldn't see it as partially funding a couples wedding if I chose to book a room at the venue. I've paid for hotel rooms for weddings and plenty of other events just because it's easier and makes the thing more enjoyable, so it makes no difference if it reduces a couples bill at the end of their wedding or not.