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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

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:

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 19:58

Yes, but you only book those rooms on the understanding that guests will need a place to stay and therefore book the rooms themselves. So you'll only end up paying for unbooked rooms. You accept a risk that you'll end up paying something but that's all.

Yes mello but it seems the marketing ploy is that the costs will be recovered- that's my whole point.

The budget is effective based on passing on the full cost of accommodation to the guests.

OP posts:

MaidOfStars · 28/02/2016 20:00

I'm specifically talking about the trend for an exclusive use venue being booked on the basis the cost will be reduced by the amount of rooms other guests pay for

But the cost of the venue/dinner/wedding stuff isn't reduced. The portion of the cost that is hotel rooms is being transferred from B&G to the guests staying in those rooms.

MaidOfStars · 28/02/2016 20:02

The budget is effective based on passing on the full cost of accommodation to the guests
Please can you outline what's wrong with that? What's wrong with guests paying for the accommodation they use (where such a cost is specifically defined?

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 20:02

No offence lois but I completey disagree with that too.

Why ask people to attend a wedding meal then ask them to pay for it?

It would have been much better to have a drink at the bar and no food than expect people to pay for a meal.

OP posts:

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 20:04

maid I'm talking about situations where the costs are in excess of what could be sourced elsewhere or where there's no alternative.

I believe if you specify where guests stay then you pay for it.

OP posts:

maggiethemagpie · 28/02/2016 20:05

Bearbehind must have gone to a lot of weddings where her accomodation was paid for by the B/G.

I don't think I've been to one where my accomodation was paid for. My partner's cousin's wedding, his mum paid for our room but that was nothign to do with the B/G just something his mum did for us as a favour.

Junosmum · 28/02/2016 20:07

Once went a wedding, 8 hour drive away, DH was best man. He stayed in 'suit' with the bestman the night before the wedding and it was suggested I use the second bed in a twin room of a uni friend (female) of DH, which I did. The second night, DH and I were to take the suit.

There was a travellodge down the road, £70ish for the two nights. The wedding hotel- room with friend (who I'd met twice as she lived abroad) £250, suit £410 per night! DH had to tell friend that we couldn't afford £740 for 2 nights. He and his wife had exclusive use and told us not to worry, they'd paid for the whole venue and weren't expecting anyone to pay for the wedding, though a contribution would be lovely, it wasn't needed.

If you go for exclusive use, you shouldn't expect the guests to foot the bill.

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 20:08

As so frequently happens on these kind of threads, those who believe this is a good idea are the very people who've done it

OP posts:

Quietwhenreading · 28/02/2016 20:10

I'm happy to buy a gift, I'n happy to buy a new outfit as necessary, I'n happy to pay for our overnight accomodation and I'm perfectly happy to pay for our own drinks (which some MNers don't like).

I expect to be allowed to choose where I stay, not have it dictated to me by the bride and groom. We don't always stay at the venue.

However if we do choose to stay at the venue, I expect to pay the going rate, not an inflated price. (actually it's more common in my experience to receive a slight discount)

I'm not keen to pay towards someone's honeymoon really but will happily give vouchers or a charitable donation if asked nicely.

Buck I'm shocked re your comment that you received bank details before invite - I really think I might be busy that day.

We actually had exclusive use of our hotel thinking about it. However it was a boutique type hotel with only a small number of rooms and we gifted them to family.

SevenSeconds · 28/02/2016 20:15

I think it's fine (and by the way I didn't do it this way myself!).

My understanding is that the bride and groom suggest the hotel, but guests choose whether or not they stay there, so they can easily go for a cheaper option if they prefer. If the wedding is not local then accommodation is an expected cost for guests.

rookiemere · 28/02/2016 20:17

Argh I'm drawn back like a moth to a flame.
Bearbehind we didn't do it. We looked at a place that was exclusive use, but it was more of a country mansion rather than a hotel and it was too expensive so in a way I'm kind of proving your theory.

However provided B&G are not press-ganging people to stay at their hotel,and they aren't the only hotel within a 30 mile radius, then I really can't see what the problem is with charging people for hotel rooms that they are happy to pay for.

I do think in the other thread the hotel is being a bit to blame for this. They've passed all the risk on to the B&G and it's actually in their best interest if people don't stay over as they save in cleaning, laundry and breakfast.

maggiethemagpie · 28/02/2016 20:17

That's my understanding too SevenSeconds, that the guests have some choice in the matter, otherwise it is a bit unfair.

Guests have to factor in the cost of travel, outfit, gift, accomodation (if not local) and decide whether to attend or not, rather than attend and then complain that the cost is too high or that they shouldn't have to pay for this or that.

ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 20:18

Hold on a second, no-one is suggesting that the guests staying in the hotel foot the bill for the entire venue surely? They are paying for the overnight hotel room that they choose to occupy.

B&G still pay for the wedding breakfast, entertainment, evening buffet, cake stand and knife (we did back in the 90s) and other stuff.

BTW, I don't think it's unreasonable that guests pay for their hotel rooms and I did not have an exclusive hire venue.

If guests weren't prepared to pay for their overnight accommodation, then they were perfectly entitled to have not attended.

Sunshine87 · 28/02/2016 20:19

Surely the previous thread of 18 pages was enough to dicuss? I find it odd you would create another to dicuss it further. Are you trying to goad the previous OP who had issues with her rooms for her wedding?

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 20:25

I completey agree that as long as there's options it ok.

I think my overriding sentiment with this is you should do what you can afford to do and anything else is a bonus but doesn't seem to be the angle everyone approaches weddings from nowadays.

OP posts:

ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 20:27

I can see why the OP in the original thread bowed out of it.

The desire to see 'grabbiness' in every tiny thing an MNer does is exasperating after a while.

expatinscotland · 28/02/2016 20:55

'MN is really sour and mean about weddings.'

Because so many are ridiculous. Venues in the middle of nowhere so guest have to stay overnight, on weekdays so guest have to take a day or two off work, tacky touts for money or 'pay for our honeymoon', restrictions on what you can wear/no kids, tight-first 'evening dos' (again, increasingly with touts for money in the invitation), destination weddings, overnight stag and hen dos.

You read about couples on MN with 2 or more kids moaning that they 'can't afford to get married'. It's £200 at the registry office. You don't even need rings, it's not a legal requirement. But they don't want to get married, they want a wedding.

BillSykesDog · 28/02/2016 21:02

Some people on MN are mean and sour over weddings. I swear if someone came on here saying they were getting married in a Tesco dishrag with just two witnesses and having a Big Mac afterwards they'd be told they were up themselves because they could have got a cheaper dishrag at Poundland and had a cheeseburger off the McSavers menu.

I honestly think that to some people admitting that there is a bit of happiness in your life is a red rag to a bull and just makes them as determined as possible to pull OPs as far down to their own level of bitterness and unhappiness as they can.

Original poster

Bearbehind · 28/02/2016 21:07

bill that's really not true.

There's a world of difference between being so entitled and self absorbed that you genuinely believe you are doing your guests a favour by allowing them to attend your wedding and doing what 'normal' people do which is have a wedding which is within their means and one where the wellbeing and enjoyment of the guests is a long way up the list of priorities.

OP posts:

Workstressagain · 28/02/2016 21:36

I don't know anyone in RL with the attitude to weddings which is prevalent on here. Often posters seem affronted at the very idea of being invited to a wedding. All the rants about staying, outfits, kids/no kids, presents.......it often gets really snide. Personally I love being invited to weddings, don't expect all my drinks paid for all night and would far rather give cash or vouchers than a random gift that the couple might not need or might not be to their taste. I really hope we haven't accidentally invited any MN wedding haters to DDs wedding this summer!

ZedWoman · 28/02/2016 21:46

*Some people on MN are mean and sour over weddings. I swear if someone came on here saying they were getting married in a Tesco dishrag with just two witnesses and having a Big Mac afterwards they'd be told they were up themselves because they could have got a cheaper dishrag at Poundland and had a cheeseburger off the McSavers menu.

But that's MN in general. There seems to be a sackcloth and ashes martyrdom mentality that's a bit vomit inducing at times.

'AIBU to be annoyed at my parents for spending £5 on DD's birthday present when they are multimillionnaires?'..........'YABU and grabby - my parents are multibillionnaires and they bought me a twix for Christmas but they love me and that's all that matters'.

'AIBU to be annoyed that my multimillionnaire grandmother left my brother £90 million in her will and left me a hotpoint tumble dryer'..........'YABU and grabby - it's her money and you have no right to expect any of it.'

It's all very predictable.

DinosaursRoar · 28/02/2016 22:06

OP - I think you are looking at this the wrong way - it's not subsidising the wedding costs - for many couples, they don't want other people who aren't part of the wedding party at the hotel, while they've got particular function rooms booked, they don't want 'randoms' in the bar or gardens, to know everyone wandering about is either a guest or staff.

In order to do this, they only want the hotel to sell rooms to people who'll be one of their guests, and are prepared to pay for the other rooms to cover the hotel not offering them for general sale. The "exclusive use" just means the hotel isn't taking the risk that they will have turned down other non-wedding custom for an empty hotel, the couple are taking the risk that they'll have to cover the cost of a lot of rooms if their guests don't book them.

It doesn't mean it's not within the couples needs to not pay for all the rooms of an exclusive use wedding - the wedding itself is often perfectly affordable but do they run the risk of either their guests not being able to book a room in the hotel if they don't block book them in advance (we went to a wedding when that happened as there was a sporting event happening the following day about a 20 minute drive from the hotel, lots of people attending that had just booked the hotel already before the wedding invites went out and some family couldn't get rooms), or just don't want to have other people in the hotel and are prepared to pay for any empty rooms to stop that happening.

(this is of course rather different for couples who sell on the rooms for more than they would have been to just book that night if offered for general sale, then yes, that is subsidising the wedding)

DinosaursRoar · 28/02/2016 22:18

So basically - I don't see it as "funding the wedding" if I book a hotel room and pay for it, but have had the B&G effectively reserve that in advance on the chance enough of their guests will want to book rooms and have agreed to pay for the rooms if their guests don't book.

I would never expect to stay over in a hotel for a wedding, either at the venue or another hotel near by, and not pay for that room myself, unless perhaps I was part of the wedding party.

YouMakeMyDreams · 28/02/2016 22:21

I don't see it as the bride and groom benefiting from it though. It is them paying up front for the rooms and being paid back. Like other posters have said if the hotel charge £150 and the couple are charging £250 that's not on but booking exclusive use to then people paying for their own hotel room I just don't see as a problem.

MidniteScribbler · 28/02/2016 22:35

I'm not a fan of the trend of destination weddings. Any event where you expect 90% (or more) of your guests to take days off work, travel, and spend a fortune on accommodation is not being considerate of your guests, it's selfish. Expecting the guests to stay in your special hotel and subsidise your wedding is even more selfish.

If you are a close friend, you happen to live a distance away from me, and you invite me to your wedding held in a local to you location, or closest to your families, and said that there were rooms available in the hotel if I wanted, or here's the number of the local b&b, travelodge, etc, then I don't have an issue with that.

Flip

1 2 3