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

It's a wedding invite one...

535 replies

gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 11:45

In an effort to avoid a few posts in here about me later in the year- I need some guidance on how to ensure maximum reasonableness.

So, wedding next year, were about to book venue. Number 1 choice is somewhere we love, it's a bit luxury and a very special place for us. We're having a medium sized wedding c.70 guests. There's nowhere else that compares for us. Now the problem, they have a rule that all guests must be residents in the hotel- everyone must stay. It's expensive. Most guests don't live locally, so realistically would need a hotel room anyway. We don't have the budget to pay for the rooms for everyone. Some of our guest wouldn't bat an eyelid at the cost, some wouldn't be able to afford it. We could probably pay 50% of total room bill in our budget. So subsidise all rooms until they cost £50-75 per person ish? How would we even begin to word it on an invite?

How do we avoid being unreasonable? Should we give up and look elsewhere?

Thanks

OP posts:
AugustaFinkNottle · 22/04/2016 14:38

andintothefire, the trouble with that suggested wording is that there is no way to overcome the fact that OP would be saying "If you want to come to my wedding you're going to have to subside me to the tune of £75 per person in addition to travel costs, even if you don't want to stay overnight, and if you're too poor for that you're not good enough to come to the wedding."

AugustaFinkNottle · 22/04/2016 14:38

Agh, subsidise, not subside.

DinosaursRoar · 22/04/2016 14:39

havalina1 - some of the guests live in the area though,so might either not want to stay over at all or would want to stay somewhere cheaper near by.

Honestly, if a venue can't accomodate a 'local bride' who's guests don't want to all stay over, they shouldn't be doing things like having a restaurant open to non-residents, or allow conferences or meetings to be held at the hotel that don't include guests staying over. They will have some flexibility, even if they pretend otherwise.

Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 14:40

Lavender it's not sole occupancy.

It's not that guests must stay I guess, I think what they are saying is there must be sufficient rooms paid for to accommodate all guests. I will clarify.

OP posts:
AugustaFinkNottle · 22/04/2016 14:41

Yes, whatsthatcoming, it says so on their website (quote from it posted upthread).

I suppose they police it by having ever such a polite person on the door who asks everyone coming in where they're going, and if they say it's the wedding they're firmly escorted to Reception to book in.

andintothefire · 22/04/2016 14:42

andintothefire, the trouble with that suggested wording is that there is no way to overcome the fact that OP would be saying "If you want to come to my wedding you're going to have to subside me to the tune of £75 per person in addition to travel costs, even if you don't want to stay overnight, and if you're too poor for that you're not good enough to come to the wedding."

I just wouldn't mind paying that amount. I completely understand that it may not be appropriate for all families however. I tend to think that weddings are very expensive for the bride and groom and I would always prefer to stay overnight at the same venue (at my own expense). I wouldn't see it as subsidising the wedding because ultimately I would be getting a lot for my £75, and the opportunity to celebrate and stay in a lovely venue.

It would however be odd wording and a bizarre situation if the venue is in fact close to where any of the potential guests live. I assume it is not however because of the location of Gleneagles.

AugustaFinkNottle · 22/04/2016 14:43

OP, their website says "Please be aware that Gleneagles can only host weddings and wedding receptions when all guests attending are also resident in the hotel." That doesn't sound to me like your interpretation is the right one, unless they're prepared to relax that rule.

agapanthii · 22/04/2016 14:43

It's clear you have decided to go ahead.

Just be super gracious and don't huff and puff when some people surprisingly to you, decline ....and don't take offence and feel wounded if they come but make a comment about 'having to book this hotel' .....or if someone at your hen night says something about 'not having a choice' and ......don't get exasperated when, despite your clear communication about having to stay onsite, great aunty edna just books the B&B down the road.. It will be your job to graciously and without fuss get her into your wedding ceremony and to square it with the venue.

Because all these things WILL happen unless you present the room as a fait accompli and cover the cost....and you will be back here with an AIBU?

DinosaursRoar · 22/04/2016 14:44

OP - go in hard when you 'clarify' - focus on having local guests who won't want to stay over, that it's pointless booking rooms that won't be occupied, if they are prepared to let non-residents eat in the restaurant that same evening, then how to the justify making you book a bedroom for all your guests when they don't want/need to stay over?

Push them a bit. Say there's only half the guests who'll want to stay over so will only need 30-35 rooms at most. See what they say.

andintothefire · 22/04/2016 14:46

Ps I would also add wording (again in a more elegant way) that the presence of the guests is enough and no wedding presents are expected!

ExasperatedAlmostAlways · 22/04/2016 14:46

I had a babysitter for the night of the wedding. However it was arranged by myself and it was a girl I know and trust who is a nanny. I'm sure you could find the same outwith the hotel organising it. That Will take one thing off the checklist.

weirdsister · 22/04/2016 14:46

What a bizarre rule! It's such a shame. I hope the hotel agree to be a bit more flexible for you.

Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 14:46

I will definitely do that dinosaurs- the tip earlier about it not being required for conferences is helpful

OP posts:
SwearyKnickers · 22/04/2016 14:53

That's a weird set up they have. I'd look else where or ask if they will allow you to pay some sort of non room fee thing. YOu really can't ask guests to pay for their rooms.

Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 14:55

It's just a crap rule.. If it wasn't there we'd pay the wedding, food, drinks, extra activities and as I said I reckon 75% would book rooms anyway. Yet, they might not get the booking at all for the sake of 25% of the room booking value.

OP posts:
SwearyKnickers · 22/04/2016 15:02

gin those things won't matter on the day. ANy nice venue will do the same and honestly, I barely remember the day anyway! I actually think you should give them a miss it's a real asshole move. It might even be designed to keep the riff raff out.

ExasperatedAlmostAlways · 22/04/2016 15:03

It's strange because we had a big family reunion of about 100 people and there was no rule like that. Think only about ten stayed. I wonder if they make that rule to actually try deter weddings or to make sure that the type of weddings they do attract are the right "type" of people who could afford to stay there anyway.

SwearyKnickers · 22/04/2016 15:03

The money you'd save paying for their rooms could go toward something really special somewhere else.

Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 15:06

Cheers sweary, can't have the wedding i want and now I'm riff raff too 😉

Honestly, I just want somewhere pretty and a bit different where were all in the same place and I can put the little one to bed without worrying And the people travelling have somewhere nice to sleep. Ideally with some great food, a bar and a decent band with everyone in the same room.

I had no idea it was going to be so difficult.

OP posts:
Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 15:07

Exasperated- that's interesting!

OP posts:
quarkandmarmite · 22/04/2016 15:08

I actually sympathise with you Ginandtea.

Hopefully, 'weddings are a once in a lifetime' and whilst we endeavour to accommodate our nearest and dearest as well as trying to ensure 'our' day is about 'us' and incorporates all 'our' dreams and wishes, there will be SOMEONE who won't be happy with your decision, unfortunately.

Even compromises have to be made with our 'dream-come-true-wedding'.

I had to make sacrifices. I wanted a 'large' wedding of about 80 guests - church wedding, wedding breakfast and evening entertainment with photo booth, casino, soft play for the kids and a disco/band. It wasn't to be! DH is an introvert and wouldn't have liked being centre of attention of so many people.
So my wedding was still in a lovely mansion type hotel, but with just 32 guests, civil ceremony, wedding breakfast and then quiet evening in the drawing room with a small buffet (which nobody ate because it was mainly older people who were just about dead on their feet at 8pm!) and we had only 2 children - groom's toddler and friend's six month old baby who was breastfed (we said no children because there was nothing for them and they would be utterly bored).
I had one person who couldn't even be bothered to respond to my wedding invite - a friend whom I was bridesmaid for 8 years previous (although her mother tried her best to remove such a role from me because she was worried I couldn't walk down the aisle after a car accident - the bride's car! It was utter tosh and actually looked down her nose at me - they're 'upper class' let's just say!) The reason (I think) she didn't respond and thus never spoke to me again was because I said 'no children'.I had other guests who understood and abided by the rule but she was 'apparently' pissed off. if she was having trouble with childcare, I would have allowed her children to attend (ages 7 and 2) because it wasn't my dislike of children (am a teacher) it was because I didn't want to put undue pressure on the parents and allow them to relax and have a good time!

IF this is truly your dream wedding venue and you don't think you would be happier anywhere else (I understand - I married in my 'home' county a good 150 miles from home and most people had to travel with us) then I think you should go for it. You said 75% wouldn't have an issue. If some guests regretfully decline and cite accommodation costs, you could always then offer to pay for their rooms. At the end of the day, it is up to the guests to accept or decline but anyone declining and then give you the snub because of where YOU want to get married, then they're not really friends are they? I had to explain to a lot of my friends why i couldn't invite them to the wedding (cost was because of it as well as DH being an introvert) and apart from that one friend with children, the rest understood and wished me well anyways!

if this was me, I would book my wedding at Gleneagles (despite their stupid rule), pay half for everyone's room if that is what you can afford. You might be pleasantly surprised!

But you also sound lovely for thinking of your guests when it is YOURS and YOUR FIANCE'S day!

Original poster
gininteacupsandleavesonthelawn · 22/04/2016 15:12

Thanks quark.

Our close friends and some family love a drink and a party so really would make the most of all being in a hotel with bar etc- the breakfast together the next day. If I can find that feel somewhere else I really would consider it.

This daft rule has taken the shine off somewhere I really love.

OP posts:
PoshPenny · 22/04/2016 15:12

I'd look for another wedding venue and go stay at that place for your honeymoon if it's that special. Your wedding, you call the shots, not the hotel. If you were wanting exclusivity that's a completely different matter, but not the case here.

DownInFraggleRock · 22/04/2016 15:13

I went to a wedding there.... Their accommodation rules were a great icebreaker at all the tables.... Talked about more than the bride and groom! I think the only wedding I've been to with more discontent guests was the one were you paid for tap water! Your guests may be polite and say nothing, but people really don't like to be forced into something.

lilydaisyrose · 22/04/2016 15:13

You seem determined to poo poo every other venue suggestion OP - I live very near Archerfield and am a frequent visitor to cafe/for walks etc - and there are certainly local taxi companies, plenty of them! In fact, I've got a taxi home after a supper club thing there recently (and thought the food was fab).