To think it's really cheeky to remove Christmas flowers from the altar for your wedding

[user1485342611]

A good friend of mine is on the flower team for our local church. They did the altar up beautifully for Christmas. A wedding had been booked in the church for a few days after Christmas and they wanted to remove all the flowers and replace with their own arrangements. It was explained to the B&G that once the Church was decorated for Christmas it had to stay that way until 12th night.

The couple kicked up an almighty fuss and said there was no way they wanted red and white flowers on the altar during their wedding. Then, with no permission, they went into the church, removed all the Christmas arrangements from the altar and left them at the side of the Church. They then replaced them with their own flowers, and brought the flowers away with them after the wedding, leaving the altar (and the steps outside which were also decorated for Christmas) bare.

They told no one what they had done and when it was discovered my friend and her team (all voluntary workers) who had spent hours getting the Church ready for Christmas, then had to give up more of their time restoring the altar to the way it was. They were absolutely furious.

AIBU to think this was unbelievably cheeky and to also not understand why you would get married at Christmas time and then object to the Church being decorated in a Christmassy fashion?

Plenty of people replying seem to think it's "just" flowers annd they can "just" be put back, in the same way that you'd move a vase from one windowsill to another.

As you have repeatedly pointed out, OP, church flowers aren't like that at all. They are huge massive arrangements in heavy and complicated places involving stepladders for a lot of the work, churches being the buildings they are.

Which is presumably why the B&G's bridal party didn't even bother to attempt to put them back again - too much hassle. Or a complete self-centred disregard for others, or a belief that they were "entitled to do what they wanted because they paid for it", or a FU gesture to the unreasonable people who didn't want them to have their chosen flowers in the first place.

Any way, they were dreadfully, unspeakably rude and obnoxious.

OP's church sounds pretty accommodating and reasonable in their arrangements, which work well for others. Sounds as is expectations were crystal clear and not "sprung" on the B&G. B&G sound as if they just wanted it all their own way and decided to bulldoze past all the existing arrangements to get their own way. Rude.

I think the church should send them an extra bill, and then we can all enjoy the DM sad face from them about the mean horrible church bullies as they pose with their flowers outside.

or a belief that they were "entitled to do what they wanted because they paid for it

They were, because they did.

Allthetuppences Churches are sometimes locked due to theft...my 77 year old Mum church sits, but tells me there have been occasions when older volunteers than her have been threatened if no money is forthcoming from the donations box. Silverware is also nicked.

No Curry - as others have explained, paying for ANY venue does not entitle you to do what you like in that venue.

If someone took a bacon sandwich into a mosque (silly example, I know, but it makes the point) there ould (rightly) be an outcry. The Christian faith is just as entitled to respect as any other. We have our customs and practices which are liturgically based and deeply symbolic. They may not have meaning for many people, but they do for practising Christians.

As OP says, volunteers aren't always available, and even if they are, shay should they (most of them very elderly ladies) have to interrupt their family holidays season because of something like this?

Paying for a church wedding means you can do your flowers. It's an intrinsic part of it.

Paying for a church wedding means you can do your flowers. It's an intrinsic part of it.

Interesting idea. Explain in more detail.
"Paying" what?
Why "intrinsic"?

If it isn't obvious then I can't be arsed to explain it to you.

Sounds like a rubbish church, badly organised. But then, aren't they all?

They haven't paid CurryWorst

They've made a small voluntary donation which OP says is for electricity, cleaning the carpet etc.

There is no profit for OP's church.

The point is that the twats didn't put the church flowers back. Just dumped them in a corner.

CurryWorst do you ever add any value to any thread you post on?

I'm struggling to see the point of your posts. It seems you just enjoy conflict for the sake of it.

I still remember you harrasing an OP for not mentioning her MIL was dead in her OP, when it wasn't even relevant.

There are rules. Just like if they wanted indoor fireworks or dancing bears they couldn't just have them because they had paid their fee/donation so could do what they like, where they liked.

There is a really fundamental issue here around the fees.

If we take the £700 fee that mrs cited upthread, this will have covered the costs of the wedding. Administration, the time of the priest and associated personnel, the choir, organist, heating etc and perhaps also a contribution to the long term maintenance of what is probably quite an old building - e.g. the roof. Nobody is making any profit out of you. Your fee covers your costs and it is NOT a venue hire charge. I wonder if mrs would have been able to be legally married in a comparable venue of similar capacity for less than £700.

If you want to pay your money and buy the right to do whatever you wish with the venue then you need to go to a privately owned business. Even then, as others have pointed out, there are restrictions and if you don’t like them you can take your money elsewhere. I was bridesmaid for a friend who was married in a beautiful grade I listed venue but the restrictions were exhaustive: no confetti, no stilettos, approved suppliers only for flowers and catering etc.

'Paying for a church wedding means you can do your flowers. It's an intrinsic part of it.'

No, no it doesn't. In some churches, in certain parts of the liturgical calendar, Lent, for example, you're not allowed to put flowers all in the church at all, perhaps other greenery, but no flowers. If you don't like that, you marry elsewhere or outside that period of time. Because the church is fundamentally there for Christian worship of God.

If it isn't obvious then I can't be arsed to explain it to you.

Nice try.
Big fail.

LoniceraJaponica

"If I found out a couple of days before my wedding that there was going to be flowers there that weren't mine and didn't match my colour scheme then I would probably have done the same tbh"

In the nicest possible way LassWiTheDelicateAir no-one cares that they won't match. Honestly. No-one will notice

In the nicest possible way Lonicera you have misread the thread. I did not make that ridiculous post about flowers matching. I quoted it because it was so ridiculous. It is obvious from my posts I agree with the OP.

Paying for a church wedding means you can do your flowers. It's an intrinsic part of it.

You can “do your flowers” at any venue - in accordance with their hire restrictions. In the case of this church - use our flowers or liaise with the venue to agree a compromise. If we cannot compromise at this time of year, go elsewhere. Just as another venue e.g. a hotel would be entitled to say “no outside caterers”, for example, and you could decide based on that if you got married there.

You don’t “pay” for the right to do exactly as you damn well please in any venue.

But as it’s “church” people feel entitled to demand “forgiveness & charity” for their bad behaviour and also simultaneously have a chip the size of the Blackpool Tower on their shoulder about restrictions being “unwelcoming” in the first place because they’re fundamentally intolerant of religion but like the trappings of the venue when it suits them.

Entitled Bridezilla arseholery regardless of venue.

Whilst I understand moving the flowers may cause issues, I really don’t think white and red flowers are the best when you know you have weddings booked. They are seen as bad luck!

', I really don’t think white and red flowers are the best when you know you have weddings booked. They are seen as bad luck!'

FFS! The church does other services besides weddings. The flowers and decorations are usually tied to liturgical meanings. You really think a church should coordinate its decorations to fit around weddings? It fits round the liturgical calendar! If you harbour silly ideas about luck surrounding flowers, then look into booking your wedding at a time when the church won't be decorated or can be decorated to suit you (such as outside Lent if you want flowers).

I really don’t think white and red flowers are the best when you know you have weddings booked

This is laughable.

Because having weddings booked takes precedence over the second main celebration for the church. Sure.

The couple could have chosen any other time of the year to get married. Christmas is always difficult if you want a church wedding.

It's amazing that they didn't insist on having it on the 25th, really.

CurryWorst

If it isn't obvious then I can't be arsed to explain it to you.

Think this wins the prize for the thickest response on the thread.

It would have been amazing if the church warden or someone had stopped the bridal party just before they departed with 'before you go, don't forget you need to put the altar flowers back' in front of everyone

"I really don't think white and red flowers are the best when you know you have weddings booked'.

Or perhaps, if you have a superstition about red and white flowers, don't book a church wedding at Christmas time. Why should the entire congregation lose out on traditional Christmas arrangements to satisfy one bridal couple's superstitions?

I can’t believe the number of people who think it is ok to rock up to a church and do what you like to it.
Would they do the same if they were marrying in a registry office if the furniture didn’t match their theme?
Oh and I got married in a church. Didn’t cost me a penny. No one asked for a donation although we did give one to the priest and invite him to our reception.
We didn’t bother with flowers as the church already had flowers and it would be a waste of money to duplicate what had already been done.

I have been cheered by this thread....that posters of all faiths and none have been (on the whole) so supportive and respectful of the church and Christianity. Sometimes MN can feel like a right "no no" place for Christians, so I want to add my two pennorth to say "THANK YOU" for all those that recognise the importance of faith in peoples' lives and the need to respect it, whether you believe or not..

Not red and white, naturally!!

I think church was unreasonable saying a resounding no. Surely a compromise could have been reached. BandG pay a fee for flower team to move them and put them back

To be honest the flowers should have been discussed and agreed with the church beforehand.
At my church, unless there is a very special reason, wedding flowers are usually left to be enjoyed by the congregation at the next service(s).
However, I can easily see why that might not be appropriate at Christmas. On the other hand it was very rude not to replace the flowers already in situ once the ceremony was over or even to square a substitution for the ceremony with the vicar/person responsible for the flowers.
Secondly, it is not unusual for couples getting married on the same day to "share" flowers, which cuts down on the cost somewhat.
We had the opposite issue. Getting married at a family church, but not my home church, there was a special church celebration the next day. We would have loved them to use our flowers, but, although thanked for our kind offer, we were asked that they be removed after the ceremony. So the minister's wife was able to enjoy some beautiful flowers as was a cousin.