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?

Fair enough to not allow anything permanent or could damage the building Margaret, but if we are only talking about flowers then it's harsh to say no.

I suppose if money were no object - think fantasy land money here - what was to stop them simply removing a stained glass window that didn't match their wedding colours, and replacing it with another one?

You don't go into someone else's building and make changes without permission! And when you see someone else doing that, you don't then blame the person whose building it was, whose property has been wilfully damaged!

They're not "only flowers" though. We'd not talking about a couple of vases which could be lifted to one side and then put back. These were complex arrangements, which had been carefully planned and installed, taking hours to arrange and which were intended to stay in place for weeks and not be moved.

The couple chose not to contact the flower team as advised, and they chose to ignore the advise that the Christmas arrangements were not to be moved.

Not sure people should be paying towards the Christmas flowers either unless they want to use them/get a say in what is bought. If the church would buy them anyway, they shouldn't be offloading that as an extra cost onto people already paying for their wedding at the church.

Well we also weren't allowed to dismantle the museum displays or remove their notices - I suppose they could have been put back again, but it would have taken a lot of work. Like their flowers.

Incidentally, I'm sure if the B&G had simply added their own flowers to the church in places where there weren't any (eg pew ends) that would have been ok. But they didn't, they dismantled something that couldn't easily be put back. OP has repeatedly explained that it wasn't a matter of moving them to the side and then just plonking them back in place - reassembling them required ladders and skill, it was essentially doing a lot of the work of putting them up again. Under those circumstances I genuinely can't imagine how you can be so entitled as to not see why it was a problem.

Never mind not being sure why people should contribute to the flowers at their wedding.

I'm not sure why people who clearly have neither connection nor care for the church choose to get married in one.

Actually I do. It's because it's pretty, and usually cheaper than a similar secular alternative would be, and because they feel sure that they can do pretty much what they like without feeling the consequences.

Exactly Margaret.
The OP also clarified that when a couple do choose to contact the flower arranging team within the agreed timescale for specific requests, the team try to accommodate the couples wishes as far as possible.

This B and G clearly didn’t bother doing that and then had the arrogance to just chuck out the existing arrangements and instal their own

'Not sure people should be paying towards the Christmas flowers either unless they want to use them/get a say in what is bought. If the church would buy them anyway, they shouldn't be offloading that as an extra cost onto people already paying for their wedding at the church.'

Then they are free to marry somewhere else if they do not like the terms and conditions the venue/church has given them! It is a place of worship other than being a place where a wedding can be held. Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't like the fee, the decorations, the not-wearing-stilettos or not using fresh flower petals or whatever, you can say NO, and marry somewhere else. As so many have explained, even hiring a secular venue, you have to accept their terms and conditions or go elsewhere. A church, a synogogue, a mosque, a Buddhist temple are there first and foremost as places of worship, which may also offer the sacrament of marriage. Even a hotel, a club, a stately home, must pay for the ability to perform marriages there and they are allowed to set out their own terms for this. Hiring them out does not entitle you to negotiate compromises, or do as you please.

Margaret I think they should have put it back and if they couldn't then I agree they shouldn't have moved them. B&G definitely in the wrong for how they left things but generally, I do think they should be allowed to decorate.

'but generally, I do think they should be allowed to decorate.'

Why? It's a place of worship and they have opted for a religious ceremony. If they had asked to be married during Lent, for example, some churches forbid any fresh flowers, or doing anything to the altar, which is covered in purple cloth in some churches, and you're not to move it. It's not negotiable just because you paid a fee. Don't like it, marry some place else.

Totally smacks of disrespect.

YANBU. Very rude and disrespectful. Hope they got told. I know someone who plays the organ at weddings, some people think she does it for free. They don't realise the time and practising that is put into it, also the talent needed. They wouldn't get their wedding band for free!

There is a sense that church is only a place for dyed in the wool, devout Christians. And that’s not my understanding of the role of the church in terms of outreach and community involvement.
It's not that at all (at least not the churches I've tended to attend. We are usually quite laid back. At the moment I go once or twice a month when i can). I do agree with PPs about this that people want to take take take when they don't actually attend and then the regular congregation should sit back, smile, not be annoyed and not complain because the piss takers will say eeeh that's not christian. You're so exclusive.

Midnight mass at my local cathedral os like that. It's jam packed (which is lovely) but there's loads of international students (uni city) who talk all the way through, take photos, face timing / facebook love etc. I love the quiet reflection of that service and it is hard not to get frustrated especially when there are families at the back standing. I can't help but think it should be perfectly acceptable to say 'welcome to midnight mass. This is a solemn reflective service. Put all electronic devices away and please refrain from having your own conversatoons or you will be asked to leave'.

In the Op's case, the vicar told the couple to speak to the flower team.
The couple did not speak to the flower team (because why would they? They want a pretty backdrop for their photographs and are too full of their own self-importance to follow guidance. After all, it's their day and screw the rest of the congregation or the fact that it is a year round place of worship. Nope. Don't need any manners at all.)
Flowers were done according to the church plan
Couple didn't like it and it didn't fit their vision so they trashed the work of volunteers.

In some respects it doesn't matter much whether it was a church or any other venue. It boils down to this 'entitled couple have inflated sense of self and no manners decide to ignore directions from the person arranging their ceremony and then ruined the work of volunteers because they are exceptionally self centered'.

Just because Joan and Ivy of 60 years of the parish, doesn't mean they're good.
We had a small flower arrangement in our church for our service and donated them for the sunday service too.
But even if we couldn't, we would have still married there because it is our church and faith. It's a community and the religious servive was important.

If 'i paid a couple of hundred so i want my flowers and to hell with the fact it is a place of worship' was the couples attitude then I think that tells the world that they didn't marry in the church because they wanted a religious service. They probably just wanted pretty pictures.

Nearly everyone who has contributed to this thread has ignored the fact that churches are not there to provide agreeable suburban scenery or a pleasing architectural background to wedding photographs. I was a church organist for many years and got heartily sick of over entitled people who have no religious beliefs thinking that churches had to bend over backwards to oblige them. One of my treasured memories is of one of our vicars asking the congregation not to take photographs during the ceremony. Sure enough, he was thirty seconds into the bidding prayer when someone started flashing away with his camera. The Revd laid down his book, went down the aisle to the pew where the man was sitting and said "give me that camera or this wedding is not going ahead. This is the house of God, you are a very welcome guest in it but you will respect it." There was a very long ten seconds until the man, crimson with rage, handed his camera over. The vicar stalked back to the front accompanied to the sound of enthusiastic applause [started, I have to admit, by me]. Later I was told that the wedding guest in question was an arrogant sod whom many people were glad to see humiliated. All of which is to say that I am on the side of the church. If I were the vicar I would write an article for the Parish Newsletter and send a copy to the local paper.

Good on that vicar.
It was the same with the yearly cohort of year 6 kids attending to get in the faith school who drop out once the application is in. The church has many uses but taking the piss is out of order whether you believe or not its about basic respect similar to what you would show a doctor or teacher.

Alternatively, I think the couple should have arranged this better in view of Christmas taking place.

I personally think we should have moved Christmas just to accommodate the couple. After all, it is their wedding

YANBU OP this is rude and selfish behaviour on the B+G’s part. My church sounds like it runs in a very similar way, and I know our congregation, particularly those who had already spent hours arranging flowers, would be unhappy.

Well done that vicar, Geordie1944

Some people on here are mistaking being inclusive with being a pushover. Yes the church should be welcoming, but that isn’t synonymous with allowing people to take the piss, and not calling them out on it because of some misguided notion that Christians should let people treat them like shit

The couple did not pay 'for the use of the church'. They made a donation towards the running of the Church as they were having a church service in that particular Church.

If you pay to go to an opera or a ballet you are not paying for 'the use of the theatre', and cannot just do what you like for the duration of your time in the theatre e.g. eat sweets or stand in the aisle for the performance.You are expected to respect the theatre and the other people who use it.

GlitteryStag
I hear you and I'm aware of some local churches who are like that.

However, the religious service is a religious marriage service. It is not a pretty backdrop for wedding photos.
They could have spoken to arrange alternatives, found another church or found a venue without restrictions.
If need be they could have decided what was important to them: photos or a religious service (and i think it is abundantly clear givem their approach that they were all about me me me and my photos).

Nearly everyone who has contributed to this thread has ignored the fact that churches are not there to provide agreeable suburban scenery or a pleasing architectural background to wedding photographs.

I disagree with your assessment of posters on the thread. Many people have posted comments in the same vein as yours.

I do think they should be allowed to decorate.

People tend to forget that marrying in church is for the religious service, not the religious background.
Just get a plain room and decorate it as you like if that's what you're after.

I'd also say that if people want to criticise or offer advice on flower arrangements, then they should volunteer to do it. That's a lot harder, isn't it?
Good for those ladies, whether they are flower arrangement geniuses or not