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?

Pressed send to soon. They also provide and clean, if necessary, the red carpet, heat the church if it's a winter wedding, clean the church after the ceremony, and arrange your flowers or provide flowers free of charge.

Yes, people really don't seem to be getting that the C of E doesn't actually have the option of not permitting couples who don't believe, don't attend and don't understand the significance of floral arrangements from marrying there simply on that basis. By all means advocate for disestablishment. I do myself, although floral displays are low on the list of reasons. But while the established church still exists, you just sound silly saying the church shouldn't allow non-congregants to marry in their venues. THEY CAN'T.

It is quite telling that the people who understand the obligations on the C of E as a state church and the fact that this isn't a venue hire arrangement have almost all come to the conclusion that the B and G were unreasonable.

Callmeadoctor in my church the skill of the volunteers varies obviously just as professional florists have their own interpretations. The woman in charge is highly skilled indeed and one who sadly died recently was as good as any professional florist. The Christmas flowers in my church took a team of six of us almost four hours so 24 hours between us. I did one very large arrangement and a smaller one.

There is a flower fund and the woman in charge spends a couple of days visiting markets and shops before the arrangement day. A church member turned up with a bunch of white roses and people will bring along the occasional bunch. The volunteers and sometimes others cut greenery from their own gardens and at harvest time apples are brought in.

There are also boxes of various props or people bring stuff along. The most amazing Christmas one I have seen was another volunteers interpretation of gold, frankincense and myrrh displayed around the font that used swathes of material.

It personally makes me sad at the lack of respect and the volunteers having to re do them but love all, serve all springs to mind.

No doubt this pair of CF will not be seen again until they want a few pretty pictures for the christening of their offspring.

I hope the font is in the right place and fits into their theme or no doubt they will be chucking it out and installing one more suited to their design.

FWIW, a rabbi would never refuse to marry a bride and groom who were both Jewish, however irreligious they were.

It is not only Jewish law but also English law that prevents rabbis from carrying out interfaith marriages.

IsaSchmisa:

“It is quite telling that the people who understand the obligations on the C of E as a state church and the fact that this isn't a venue hire arrangement have almost all come to the conclusion that the B and G were unreasonable.”

This.

Whether you have a Christian faith, other faith or no faith, this sentence sums up the situation.

A minority have jumped on this thread trying to defend the B and G and have just shown themselves to be ignorant.

Personally I don’t have a particular faith; however, basic knowledge and intelligence tells me that a) the C of E cannot just turn people away purely because they want a pretty backdrop b) donations and suggested donations are not the same thing as a fee c) the B and G chose not to follow the instruction to contact the flower team d) the B and G we’re entitled twats and should have been invoiced for the damage/theft of church flowers

margaret register office costs come in at less than £100 where I live. Hiring a registrar to attend another location is around £400, so similar to church, so people are likely to pick whatever location they prefer and in paying, they feel it affords them certain rights. Not to damage or destroy (nowhere have I defended that) but to decorate with flowers of their own choosing.
Like I said, the church has choices to make. It either takes the rough with the smooth and accepts the obligations of being linked to state as well as the privileges or it gives that up, which would reflect the changing nature of society and then it can be more picky.

Whether donation is the same as fee really does hinge on whether people truly would get the weddding service if they declined to pay the donation. I'm not convinced.
'Suggested' levels of donation imply otherwise or the church would just ask for whatever a couple felt they could personally afford to contribute (if anything).

My point is that as long as churches continue to make themselves available to non-religious people then they have to accept that these people will continue to treat them in a non-religious way and won't necessarily have respect for any religious beliefs or things like Christmas flowers.

They certainly don't have to accept lack of respect.

The B&G were told no, so it wasn't for lack of understanding or information. They chose to go against the guidelines given to them. Wherever they were, they were unreasonable, and they were lucky that they weren't charged for a professional's florist's time to put the arrangements back.

'Suggested' levels of donation imply otherwise or the church would just ask for whatever a couple felt they could personally afford to contribute (if anything).

Suggested levels of donation are guidelines. Some people might feel inclined to donate quite a lot without any need. Others would take the piss, even if they could afford it.
It's about what is fair to keep maintenance, decorations, etc

IWannaSeeHowItEnds
Except you don't pay to have the registrars come out to the the church as most churches (including ones that are not anglican) can be officiated by the minister/vicar.

There is zero point saying 'well they should detach from the state if they don't like it'.
I'm not Anglican so have no particular personal attachment, but the solution to people being entitled CF isn't to reorganise entire national institutions around them!

It is quite telling that the people who understand the obligations on the C of E as a state church and the fact that this isn't a venue hire arrangement have almost all come to the conclusion that the B and G were unreasonable
This ^^
It is not a venue hire arrangement.
It is a religious building where a couple can have a religious service.
If you want a 'my perfect vision' day where you can be the princess for the day then find a venue designed to catering to the every whim of CF.

As many of us have said though, expensive venues come with rules. We looked at one and their list of rules was ridiculous. Add into it their minimum head count to guarantee them around £17,000 and it's not difficult to see why we said 'not a chance' (no way were we spending that on a wedding).
Still for £17,000 we would have had:

• minimum numbers (way over what we wanted)
• limited flexibility in food
• no confetti
• lots of rules about corkage
• no edible favours because of a ban on any external catering other than the cake (even though the price quote was broken up as venue hire + food ... there was no option to hire the venue alone)
• we would had to have had canapees
• a 2 hour 'cocktail hour' whilst they faffed with the room
• bar with set alcohol at shocking prices

And a few other rules as well.

I'd bet that CF couple wouldn't break those rules because they'd get fined. But a church is fine to do what you like.

They'll be back when they want a Christening and will expect the front seats of the service to be blocked off so their friends and family can be sat where they want and take photoa.

margaret register office costs come in at less than £100 where I live

On a Saturday afternoon, in a room with capacity for 100+ guests (which of course is what you're getting with a church)? I don't think you're comparing like with like. Where I live the biggest room in the town hall seats 60 and costs £400 on a Saturday.

Maisy, a solution to not dealing with cf who don't respect your faith, is to remove yourself from a position that makes you obliged to. I suspect the church as an organisation would rather put up with the odd cf than give up the position and privilege it currently holds. I accept that I am biased though, as I would prefer a total separation of church and state. I would support billing them for cost of reinstating the original display, even though I believe the church ought to have allowed a temporary change.

Hotels charging 17k and imposing a whole heap of restrictions are totally taking the piss and deserve to lose business. They get away with it because people tend to enter a weird twilight zone when it comes to weddings and maybe feel there is no choice or that it is just the done thing. It eill change if more people say no.

Bux, I couldn't find anything that said cost varied according to day - I assumed it was first come first served, so you might not get day/time of your choosing unless you get on early. Seating is limited though, I think, so it's true that it isn't an exact comparison.

A friend of mine got married recently in our local registry office. Well over £100 for the smallest room on a weekday. (capacity 16 people including bride and groom) significantly more for a Saturday.

There were numerous restrictions- B and G had to accept the simple flower arrangement and adornments to the room, and one piece of music was allowed from the registry office’s selection.

Quite frankly it’s getting laughable with the small number of posters still trying to defend the B and G’s behaviour and claiming that they’d paid such an exorbitant amount that they were entitled to get rid of the church’s flower arrangements and instal their own (even though they chose not to even discuss this with the church team by the agreed deadline!)

Honestly it’s ridiculous.

If you have a personal gripe with the C of E then just say so - I would have no problem with that, god knows they’ve got enough schisms and problems.

But honestly, the service they offer to Joe Bloggs wanting a marriage ceremony is better bloody value than you’d get in about 99% of alternatives.

Maisy, a solution to not dealing with cf who don't respect your faith,isto remove yourself from a position that makes you obliged to
It's not just about respecting faith in my opinion.
It's about basic manners and not being an entitled CF.

They chose to have their wedding service at venue A.
Venue A said here are the rules
CF couple decide they are so awesome and important that the rules don't apply to them. (And given by so many responses on here they aren't alone in thinking 'i can do what i like because it's my day and my party and all about me)

The fact it is a religious buildings kitted out for worship over a key holiday time and they knowingly destroyed the work of volunteers only adds to the cheeky fuckery.

It doesn't matter what people's opinion of church and state is. The bottom line is they knew the situation and chose to be bellends.

It was their choice to book what was offered or not. They were offered a church decorated for Xmas. If this wasn't acceptable to them they should have taken their custom elsewhere.

Of course my friend couldn’t have gone into the registry office, whipped out their flower arrangements and put in her own, because the office is manned and at all times and people can’t just wander in at will. (Not that my friend would have dreamed of doing that anyway, because unlike the B and G here, she paid her fee and accepted the terms.)

Seems a more straightforward solution rather than singlehandedly trying to uncouple the c of e from the state (although goodness knows, enough individual priests probably want that!) would be for the vicar at the OPs church to keep the building locked up at any time s/he’s not there. Of course then you’ll have loads of people complaining about the church not being welcoming and inclusive

Oh hang on .....

It's almost funny how the CoE, or whatever church this was on, is accused of being unwelcoming to outsiders for not allowing flower swapping and then they are told to suck up if they want to allow outsiders.

I have read this thread with horror.

I grew up attending church but became an atheist during my late teenage years. As a non- believer non-participant I would never choose to get married in a church and fail to understand people who do.

I have fallen out with friend over my refusal to become a godparent. Lacking faith in God rules me out entirely but some friends just couldn't see this.

The church provided rhythm and structure which IMO needs to be replaced for those of us who don't believe. I am keen to participate in my community but haven't found an easy way to do so. Sunday Assembly in London is interesting as a substitute for a Sunday service and is well attended.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Assembly

It's perfectly true that some churches can be unwelcoming ... I did all the wedding flowers for a dear friend and was followed round by a woman whose expression made it clear she expected me to nick the hassocks ... but all too often, IME, it's code for "I've never been here before, I'll never come again and oh look - here's a convenient justification for that"

In an increasingly secular world I really don't expect everyone to know about the church's ways, but as I've said, it seems that some know enough to understand they'll get away with more from "the sweet old buffer in the long smock-y thingy" than they would with that smart type with a posh suit and a clipboard at the snazzy hotel

As others have said, it's not really about churches at all, but CFs and their ceaseless self interest at the expense of all else

There is zero point saying 'well they should detach from the state if they don't like it'.
I'm not Anglican so have no particular personal attachment, but the solution to people being entitled CF isn't to reorganise entire national institutions around them!

Yes, that suggestion is very strange. The solution to having to marry some people who think they're too special to observe rules is to effect one of the most significant changes in the institution's history? Pull the other one.

I'm not C of E either and I do favour disestablishment. But not because of Christmas floral displays.

It doesn't matter what people's opinion of church and state is. The bottom line is they knew the situation and chose to be bellends.

Yeah, this.

One's own personal views on the teachings of the Church of England, the rights and wrongs of the existence of a state church, organised religion generally and whether people who aren't religious should have church weddings mean the square root of fuck all.

Whether donation is the same as fee really does hinge on whether people truly would get the weddding service if they declined to pay the donation. I'm not convinced.

'Suggested' levels of donation imply otherwise or the church would just ask for whatever a couple felt they could personally afford to contribute (if anything).

Saying you're "not convinced" is really just another way of saying that I must be lying, isn't it? Implying that someone is lying just because they don't agree with you, and when the matter under discussion is one they have greater knowledge and experience of, surely should be recognised as a specialised area of CF-ery.

I am a minister. I conduct weddings. My denomination (not CofE) explicitly forbids me from charging a fee to conduct a wedding. I do not accept any money for my time in planning or conducting a wedding. That applies whether the couple are church members or not.

It is usual for churches to have an idea of how much it actually costs them to have a wedding, or any other service, in their building. This will vary from church to church and may include energy costs for heating and lighting, cleaning costs, etc. If there is a "suggested donation" then this will normally be based on the actual costs incurred by the church.

Also, it's not unusual for people to ask for some guidance in what would be considered a reasonable donation. Being able to give them an idea of an amount they might choose to give, based on actual costs, can be helpful for them.

A donation is a gift. It is freely given, and may not be given at all. I can assure you that any person who comes to my church for a service be that a wedding or a funeral, will receive exactly the same level of care, attention, and service irrespective of how much they give.

And, just in case you think I might be subconsciously swayed by the amount given - any donations are received after the service, not before. And even if I did receive the donation in advance, or know in advance that there would be no donation, that would make no difference to me. You may well differentiate between people based on financial considerations, but I do not.

I know of churches where the "donation" is not at all voluntary, nor is the amount. It's a fee with another name.