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?

'Churches are for everyone, they shouldn't be governed by 'volunteers' who make no allowances for the general public to use them. It's very much a 'them and us' situation and this is why a lot of people avoid them. Of course this is a 2 way street and respect should be shown by both 'sides' but someone has to make a start.'

So anyone and everyone should be allowed to waltz into them, move whatever's there around to suit them, have a party (hey, why not a quiz or a piss up or Morris dancing, hey, they're for the general public!), because hey, people's wishes should be respected.

Actually, churches aren't public property. They belong to the church.

It seems you've found the bride here in Coffee, OP.

Re other venues - they absolutely would object to couples removing Christmas décor and replacing it with their own, especially if it's not then replaced. I'm not just plucking this out of the air btw - I have worked at various venues and there are always limits to what people are allowed to do.

Couples might be able to adjust a few things, but they are absolutely not permitted to destroy décor - and anyone who did would have the cost to replace either added to their bill or deducted from any damage deposit.

there are certain times of the year when the Church calendar dictates how the altar will be dressed.

Not for whatever a B&G wants. Nothing to do with 'them & us'

They had been told the flowers had to stay. They ignored this.

I'd be sending them a further bill.

iBiscuit. Indeed.

Seeingadistance. I doubt very much that a different venue would have such an issue with flower arrangements as it it very much expect that flowers of the couples choosing will be used.

It would be expected as would an appropriate fee. As the OP has been pointed out, the church asks only for a donation, fully aware that no donation at all might be forthcoming.

What this particular couple did would be roughly equivalent to booking a hotel for their wedding, then going in to the hotel the night before, taking down the curtains because they didn't like the pattern, leaving them lying somewhere in a crumpled heap, replacing them with curtains which matched the bridesmaids' dresses, then taking the replacement curtains away with them, leaving the hotel curtains in the crumpled heap. And all without asking, and having previously agreed to hire the room as it was.

I agree Seeingadistance. There are some people who never set foot in their church from one end of the year to the other, make no contribution to its upkeep through the church collections or through their time and skills. Yet when they want to use it as a pretty, traditional setting for their wedding they are amazed that their small donation doesn't give them the right to 'own' the Church for the afternoon and override the conditions and norms that apply for the respectful and smooth running of the Church.

Churches are for the congregation who use them and pay for their upkeep.

If I were the Vicar I wold be sorely tempted to send the B&G a bill for the time spent putting it right. I’d also name and shame them one Sunday. Cheeky fuckers.

I think the bridal party were unreasonable to change the flowers. Presumably, they agreed to that condition when they booked the wedding? They didn't have to agree; they could have chosen another date or another venue. Agreeing not to remove the flowers and then going back on the agreement is very inconsiderate.

And they compounded things by not putting the flowers back as they found them.

The sad thing is, this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest

Oh well. Maybe all those pesky bride and grooms can take their donations elsewhere and the Christmas flowers can stay intact and everyone will be happy.

You seem very fixated on the donations Radio. As explained before, they are a minimal part of Church funding. The majority comes from the congregation who use the Church all year round, volunteer to help out in it, and do their best to make wedding ceremonies nice for the Bride and Groom while still respecting the fact its a Church, not a function room.

'Oh well. Maybe all those pesky bride and grooms can take their donations elsewhere and the Christmas flowers can stay intact and everyone will be happy.'

People like this are usually not practising Christians anyway, so no big loss.

Radio as I (and others) have explained, anyone getting married at Christmas would face the same issue (or rather perk - it's one of the reasons people like a Christmas wedding) regardless of the venue, if that venue already had decorations or flowers in place.

Very few places give absolute carte blanche when it comes to décor.

YANBU this sounds like very selfish behaviour.

Mind you I think anyone choosing to get married very close to Christmas must be a bit self absorbed (unless they have a very good reason why it has to be then) I was only commenting on this on the Saturday before Christmas when we saw a group of people obviously on their way to a wedding and said to DH how I would feel really put out to be going to a wedding then, especially if I had to travel to it. So many other things one needs to be doing two days before that would have to be squeezed in. Not to mention the extra expense.

This is the problem that the church will have when agreeing to perform weddings for non practicing Christians. They have no religious beliefs and so no understanding of the 'rules'.
I've been to a number of weddings/christenings where the only reason it's held in a church is so the family can have nice pictures!

I’d also name and shame them one Sunday. Cheeky fuckers

I thought religion taught forgiveness?

If the bride and groom are church goers then the priest should go and discuss with them their lack of respect and the impact it had.

If there are not church goers the church should have a clearer contract with future B&G's over the rules around flowers (they need to accept the Christmas flowers, or if they plan to move them for their own colours they need to pay X to have them replaced after, if flowers are moved without prior consent they will be charged)

It's like getting married during Lent and expecting the church to allow you to deck the place out and then leaving it all there.

When my lovely MIL died, the only day we could have the funeral was December 23rd, and the church (of which she was a very active member) was decorated for Christmas. Dh, DSiL And our dses went in beforehand to move the Christmas trees, so we could put in the flowers we’d chosen for the funeral - and because the trees etc were not appropriate for the funeral.

We made sure things were put back properly afterwards, but it saddens me to think that people might have been insulted by what we did.

This couple were wrong to move the altar flowers and not put them back afterwards, but it was a bit unreasonable of the church to refuse them permission to move the flowers in the first place. If they were worried about possible damage, they could have easily moved the flowers themselves, and put them back afterwards.

Red and white flowers are seen as unlucky and foretelling a death. I think this might well be why the couple didn't want them at their wedding. I thought this was well known, my Aunt was a nurse and would always separate any bunches of red and white, as they symbolise blood and bandages.

www.plant-lore.com/2107/red-and-white-flowers/

I think it was fine to move the arrangements to the side for the wedding ceremony. I do think they should have moved them back but I can't see that it would be a huge task for the volunteers to move them back.

Charges for having a church wedding are not usually 'voluntary' in the Church of England (my husband is treasurer for our church) but most of the fees charged go back to the diocese, the local church keeps only a small amount. We don't find it sacrilegious that couples might want to decorate the church in their own style, but I don't think for example that our Christmas tree itself would be moveable for someone's wedding. I think this would usually be explained when people book but maybe it was presumed that people would realise this without being specifically told.

I think the bride and groom were unreasonable to remove the flowers if they were told they weren't allowed to do so. It was even ruder not to put them back.
I can understand them wanting to use their own flowers but like others have said maybe Christmas was not the best time.
They went about it in the wrong way. I think it should have been suggested that the flowers could be removed for them for the hour of the service by whoever is in charge of the flowers but it would cost them x amount for this to be done, which would have given much needed funds to the church too
I think it's quite sad that people who go to church all the time don't think people who don't should be allowed to have weddings there afterall church is a large part of the community and you never know they might have such a wonderful experience they come back.

One couple getting married in our Church wanted to lock the gates and hold a champagne reception in the grounds after the ceremony. They were most put out when told 'no'.

Another wanted to have an ice cream van at the foot of the steps, handing out cornets to the guests as they left the Church.

I think some people have completely forgotten what a Church actually is.

IBiscuit. Would face the same issue? Or may?

Sorry just read the message above about moving Christmas trees for a funeral - didn't mean to contradict you, I can understand why you might not want a festive look for a funeral. Moving the trees carefully back and forwards sounds sensible in this case.

SDT the flower team had already given up hours of their time decorating the church and keeping the arrangements regularly watered. Should they really have also had to spend more time moving the arrangements off the altar and then going back after the wedding to replace them -involving getting out stepladders, sweeping up any bits that had fallen away from the arrangements, fetching and giving back keys to the storage room etc. Do they not give up enough of their time already?