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?

Some very ignorant people hete who seem to think they are entitled to use a church any way they like.

Actually, churches are for the congregation of that church and anyone else from their religion who wishes to worship. They often try to help in their communities. They are not wedding venues for hire like hotels.

Being a Christian and wanting to be inclusive does not mean accepting anything anyone else fancies doing. Enid is ignorant.

I am not a Christian but I think local churches are amazing places in the world we live in.

I'm not ignorant at all! I said this thread has proved it's not inclusive.

I never said they should go along with anything, but bitching about people's weddings saying they're performances because they don't share the same religion as you is pretty low imo.

Why does the OP need to rethink their policy? The church is perfectly entitled to place whatever conditions it sees fit on bookings. Christmas and Easter are the big events in the Christian calendar and clearly, in this particular church, the flowers are a big part of that. B&G were wrong to disregard the condition RE flowers. When we went to book our wedding, we asked about flowers and we're told that that particular church always did the wedding flowers as a 'gift'to the B&G. We would be able to request specific colours with the exception of two periods - Christmas, when the colours would be red and white, and Lent. Church observation of Lent meant that no flowers were allowed in the church. None of this affected us as we wanted a summer wedding, but if we had chosen to marry at either Christmas or during Lent, of course we would have adhered to their requirements.
I don't understand why people choose to marry in a place of religion and then want to walk roughshod over the religious conventions observed there.

Which one? That they're volunteers and if theyre unhappy they dont have to do it?

Yes, the flower team are volunteers, and no, they don't have to do it. However, as Christians they have committed to giving of their time and their talents in service. They give willingly as part of their commitment to the church, and they would go back and redo the flowers not because they have to, but because it is part of their calling and their contribution to the worship life of their local congregation.

Or that the church is supposed to be inclusive and forgiving and this thread is proving that is actually isn't?

I agree with you on this as you were responding to a suggestion that the couple be "named and shamed". That would in no way be appropriate or helpful.

I'm now a Christian and a minister, but for most of my adult life I was an atheist. I have been married and divorced twice. I wasn't a Christian when I got married, either time, and so chose a civil marriage.

For me, personally, it would have been hypocritical to get married in a church when I had no faith and no connection or commitment to the church.

I know that some clergy are happy to conduct weddings of anyone who asks. Interestingly, those I know who are so "inclusive" have been life-long Christians. For me, I still believe it is hypocritical and that the church is not a "venue". Some other clergy and church-goers agree with me, and many atheists and non church-goers also agree with me.

There is a fine line between being humble and being a doormat!

Outrageous! Presumably, they were told when they booked the church that it would have Christmas flowers and decorations. To just remove them and not even bother to put them back afterwards is beyond entitled. And totally disrespectful.

Yes Seeingadistance. I agree with you. Maybe the problem of entitlement actually stems from some churches marrying anyone who asks, rather than just those of the faith.

Ha ha expat I'm definitely not the bride. And I certainly don't think that anyone can rock up and do what they please. I'm saying that the church has become a place where many people do not seem to be 'welcome' and there is a lot of hostility towards anyone wanting to change anything. I do think the bride and groom in this instance were rude, of course they were, but maybe a compromise might have led to nicer results that a resounding 'no'. Perhaps allowing their flowers on the alter would have been nice? The flowers on there were nothing to do with the meaning of church and religion:

I regularly attend church, I've watched newcomers be gradually discouraged from coming because of the attitudes that seem to dominate, largely from people who volunteer a lot of time and effort. It's ironic because the church relies on newcomers, yet the strict 'rules' around don't do this/that's so and so's area/you can't do that are mostly nitpicky and unnecessary.

User I see your point. You must be able to see how being completely inflexible makes people hostile. The complete opposite of what church is about! So what if the couple wanted the church to match their theme, it doesn't mean that they don't value the church or the sentiment of being married in one. It's exactly that attitude that makes people avoid church in the first place.

seeing i agree in that i wouldn't get married in a church because I'm not religious. My ds isn't christened either because of this. I, like you, don't see it as a venue either.

But, if non religious people are going to be allowed to use the church for weddings etc then everything needs to be set out very clearly, and instead of getting upset about it being "only a donation" why don't the church suggest an amount? I cant think that many people would refuse as they'd have to pay for a ceremony elsewhere anyway!

As I've already explained, there are certain times of the year when the Church calendar dictates how the altar will be dressed. At all other times B&Gs can use the existing altar flowers free of charge, or pay for their own choice of flower and have them arranged free of charge by the flower team (or bring their own flower arranger if they prefer).

We’re they told about this when they booked the church? YANBU if they were.

If they weren’t... well, I’d expect them to at least have someone rearrange the flowers they removed.

(When i said getting upset I didn't mean you personally seeing)

GoldenWondering

What bananasandsandwicheseveryday said.

I'm an atheist but I think it's totally outrageous that this couple agreed terms with the church then totally ignored them because they didn't suit.

If they didn't like the flowers they could have got married elsewhere or at a different time of the year. Or actually talked to the church about finding a compromise such as a larger donation to move and replace the flowers to allow their choice to be there during their ceremony.

This isn't about the church not being inclusive, it's about an entitled bride and groom thinking their wants are more important than respecting the church. And not just ignoring their reasonable request but not even bothering to replace the flowers afterwards.

When I got married (admittedly 17 years ago so we’d have to add inflation onto this) the church fees were a grand total of £150. That included the cost of the vicar (who also acted as the registrar) and the organist. Church was pretty big so fitted my 100guests in easily.

We were also offered the vicar’s (gorgeous) garden to have photos in afterwards which was lovely.

We also got a (free) “marriage preparation day” a few weeks beforehand with about 8 other couples which also included lunch. I still remember that lunch very very fondly. It was fabulous.

And a wedding rehearsal where they went through everything we needed to know.

And a meeting with the vicar where he did all legal stuff.

Pretty sure they didn’t make very much money out of us!

By the time the priest performing the ceremony noticed the flowers it would have been too late to do anything about it.

Surely he could have insisted that the flowers were replaced or refused to perform the ceremony. Or charge them (as a penalty) for not complying with the rules.

user are you hoping this gets picked up by the Daily Mail so you don't need to 'name and shame' but the couple feel named and shamed?
They shouldn't have changed the flowers if requested not to, but the church could have let them swop their flowers in and out. It's also not unknown (in the Churches I have been involved with) for the priest to give a slightly different message from the volunteers and I wonder if this happened here eg the priest said 'ok you can use your own flowers and we'll swop our own back in but just leave the church flowers at the side as the volunteers will want them back in a certain way'.

As the C of E is the established church anyone who lives in the parish or has a qualifying connection can be married in there if it is their first marriage. It is slightly more complicated for second weddings. The upshot of this is that clergy of pretty rural churches and historic civic can be very busy during the wedding season.

My current church is really ugly so very few weddings. Odd that.

Churches are not public buildings, are they?

I'm not Christian but it seems the height of hypocrisy to me for people to not attend church or practice but then want to get married and have Christenings there.

Btw, I personally think it’s fine to get married in a church even if you’re not religious or a member of the congregation.
Many churches have a lot of historical value and it’s possible to appreciate that without being a Christian.

I'm not a Christian and would never want to marry in a church, but if the church is continuing to book weddings in the festive period (and I presume charging for them?) then surely it has to be a bit kind/flexible towards its brides and grooms? Or it needs to be absolutely clear that the church will be decorated in certain colours during that period, and no additional decorations will be permitted. If the bride and groom only find out the week before, after spending probably three hundred pounds on flowers and planning different colours I can understand their upset. I actually find it quite strange that a couple would book a Xmas wedding and not want Xmas flowers. It's almost a perk at that time of year that you won't need flowers! In this case the bride and groom should have had someone carefully put the flowers back the next day, and the church should be a little more "season of goodwill"!

Flowers shouldn't be on the altar. Around it, but not on it. Pedantically misses point of thread

It's also slightly unfair to presume that because the bride and groom didn't use the church flowers that they have no right to get married in church. They might be religious, they might not attend that particular church regularly (birth place, moved away etc).

Yes they should have put the flowers back but casting aspersions on their right to marry in a church is OTT.

The flowers were not part of religion, they were there for decoration. Taste in decoration differs.

I am not defending the bride and the broom.

It was obviously unacceptable behaviour (if they were told when booking the church). And even if they were simply told a few days beforehand, I’d expected them to either leave their own flowers or have someone else redo the original arrangement.

But what’s the issue with seeing a church as a backdrop for their wedding? That’s not necessarily wrong imo.

@user1485342611 maybe the Church should no longer allow people to marry there at Christmas time using this couple as an example why.

If the flowers must remain until the 12th night maybe there should be no weddings during this time.