To be surprised that relatively high spending on a wedding, means it is less likely to last

[abacucat]

Study quoted below.

"..we find evidence that relatively high spending on the engagement ring is inversely associated with marriage duration among male respondents. Relatively high spending on the wedding is inversely associated with marriage duration among female respondents, and relatively low spending on the wedding is positively associated with duration among male and female respondents. Additionally, we find that having high wedding attendance and having a honeymoon (regardless of how much it cost) are generally positively associated with marriage duration."

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

Oh dear! My two kids both had very expensive weddings and really swish honeymoons and they're both divorced and with new partners.

I'm surprised this is news to be honest OP.

I think over the last 20 years or so all the biggest ££££££ weddings (usually preceded by big ££££££ engagement parties) i've been to or been told about have broken down within a couple of years.

My armchair psychology bit is that the wedding has been the focus all along, not the marriage.

That correlates with anecdotal evidence IME, yep.

Done this topic in the last month.

I'm not surprised. How often do we see people say on here that when bride and groom are so absorbed in planning the day, the marriage isn't likely to last. If they need the grand gestures, huge rings and expensive day then part of you thinks they're trying to convince themselves of their feelings.

I don’t find this surprising.

In my opinion when I see couples spending £££ it’s more like they are putting on a show than anything else.
When I see couples keep it simple it’s because all that matters is that they get married and have a nice time.

It is more about the wedding than the relationship these days. Ridiculous amounts of money are spent on weddings/hens/stags/ pre-hens, pre-stags....

All trying to outdo their friend, sister, brother, copy the one on TV or in a magazine. Never mind whether they are compatible or not, just have a big wedding, a day to remember, never mind the future.

My feeling would be that:

Low spending CAN be an indicator that the couple want to commit to each other and the setting is less important than the symbolism of the act. This is probably a good basis for a lasting partnership.

High spending CAN indicate that the ceremony is held as the most important aspect. Maybe one or both of the couple have dreamed of having it that way, and having their 'big day' is important to the point of burying their head in the sand a bit over if the other person is the really right one or a little 'shoe-horned' into the role.

I say 'CAN be' - I suspect there's truth to my suspicions but wouldn't for a second think that they're universally true.

Cynically if you are low income and scrape together a few K for a wedding and it breaks down is it as easy to walk away?

If you've kept it low cos you have kids to support are you less likely to walk away if things get tough?

If you've splashed 70k on your wedding is it easy for rl to feel very flat afterwards and not live up to your fairy tale dream?

So if they have a massive expensive ring, an expensive wedding but have lots of guests in attendance and a honeymoon would it be back at a normal duration?

The link didn’t load for me, that’s just going off the passage above.

Maybe because some older couples who have already been with each other for good amount of time/have DC/more realistic may opt for low key low cost option?

Doesn’t shock me. People who spend a fortune are focused on one day rather than the long term in a lot of cases

Also unsurprised. I don't really get the male / female thing though - can someone explain it?! So if the engagement ring costs lots, the marriage is more likely to break down for male respondents? But surely it has broken down for both the man and the woman?! (Sorry to be thick, blaming late stages of pregnancy)

I do think, for some brides especially, there is far too much focus on the Dress, the accessories, having everything just so and much less emphasis on the actual marriage. Quite often the brides and the other females take over the entire thing and the groom doesn't seem to have much say in things.

I think as you get older these things matter less. It's about having people around you that you care about to witness a commitment rather than putting on a show.

Wedding cost under £1k in 1986. Guest list of about 60. Swift honeymoon as dh had to go back to sea. Today is our 32nd wedding anniversary.

bosswitch I didn't understand that point either. Unless they mean who is most likely to initiate the divorce?

I didn't get that bit either Boss. Unless they mean who called the wedding off.

Congratulations and Happy Anniversary, scaryteacher

I am not surprised.

ToadOfSadness - Ridiculous amounts of money are spent on weddings/hens/stags/ pre-hens, pre-stags....

Totally agree. I'm very live and let live and would actually say nothing out loud about this to anyone but i.am.so.eye-rolly over all these bloody great protracted piss ups in the name of celebrating marriage.

Thinking about getting engaged party, actually engaged party, hen and stag holidays, bla bla bla, then the massive wedding with 3 parts over a day.

Friend of mine's DD has just had a 'just divorced' party. So we've come full circle with that one!

Not in the least surprised about this. my DNephew on Husband's side carted all the family over to Mexico for a "dream" beach wedding then when they got back Hired the local stately home with a big bash etc. Went into a huge amount of debt for it as he is minimum wage and she is a sahm. Seven months later announcing their divorce on FB. They had been living together before marriage with 2 kids and I am certain that her desire to have all the trappings are what killed it. What a waste of money.

Maybe being careful with money is an indication of couples that can plan and spend sensibly on what is more useful longterm
rather than short term gratification and fantasy

FFS This is a study of 3000 people in the US - out of how many tens of thousands in the US?. It's typical university/research headline grabbing stuff - the sort that allowed Andrew Wakefield to get away with his anti-vax rhetoric based on an infintesimally small cohort he'd suborned into contributing anyway.

We all know there are some misguided people who spend more than they can afford because the wedding, not the marriage, is the thing. We all know there's a whole wedding industry dedicated to getting couples to spend more - or charging them more for flowers or a cake because the word "wedding" is attached. We also know there are bridezillas (we all love a bridezilla).

But a correlation between spending and divorce? Not convinced. Yes, I think weddings are overdone, and people prioritising one day over their financial future are misled, but this is just clickbait.

Maybe people who can afford expensive weddings are more likely to divorce because the wife can afford to get divorced. Lots of poorer couples stay in unhappy marriages, especially women when there are children involved as they're worried they can't afford to live by themselves on a single income.