Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that "no ring, no bring" rule should not extend to long-term partners

152 replies

silvercuckoo · 02/01/2019 00:04

Asking just out of idle interest, following a discussion with an old friend at the NYE party.
She's in a loving and committed relationship with her partner for around five or six years now, they have a young child, live together in a jointly owned property, run a business together. They are not officially married, and (I just guess, from knowing her and her views on the topic) have no intention to marry.

However, she was not invited to her DP's mother's wedding ceremony because she is not officially a "wife" or a "fiancée". She is a bit Hmm as she always thought that they are getting along well, and now it somehow feels she's not good enough (even though she's not into weddings herself). MIL insists it is just a balancing exercise of "drawing a line somewhere", and that they will be happy to see her at the evening reception.

I heard of the "no ring, no bring" rule, but I have never thought it applied to firmly established couples. In your opinion - ok or not ok?

OP posts:
Gth1234 · 02/01/2019 12:26

You have to realise that for people aged maybe 60plus, a child of ummarried parents was a certain curse word, and couples were forced to get married to legitimise children.

It's very hard for some people, and not always old people even, to come to terms with the large number of people that no longer regard marriage as so important.

whatswithtodaytoday · 02/01/2019 12:31

The longevity argument is rubbish nowadays - two couples in my friendship group have got together, got married, had kids and separated in the thirteen years my partner and I have been together!

brizzledrizzle · 02/01/2019 12:33

You have to realise that for people aged maybe 60plus

I think it's probably older than that, I'd say 70+ - people aged 60 this year were born in 1959 and so grew up during the more liberal 60s and 70s and were adults in the early 1980s.

Gth1234 · 02/01/2019 12:34

just another though, which isn't specifically relevant in this case

No doubt the same people who have this rule would make a similar decision with same sex partners.

UniversalAunt · 02/01/2019 13:03

^You have to realise that for people aged maybe 60plus

I think it's probably older than that, I'd say 70+ - people aged 60 this year were born in 1959 and so grew up during the more liberal 60s and 70s and were adults in the early 1980s.^

Streuth, Ancient Auntie here...
Having to get married so not to produce bastards was a social more that belonged to those born pre-1940s, not 1960s.

By the time Auntie here was a young adult, one parent families were not unusual & I do believe legal penalties for being born a bastard (e.g. inheritance) were actively being dismantled.

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 02/01/2019 14:36

The longevity argument is rubbish nowadays - two couples in my friendship group have got together, got married, had kids and separated in the thirteen years my partner and I have been together!

It isn't. Married couples are less likely to split than unmarried ones as cohorts, your circle is just unrepresentative. But the more important point is, the deciding factor should be the established-ness of the relationship, not the likelihood of splitting up. Otherwise the B and G would be going through the guest list pruning out all the married couples where one of them's having an affair. There's really no legit way to exclude your child's long term, serious partner.

And yes, calling bullshit on the 60+ thing. Someone who is in their early 60s now was born in the mid to late 1950s and has spent the greater portion of their adult life in a cultural climate where having children in a committed relationship outside of marriage is normal enough to be unremarkable. Add a few years to the stereotype. And it is a stereotype, really. My gran is 88 and she doesn't have that mentality. Maybe watch less Game Of Thrones.

Shitmewithyourrhythmstick · 02/01/2019 14:43

I think the MIL is being unkind but I also find it odd that so many people think that people should have the full benefits and status of marriage, when they cannot be bothered to get married.

It's not really immediately obvious why you think that argument applies here. It's relevant to things like the legal ramifications of the marriage contract, not so much something as random and uncodified as wedding invitation etiquette. DH and I have been married for some years, but I've never really thought of wedding invitations from other people as one of the benefits of marriage.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds · 02/01/2019 14:48

Massive difference between a short term girlfriend and a life partner. 'Mil' is bring very short sighted, since your friend will now owe her exactly the same level of consideration as she has been shown - none! Let's hope mil never wants any favours in the future, because she's get none from me - I'd tell her to ask her 'real' family. I'd also stop any wife work associated with mil, so no more shopping for Christmas and birthday presents. Time to start treating her like an acquaintance and not family.
I don't think my husband would go to this wedding if his mum said I couldn't go. I certainly wouldn't go to my mum's if she took this view.

merrymouse · 02/01/2019 15:09

The weirdest thing about this is thinking of the mother of your grandchild as a 'plus one'.

PolarBearkshire · 03/01/2019 18:28

MIL is being an arsehole

maureen17 · 03/01/2019 18:31

it's called 'rude' not to accept and invite.

Pashal2 · 03/01/2019 18:38

But isn't that the point? It isn't her MIL! It's not her DH! Titles have meaning and purpose. 5 Years or 500 years she's still a girlfriend. A loonnngg term one but still a girlfriend. Being a wife has meaning in culture, society,in families and in law. Wishing it was otherwise and considering it so doesn't make it so. Maybe in some new age loose way marriage may be meaningless for a few but in the real world titles like husband, wife and spouse Carry meaning and legal power.

jessebuni · 03/01/2019 18:47

Yeah no I’d say maybe this rule could be argued for couples who have been together say 2 years or less but beyond that especially when it’s people with joint homes and children etc then this rule is bull.

lily2403 · 03/01/2019 18:49

MIL is a bitch, no way my OH would go if his DM did that to us

ShirleyPhallus · 03/01/2019 18:54

I find it unspeakably rude. One of DP’s friend’s had this rule for his wedding so I wasn’t invited (and it was the same weekend as his brother’s wedding so he didn’t go either).

I find it incredibly fucking cheap that when we get married we’ll have to buy him and his wife dinner when they were only intending on buying my DP dinner. I’ve told DP that we will only invite the guy and not his wife in retort.

There would be a lovely graph that shows how the first couple in any friendship group to get married would have quite a cheap wedding only having to pay for their friends, no plus ones. Then the final couple to get married would be absolutely shafted with paying for double the numbers.

CatoftheMilkyWay · 03/01/2019 19:03

This seems incredibly petty and/or unkind.
I have a friend whose brother got married recently and asked their other sister and her DH and three DDs under 5 to the ceremony but only the adults to a reception which was an extremely limited number of people for a quiet meal in a restaurant. This seemed totally reasonable as they didn’t want their wedding reception to be all about entertaining toddlers. The sister has plenty of her own SIL not going to the wedding who would be able to look after her kids but threw a wobbly and refused to attend the wedding at all because her family comes as a unit and “you either get all of us or none of us”.

jade19 · 03/01/2019 19:19

I have never heard of the rule. I have been with my partner 5 years, we live together and have 2 children, but aren't married. I very close to my 'MIL' and I would be very hurt if she didn't invite me to her wedding ceremony.

mantlepiece · 03/01/2019 19:34

I note the PP giving a history behind the use of this rule, do people still think the children of unmarried couples are bastards? How do such people separate their rigid dated views? I can’t believe such views still have currency. The MIL can’t be that old.

deadliftgirl · 03/01/2019 19:44

I completely understand this as being married is different to just having a partner. However, when the wedding your not invited to is the grandmother of your child, its just plain weird and sounds like your friend is not liked very much by her partners mother.

For new relationships, ones without children, not living together etc, I can understand. You also have to judge on a situation by situation as it depends on the relationship this person has with the couple getting married.

Weddings are expensive and plus ones should only be given to people that need them. My wedding was so tight and most people coming were married. I never really found myself in that situation.

dadshere · 03/01/2019 19:47

You can invite/not-invite whomever you choose to your own wedding. However, if I was not invited in these circumstances, I would take it as a clear insult, and not bother having any contact with this person.

WellBHoise · 03/01/2019 19:48

Her MIL is being horrific. It’s widely acknowledged that it’s okay to be child free if that’s what you want, but children/grandchildren sometimes even nieces and nephews are except from that.

Even in the worlds smallest wedding of just chiodnrenyou wouldn’t exclude their partners.

I’d include any partner that was engaged, living together or clearly in a long term relationship to a wedding. No ring no bring is just crazy.

PrincessConsuelaBanana · 03/01/2019 19:53

The rudeness of some people is hilarious! Grin OP, what would your friends MIL have said in this situation? - your friend and her DP we’re getting married 6 months ago (before MIL’s wedding), MIL was invited but her partner wasn’t as they weren’t married...??

HollowTalk · 03/01/2019 20:23

I think the MIL in this situation has shown her true colours and she's an absolute fool. The chances are high that she'll depend on the OP's friend for care when she's older - the OP's friend would be mad if she gave it. Christmasses, too, and other holidays - why be polite to someone so rude?

WitsEnding · 03/01/2019 20:37

Playing devil's advocate ... if a person doesn't choose to formalise their own relationship through marriage and is known to believe it's not important/necessary, why would they attach much importance to watching someone else get married?

I do get why she feels snubbed, but something feels off-kilter
('I don't want to follow your traditions but I want you to include me in them').

I know IABU but this one niggles me from a purely logical angle

MariaNovella · 03/01/2019 20:41

I also find it odd that so many people think that people should have the full benefits and status of marriage, when they cannot be bothered to get married.

Marriage is a legal contract that confers certain rights and responsibilities. Attendance at other people’s weddings is not covered in the marriage contract.