AIBU to ignore the "honeymoon registry"

[NotAHappyBunnyHugger]

School friend is getting married this autumn. We are now in our mid-20s.
My partner and I are invited to the evening do, which starts at half 5. On the invitation and wedding website, there is no mention of an evening meal, just cake and welcome drinks, then a cash bar.

In the envelope with the invitation, they have included a card asking people to contribute money towards their honeymoon rather than giving physical gifts. I resent this a bit, when I'm paying for transport, accommodation, and a new outfit to fit the wedding's "theme", and not even getting an evening meal when I'm there. It feels a bit cheap.

I had already bought the couple a gift (a household item, but a really nice version that's handmade in the city I live in), but now I don't even want to give them that! The whole thing reminds me of kids at school who'd invite the whole class to their birthday party to get more presents.

I haven't been to any weddings before. Is this just normal? My partner and I are getting married in a couple of months and we've been careful to only invite the number of people we can afford to host properly (i.e. with plenty of food and booze). We wouldn't dream of asking our friends to pay for our holiday!

YABU - honeymoon registries are normal and acceptable. Get with it

YANBU - asking for gifts is tacky. People should pay for their own holidays

We were allowed to take as many or a few rooms as we wanted. Guests paid for their own rooms.

Providing ample food and drinks for your guests so they don’t have to pay for bar drinks is the point.

People do provide ample food and drinks. And offer a cash bar for those who want more than that or a different type. But you're also saying spirits are required. So you don't want anyone to have the option to drink more or a different type than is provided.

That really isn't good hosting.

Absolutely not, your obvious vast experience and knowledge in this area is perfectly sufficient.

What do you mean? Everyone should be so boozed up during the day that nobody should want any more drinks after 6pm? Because that's totally shit. If someone wants a beer or a wine at 8.30, why shouldn't they be able to buy one?

Or do you mean you should have a bar with enough money behind it that people can drink in the evening but don't need to pay? That's an open bar, which you're saying nobody is obliged to have.

Are you just making up stuff now?

You can offer different types of drinks yourself, I simply said you’re not obliged to provide spirits as they’re the most expensive. (Depending on the time of the wedding spirits may not be relevant.)

You’re just talking rubbish now.

It’s ok if you don’t know, don’t worry about it.

Why? How so?

Do you just not understand what an open bar is?

Right. So you still think you're being a better host by limiting the drink options (because you're not obliged to provide spirits) and not allowing people to pay for their own choices rather that providing all the standard drinks but also giving people an option to top up as they wish?

If you honestly think that makes you a better host than the entirely standard provisions as previously described plus allowing your guests additional options then you really are making no sense at all.

Ok, so Mirabai is saying there should be a table somewhere with prepaid, set drinks available? That's an open bar. But she said open bars aren't an obligation?

And no option to buy any other kind of drink (cash bar) because that would be bad hosting?

And neither kind of bar is an obligation because you should be providing plenty of drinks? What?

I was being a little facetious earlier but this quite literally makes no sense. Are you obliged to provide drinks during the evening party or not? What drinks? And who pays for them? Do guests get any choice? And how does this tally with bars of any kind not being an obligation?

I think you are meant to be served wine or soft drinks (maybe beer but I'm unclear) as you circulate or at your table. You are not to expect to have a drink at any time other than when it is provided to you. Nor are you allowed to have a choice of any drink other than what the couple have already bought.

This highly prescriptive system is excellent hosting. Choice is rude. Apparently.

As much as you think this is some kind of dismal competition it isn’t. I would no more expect my guests to pay for alcohol at my wedding than at my house for dinner or at a party I hosted. I may choose to provide spirits if I think my guests would like it. But as I said the alternative to a cash bar does not have to be an open one, simply a free flow of drink of different kinds to satisfy guests.

Perhaps you’d turn up at a barbecue and demand whisky, but if you’re that desperate you could take your own. Or demand a cash bar.

You clearly think it’s the height of good hosting to get guests to pay for their own drinks, so good that in other counties it’s a downright anathema, but we will never agree so we may as well stop arguing.

You clearly think it’s the height of good hosting to get guests to pay for their own drinks
Allow, not get. You still seem to be missing the point that this is always on top of providing a significant amount of drinks for everyone. It isn't instead of.

Ah, so basically an open bar where you don't get to choose what you drink or even when you drink it? And no additional cash bar option?

If that's what Mirabai thinks is the only acceptable option, fine, but it means she does believe an open bar is an obligation, just a very restricted and shit one.

That's fine, at least I understand what she means now!

What is the difference between an open bar and a free flow of drink of different kinds which your guests don't have to pay for?

You're not allowed to get a drink when you want it. That's an open bar. The drinks are allowed to flow freely but only when they are served to you. So they are free, but you have to wait for them. Again, this is good hosting apparently.

And you're shit out of luck if you want access to spirits.

It depends what you mean. Venues such as hotels or clubs have actual bars providing a wide range of alcohol etc that can either be cash or if the couple were wealthy and generous, they couple put their card with the bar to provide an open bar for wedding guests.

If your venue is marquee in a garden with a catering company to provide food and drink for the event - and you provide a range of drinks from Pimms to champagne, wine and beer and some after dinner liqueurs - it’s not actually a bar at all in the former sense.

OK, so it is OK for guests to expect to get whatever drink is available whenever they want it.

One of the things you accept as a guest if it's a marquee type with out a bar area is that drinks are limited as to what has been shipped in. The advantage of a botel bar is that it is fully stocked. And there really isn't an expectation for that to be free. It's a nice surprise if it is, not an expectation or a faux pas.

I'd rather have a full paid bar with a range of options than a free one restricted to what the couple have decided in advance people might like.

Still no acknowledgment that the cash bar is always a post-meal and post lots of drinks being provided add-on for optional extra drinks and not a situation where it means that all (or even the majority of) drinks are expected to be paid for.

Great so you charge your guests and pay for your drinks and I’ll carry on with my life regardless.

Oh ffs, it's near enough as makes no difference. A makeshift bar perhaps; it's a station where you get drinks. So when you say neither open nor cash bars are an obligation, that's not true. You think open bars are an obligation. Fine, but just bloody own it!

And when criticising couples who hire out accommodation for coercing guests, remember that that also applies to people who coerce couples into open bars by telling them how rude, inhospitable and British <shudder> they'd be to do something else.

They’re completely different. And the former is potentially much more expensive than the latter. You can control the costs of the latter to suit your budget and your guests.

I have been clear from the start that hosts should provide food and drink for their guests free of charge.

I have been clear from the start that hosts should provide food and drink for their guests free of charge
And never acknowledged that they do do this. But just also offer an additional bar where guests who want more than everything that has been offered can top up at their own expense. I've only ever paid after about 9.30 when the wine has run out and I fancy a couple of G&Ts. No reason B&G should cater for me in that regard. But that is where the paid bar comes in. Not instead of generous provision, in addition to.

I think if you can go and ask a member of staff for a drink and be served one, it's a bar. And if you aren't charged for the drink, it's an open bar.