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

Yes, we've established it. You think open bars are an obligation. Then you claimed open bars were not an obligation because you could have no bar at all. Then some arse covering was obviously required, so you decided that a prepaid drinks station in a marquee isn't a bar. Or an open bar with a limited amount of money behind it one way or another but in that case, no additional cash bar option, because giving guests options is shit and British.

It's OK, I was just completely confused. Now I understand that it's just some slightly dishonest, semantic silly buggers, I'm clear.

You’d need to make a distinction between that and a hotel/club open bar where the range of alcohol is wider and costs can be astronomical.

Anyone with half a brain could see we were talking at cross purposes rather than this dramatic nonsense you’ve invented.

In my world if you invite guests until 11 your alcohol does not run out at 9.30. They continue to be provided for until they leave.

When I have friends for supper I don’t start charging for drinks once the meal is over.

If you’re happy with being charged, what are you arguing about?

I'm American and I find this custom of inviting people to "only the evening" or the second, lesser part of a wedding reception just shocking. I would much rather not be invited at all than to be told that a couple doesn't value me enough to be there for the whole wedding. And the idea that couples would expect people who are only going to be there for cake and a cash bar to get special outfits seems ridiculous. I would not go, and I certainly wouldn't be giving much of a gift to a couple who let me know that they consider me second tier.

I don’t understand this. You’d feel not valued if you were invited to just the reception, but you’d be fine not being invited at all? Surely that would really show they didn’t value you, if they weren’t fussed about having you there for any part of it? If they’re providing food and drink (which they should be, within reason) then they’re still paying money for you to join them in celebration because they would like the pleasure of your company.

I can understand that people have a limited budget and can only invite a certain number of people. Something that is always true, even if they have an "evenings only" section of the wedding. But I think it's incredibly crass to invite people to your wedding and not even invite them to the wedding part of the wedding. Especially since gifts are expected.

Ah, now we're equating a one-off event like for hundreds to a regular event for a handful of people. Makes sense.

So that's an open bar then.

Blimey lots of talk from @Mirabai et al on bars. Here's my experience:

Every wedding I have been to has a welcome drink (usually champagne)

Wine with the meal that's on your table

After the meal, there is either a free bar where you can get whatever you like or a cash bar where you pay for what you want.

Everyone hopes for a free bar but doesn't expect it (if they have good manners)

In practice, you don't need to make this distinction at all, because venues don't offer you the choice between one thing or the other.

Er, you're the one who's been going at it with increasing passion for two days over a practice you claim never to have experienced at all at hundreds of weddings and never expect to see, so...

“a new outfit to fit the wedding's "theme"” that’s on you, you don’t need a new outfit. It’s entirely normal that evening guests are just there for the disco bit, there’s often food around 9pm so either grab a bite beforehand or check with the couple. Alternatively if you feel put out, you don’t have to go.

As an evening guest, I’d get the couple a token gift and it’s entirely normal that the token gift would be a contribution to the honeymoon fund. Most married couples live together before marriage, they have everything they need - asking for a contribution to a honeymoon fund is a way to ensure you don’t end up with three surplus toasters when you already have one.

But your whole point on this is that if couples can't afford to buy drinks for their guests then they shouldn't invite those guests to their wedding. Now you're saying the drinks you provide depend on your budget, and that you don't have to provide spirits because they're expensive. You're completely contradicting yourself. How is it good hosting to force guests to drink only what you provide for them, because you can't afford to provide something else? What if people don't like champagne?!

What if people don't like champagne?!

Claim it's not champagne and then accuse people of being stupid and claim cross purposes when they get confused, I guess.

Or maybe if they didn't like champagne they just wouldn't get invited because then they'd be gauche?

the idea that the posters that have posted dozens upon dozens of times on this thread very passionately arguing for etiquette or free bar or against free bar or whatever…. have actually been invited to many weddings is the most intriguing aspect of this thread!

If they're actively insulting and disparaging about normal practices, sure.

If they're actively insulting and disparaging about normal practices, sure.

could have been the campaigning slogan for slavery!

Hmm, I thought the poster who likened an Easter party to a BDSM gathering had the silliest false equivalence I'd seen on here. Then I saw the person who likened a will to accidentally dropping doughnuts on the floor. But now I've seen this person likening a discussion about wedding bar practices to slavery, and I think this actually tops the lot. It was worth the whole thread, including the two heavy breathing creeps, for this gem alone.

🥇

Well actually I did ask for clarification since I really couldn't understand what you were saying. It was entirely self-contradictory.

I didn't foresee that you were changing the meaning of words to cover this contradiction.

Same principle. I have equally instanced big party at mine - I don’t charge at those either.

We’ve both been going at it, I know why I am, just asking why you are.