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

At this point, because I actually want to see what happens next. Bars that aren't bars, obligations that aren't obligations, wedding drinks that are equivalent to the slave trade...it's amazing.

This is not rocket science. I’m saying have a wedding that fits your budget: within that budget you pay for all food and drink, for bridesmaids’ outfits and accommodation etc.

If you asked @MissScarletInTheBallroom what her relatives, to whom charging at weddings is a completely no no, would expect, they wouldn’t say you have to keep free flowing spirits and cocktails all night as that could cost as much as the wedding itself; you do need to keep your guests amply fed and watered for free.

It’s super cringe to call that a bar but if it makes the discussion clearer, that’s fine.

Why is it super cringe?

And why should anyone care?

Why on earth does it matter what you call it? A bar is a place where you order and are served drinks.

If you think that after the meal guests should be able to ask a member of staff for a drink and be served one, that means there is a bar of some description at the wedding.

Unless you think that the only acceptable option is laying out a limitless selection of alcohol on a table and allowing guests to serve themselves. That wouldn't be allowed at the vast majority of wedding venues, and it would probably be a pretty terrible idea even if it were.

Oh, my apologies, @MissScarletInTheBallroom . I thought you were Mirabai. I'll get that post removed.

Surely we can't be far away from Classics territory now?

You expect the couple to pay for everyone's accommodation now as well? Or just the bridesmaids'? Although both are crazy. Yes to paying for bridesmaids' dresses etc, nobody expects to have their hotel room paid for. Nobody should feel obliged to stay in a particular hotel but if they choose to it's not for the B&G to cover.

Anything else you're going to drop in that should be free for guests?

If you think that after the meal guests should be able to ask a member of staff for a drink and be served one, that means there is a bar of some description at the wedding.

It’s what you call a bar, I call it catering unless you have an actual bar. Now we understand what each other means, is there any point in going on arguing about it?

Bridesmaid’s dress and accommodation.

I think what Mirabai is saying is that the only acceptable option is an unlimited open bar and there must never be any cash bar at all. You can restrict the type of drinks available to keep it affordable but you absolutely cannot add a cash bar option on top of that for anyone who doesn't like what you're offering.

It is basically better to restrict and limit guests' drinks, or not to invite them at all, than to have any option whatsoever for them to buy a drink.

That's what I think she's saying.

Probably not. After all this you've certainly not convinced me that a cash bar after the meal is anything other than normal, reasonable and expected.

And I'm also not in the least convinced than none of these "hundreds" of weddings you've attended have had one. If the majority of these have been in the UK then it's utterly implausible.

I suspect there's a good chance you just haven't wanted another drink or a different drink going on into the evening so you just haven't noticed.

But don't call it a bar. Call it the catered drinks serving area and that's OK.

Yes, and that way you also have the option of not having a bar, since a bar isn't an obligation.

It all makes sense now!

It’s interesting you had no idea there were circles/countries in which it was unacceptable, and still can’t believe it. At least I was aware cash bars are a thing.

Never said that. Not once. I was always very clear I was talking about the UK and the majority of circles. Not all and not other countries.

If you went to a large party would you be stamping your foot insisting that a. You must have whisky and b. You must pay for it?

Guests’ drinks will be limited one way or another - either to what they can afford or to what the hosts provide.

You’ve just said you’re not convinced, and then implied I’m mistaken.

Since you've never, ever experienced a cash bar in your entire life, let me reassure you that they don't force you to have anything you don't want. You ask for what you want and they give it to you. That's how it works.

If you want to restrict what your guests can drink because there will be some other things in their lives that they can't afford, then... that's "a bar is not a bar when it's a catered drinks serving area" territory. Absolutely ridiculous. And I think you know it, but you're now clutching at straws, and you could probably get better ones in the cash bar.

Nope. But neither would I complain if lots of drinks had been provided but other non-standard ones were available for me to pay for if I fancied it. I don't demand anything either way. It's nice to have a free bar, it's nice to have a cash bar if I want more choice. It's fine to just have wine and beer available too.

None of the options make me want to judge the hosts particularly or think they are trying to host an event they can't afford and appearing gauche.

Wider options is preferable though.

this is fascinating! Not the content. But the dedication and time being devoted!

I'm not convinced that you have been to hundreds of weddings and all of them have been either out of the UK or within such narrow social circles that the very normal cash bar hasn't made an appearance. That's what is entirely implausible.

It's not very cosmopolitan to live in a country where cash bars are normal and acceptable and a) never see one despite attending hundreds of events and b) find them so inherently offensive.

That's seems normal.

Like you only get the food the couple offer and no other options, even if you pay.

Similarly the drink options are restricted but you can have them DLL night.

Inviting people to the evening where they get no food/buffet and have to buy all their own drinks is hardly generous. Hence I generally would decline that sort of invite, particularly if it involves travel.

And yes I have had no buffet offered at last few evening invites.