In Laws refusing to pay for their share of wedding

[tigersmum]

They agreed to pay half the wedding costs and now a week after the wedding they are saying that they have given them enough money in the past, like deposit for the house, double glazing, and they said they would rather but them a new boiler, whats wrong with the one they have?, rather than pay the £2,800 we aked them for which by the way is no where near half as it cost us £13,000. What the hell do we tell daughter and son in law when they get back from honeymoon at the end of the week.

But TM seems to have implied that 3K is not that much to them - my guess is their honeymoon present cost that much if not more....which is my GUESS why the in laws feel slighted - I would guess it should have been clearer at the start how much who paid what what was included etc...they probably felt awful they paid money but all the guests saw was TM and her DH "presenting" (her words not mine) an exteremly extravagent present !

My in laws present to us was some money towards the cost of the wedding, which we were delighted with. Could the in laws have anticipated that money towards the wedding would be a well recieved present from them?

That was my guess too macdoodle, see my first or second post about 3000 posts ago! I think TM doesn't like the idea that their actions are what upset the inlaws, understandably. But no one here is saying the inlaws were right in reacting to TM's gift, just saying that could be the case and how ridiculous it is! I wish certain people could look past the parts that make them defensive and see that very few people here are on the inlaw's side, and are only trying to get the full picture.

Do you think people might be on the defensive because you are on the attack HorseyWoman?

You certainly seem to have quite a big investment in saying it was the public presentation of a lovely honeymoon that caused these people to behave unreasonably. The thing is people are responsible for their own actions and most parents wouldn't be offended by their son and d-i-l getting presented with a nice honeymoon, rather they would be pleased for them. They certainly wouldn't act spitefully and retaliate.

Also you don't seem to want to look at the bigger picture that these people probably didn't plan to pay anything all along, but rather focus in on what TM could have done to be at fault. I'd guess the in-laws would have used anything to take offence at, if it is the honeymoon it's probably just a coincidence. They could equally not have like the colour of the suits.

Oh FFS. I said that because I was offering up a reason for them being so ridiculous as to go back on their word.

YOU seem to have a big investment in jumping to the defense of TM.

And I am not on the attack. I am offering reasons as I KEEP SAYING. PEOPLE HERE ARE TRYING TO GET A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED SO THEY CAN MAKE A JUDGEMENT AND GIVE ADVICE.

We are all looking at the bigger picture and are NOT looking at things TM did wrong but things the INLAWS REACTED TO.

And if you had been reading all of what I said, I have said SEVERAL TIMES that it is ridiculous for them to react in that way to the presentation of the honeymoon.

And I am also not the only person to have said it.

And this thread is royally pissing me off. In order for ALL OF US PEOPLE to get so frustrated and 'attacking' as you call it, someone got pretty defensive in response to some pretty innocent questions and suggestions. TM has dismissed all suggestions and takes any questions/offers of reasons, as an attack on her.

It's LOVELY what you did for your DD, TM; the inlaws are stupid fuckers for going back on their word (is that what you want me to say?). But WHY have they gone back on their word? And how much have they gone back on it (ie, how much HAVE they paid?)

But I suspect no one actually gives a rat's arse now. I hope you get it sorted.

Huurah!

PMSL.

Actually, having read all through this thread, I have heard stories along these lines before (not accusing any MNer of anything or even meaning threads on MN - stories along these liines frequently appear in my beloved proleporn mags). I see two possible explanations for the ILs behaviour here.
The first is that, for whatever reasons, they are undergoing some kind of major financial problems that they are too embarrassed to mention. Possibly they thought their problems would be resolved by the time of the wedding (it may be something like a gambling addiction) - and they are about to lose their home or go to jail or something and still can't bear to admit it.
The second is that they are the type of tightfisted bullshitters who promise to pay for things then take 'offence' at anything they can find as a way of avoiding having to put hand in pocket.

But like Horsey I have had enough of this thread too...as I don't really think Tm wanted a discussion or a rationale as to wyhy they reneged on their agreement, she doesn't seem to want to understand there POV at all...she just wants us to agree how wonderful she is for paying for everything and what tossers her in laws are ....

Of course, you could recoup some of the money by selling this whole sad story to Take A Break, Full House or Pick Me Up. It's just the sort of thing they love.

madamez pmsl!!!

Or go on Jeremy Kyle with the in laws?

Teeeheee. I loathe Jeremy Kyle!

DOn't think that JK pays much (if it's anything like the feckin Tricia show you're lucky if you get cab fare and a cup of tea). You can get up to £500 from the mags if you're prepared to pose for photos looking a) common and b) anguished, doing something like pointing at a wedding dress and clutching your brow.

LOL Madamez!

If you bothered to read the original thread it was asking for advice on what to tell DD and SIL when they return today NOT a debate on what cost what and honeymoon costs or ANYTHING else!

gosh - this has turned into a saga
have you spoken to the ILs?
don't say anything to your DD today

We have decided to say nothing to them today as they dont get back until 10pm.But we will say something just not today.

No one is DEBATING what it cost or what the honeymoon cost;they are asking these questions because they are relevent to why the inlaws might be upset/have gone back on their word and, therefore, what advice to give you.

And I, personally, didn't initially care about the cost; I simply suggested that the presentation of the honeymoon might be why they have gone back on their word. All of us here have read the initial thread and got more and more pissed off as the thread has gone on and you have chosen to see our questions and suggestions as an attack on you, rather than seeing them for what they are - some trying to get a bigger picture and some, like me, offering reasons for the inlaws' stupid reaction. In my last post to you, here, I summed up what everyone was asking/saying and still you think you are being got at.

If you don't like hearing things that suggest that maybe you weren't completely out of the picture (note, that doesn't say blame but if inlaws are envious of you then you are IN THE PICTURE), or if you expected everyone here to say how wonderful you are and how shit they are, then I suggest you've come to the wrong place. As I said, what you did was lovely, but they've also done lovely things for the couple and there must be a reason or reasons why they have gone back on their word.

I'd say don't tell your daughter. As they are not paying for the wedding, it is something they don't need to know unless it gets to a stage where bills aren't being paid and the inlaws are still refusing to give over any money.

Also note that I had made that suggestion after you had entered into discussion with other posters about the events of the day, what happened during the presentation and the bar bill. At no time did I ask you what happened during the day; at no time did I suggest you had done something wrong. You offered the information about the presentation.