June 11, 2007

  • Mercy Maud! If THIS isn't Rude with a Capital R, I don't know what IS.

    The Dallas Morning News carries a column called Ex-Etiquette, presumably dedicated to the etiquette issues arising from divorce, and which I'd not noticed before.  Today's conumdrum caught my attention, though.  Read it and stare in slack-jawed, pop-eyed astonishment:

    Question: My son is marrying for the second time. He's marrying a woman who has never been married.

    Yesterday I received a phone call from the mother of the bride stating
    that it's a no-host bar and they expect me to pay for the liquor and
    the rehearsal dinner, and they went over budget and would like me to
    help cover things to the tune of $6,000. I can't afford that. No one
    discussed this with me, and it's a month before the wedding. I have not
    even received an invitation. What is good ex-etiquette in this
    situation?

    Wowzers.  First thing I'd try would be to talk my son out of marrying into that family.  Kirstin's in-laws generously offered to pick up the liquor tab for hers and Matt's reception and being neither wealthy nor foolish, we quickly and gratefully accepted, but if they hadn't then we'd have paid for it ourselves.  I cannot imagine effectively demanding our prospective son-in-law's family underwrite the expense.

    Here's the relevant part of the response from the columnist:

    To get a
    phone call a month before the wedding, before you even received an
    invitation and when you haven't been included in any of the
    preparations or planning, and then to be expected to foot the bill - that is very bad ex-etiquette, and we question what the bride's family
    was thinking. Are they kidding?

    Just because the groom's
    parents traditionally pay for the expenses the mother of the bride
    requested, it does not mean that it is written in stone - ever. The
    groom's parents may not be able to afford what is regarded as their
    responsibility. If that is the case, then the bride's parents must
    either abide by what the groom's parents can afford and their daughter
    tones down expectations, or they pay for what their daughter wants.

    It's time to have a heart-to-heart with all concerned before any more
    time goes by. If you can, pay for what is requested. But if you can't,
    the financial obligation was taken on by the bride's parents without
    your consent.

    Bingo.  e-thumbs

Comments (11)

  • Liquor tab? Who needs liquor?  We had red and white wine at my reception, and only a couple of bottles were drunk. I will have no compunctions about saying, "I'm not paying for liquor!".

  • We had wine, beer, and champagne for toasting at our daughters' receptions.

    Unlike your reception, many many bottles bit the dust at Kirstin's and Jessica's. =8^o

  • My suggestion in this case is that the grooms parents are responsible for nothing at his second and subsequent weddings. They married him off once, and now he is responsible for himself. As the head of his own household (even if it's just a household of one), he is the one who should be paying the expenses that are traditionally for the groom's side.

  • Valerie, in theory I can go with your suggestion, but I think the problem arises when the parents actually want some level of involvement -- they want to give a gift (in the form of helping to sponsor some aspect of the wedding) or emotionally participate in giving the wedding -- but not precisely in the way in which the bride's family decides to dictate. So they might not be "responsible" for expenses of a second wedding, but you still might need to find a way to work out how they can participate if they wish, without being burdensome.

    IOW, you have to find a practical line between "it's not our responsibility" and "we want to graciously participate in this process without simply standing on responsibility, or lack thereof."

  • Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, but I believe a wedding is the bride's family's party.  If the groom's parents wish to help out (we did when our sons were married), the bride's parents accept graciously whatever is offered and say "thank you."   The wedding should be what the bride's parents can afford.  I also think if the bride and groom have been out of the home and self-supporting for any length of time, especially if they make good incomes and have been living together, they pay for the whole shabang.   I do not take prisoners when it comes to weddings.

  • Exactly, Lois. Just so on all points.

  • I can agree with that, Jane -- kind, generous, gracious contributions would be...well...kind generous and gracious. But not obligatory.

    Lois, my mother agrees with you. That's why she has always said that she'd be happy to put up a ladder for me.

  • Lois gets the prize!

    Valerie, I figured you meant "not obligatory." But when you ventured into "he is the one who should be paying," that creates an implication -- the parents Should Not be paying. So I was taking a bit of exception to a possible implication, not the underlying thought.

  • As the mother of two boys, I totally believe the brides parents are responsible for the wedding.  I believe if you raise your daughters to think they are getting a fairytale wedding then you pay for it.  My mom could not pay for a wedding so we had a small, 48 people, wedding.  We had no liquor bill and our wedding was fun.  We had music, food and a cake at the Haverhill countryclub.  We got married in a protestant church and had organ music.  We paid less than $5000.  Steve and I took on the expense.  We had a great day and I felt like the luckiest lady in the world.

    Now seriously, I did learn that first invites always go to the parents so they can brag to the world.  The young lady in the paper made that mistake.  Her inlaws should have been first. 

  • Oh I like the look of your site now, very pretty.

  • Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Lois!

    Crazy!  Has it become standard that the Groom's parents pay the liquor bill? 

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment