Things I don't get about Irish weddings MOD WARNING POST #322

lazygal

We got a full breakdown of the tab for our free bar. We could see exactly who ordered things like brandy or scotch who never buy them themselves, mainly family members and one or two friends, but it was 90% pints, shorts and mixers and soft drinks. We had decided we weren't going to let the few scabby feckers dictate the free bar, and thankfully most just appreciated the gesture and didn't take the piss.

amdublin

Another thing I don't get about Irish weddings: the whole concept of "covering your plate"

Who the heck throws a party and expects their guests to pay for it?
Us Irish, that's who!

I don't get that.

BabysCoffee

Tasden wrote: »

But that's the issue, its not their drink of choice, its the drink they order when its not coming from their pocket.
I think the fact it is needed/advised is sad but I wouldn't say tacky. Personally I think it should be glass of wine or beer or soft drink and thats it, tough if you want something else.
That's exactly the point the barman was making, people don't realise its in someone's nature until they're presented with the offer and then they show that side. Its not necessarily that they feel ah I'm gonna bleed them dry here, more just ah sure may as well get something nice since its on them, but when everyone thinks the same it all adds up. Not malicious against the couple, more just not fully aware that just because its free for them doesn't mean someone isn't paying.

stinkle wrote: »

Yup - taking the mick with open bar/toast isn't even a new thing. My parents had an open toast at theirs back in the 70s and were stung by, for example, people who normally only drank pints went and ordered double whiskies, brandies, that sort of thing. Stuff theyd never touch any other day if the week.. It worked out a bit of an expensive surprise for a pair of 21 year olds who had scrimped and saved for their wedding. Also open bars could cause extra hassle if any guests have a drinking problem that they haven't faced up to.

A recent wedding I was at had a free bar most of the night, we were v well behaved buy it occurred to me that you could easily get a bunch of people stockpiling drinks for when the tab ended.we'd all like to think our mates wouldn't behave that way but some family members could be a different story.

They are all fair points......

but

I was at my friends wedding where my other friend I were drinking cocktails all day -I bought the bride one too and we all sat and chatted together and enjoyed our drinks.

When the staff member came around to take our drinks for the toast I ordered the cocktail that I was drinking - and my friend was about to also.

The staff member however then proceeded to bark loudly at all at our table (who I barely knew) "No doubles, no cocktails, only beer,wine singles"

Not only was I mortified for myself I was also embarrassed for the B&G. I understand why they made the rules (as outlined by the other posters above) but it just made them appear stingy. I'm sure they also didn't want to be mortifying their guests like I was (I was made to feel like I was taking advantage of the free drink on offer) ......maybe it was just a staff member who was a little tactless in getting the message across???

lazygal

amdublin wrote: »

Another thing I don't get about Irish weddings: the whole concept of "covering your plate"

Who the heck throws a party and expects their guests to pay for it?
Us Irish, that's who!

I don't get that.

The Americans are way worse, elaborate pre wedding celebrations with registry lists, expect bridal party to pay for their outfits and pretty much open demands for cash gifts.

Tasden

amdublin wrote: »

Add this to my list. People not trusting their friends and family not to take advantage of their generosity/not fully aware that someone is paying for the drink that is offered to them.

I don't get that.

Its not only friends and family. A lot of people bring plus ones who may not even give a **** if you're paying, its a day out for them.
Its not about trusting friends or not, its knowing some people will do it. People are human, I trust them to be human, and therefore I assume it will happen because it has every time I've experienced it and its why I make a point of buying my own drinks regardless.

amdublin

BabysCoffee wrote: »

They are all fair points......

but

I was at my friends wedding where my other friend I were drinking cocktails all day -I bought the bride one too and we all sat and chatted together and enjoyed our drinks.

When the staff member came around to take our drinks for the toast I ordered the cocktail that I was drinking - and my friend was about to also.

The staff member however then proceeded to bark loudly at all at our table (who I barely knew) "No doubles, no cocktails, only beer,wine singles"

Not only was I mortified for myself I was also embarrassed for the B&G. I understand why they made the rules (as outlined by the other posters above) but it just made them appear stingy. I'm sure they also didn't want to be mortifying their guests like I was (I was made to feel like I was taking advantage of the free drink on offer) ......maybe it was just a staff member who was a little tactless in getting the message across???

Oh dear. Yeah that staff member should have just leaned in and quietly told you "the rules".

amdublin

lazygal wrote: »

The Americans are way worse, elaborate pre wedding celebrations with registry lists, expect bridal party to pay for their outfits and pretty much open demands for cash gifts.

:eek:

So rude!

stinkle

amdublin wrote: »

Add this to my list. People not trusting their friends and family not to take advantage of their generosity/not fully aware that someone is paying for the drink that is offered to them.

I don't get that.

Some family members are just arses, and often you're stuck with inviting them. I agree that if you have friends who behave like this and you dont like it, then are you really good friends? As an example, if I could bet money on ANY of my guests pulling a stunt with a free bar it'd be my cousin's stingy husband and my uncle's witch of a wife who takes advantage of everyone and has no shame. Both are only related by marriage but since I love the people they're married to we can't keep them off our guest list, much as I'd like to.

Also,you can't be sure about the odd +1 as well.

Tasden

BabysCoffee wrote: »

They are all fair points......

but

I was at my friends wedding where my other friend I were drinking cocktails all day -I bought the bride one too and we all sat and chatted together and enjoyed our drinks.

When the staff member came around to take our drinks for the toast I ordered the cocktail that I was drinking - and my friend was about to also.

The staff member however then proceeded to bark loudly at all at our table (who I barely knew) "No doubles, no cocktails, only beer,wine singles"

Not only was I mortified for myself I was also embarrassed for the B&G. I understand why they made the rules (as outlined by the other posters above) but it just made them appear stingy. I'm sure they also didn't want to be mortifying their guests like I was (I was made to feel like I was taking advantage of the free drink on offer) ......maybe it was just a staff member who was a little tactless in getting the message across???

Yeah I can see why you'd feel awkward in that position. I don't think I'd see it as stingy of the couple though, anything that is "extra" is still generous regardless of whether there are restrictions or not.
At a recent wedding they had wine at the table and I think we all got three or four glasses of wine each, I didn't feel that the bride and groom were stingy for not offering the beer drinkers beer or whatever, I just thought it was lovely they gave that much wine.

Toots

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I don't get when the bride & groom buy guests "a drink" for the toast........but then put attach a tacky list of rules like "no doubles, no cocktails, etc".

Easy way to avoid that is to give everyone a glass of champagne/prosecco for the toast that way everyone gets a drink for the toast but there's no chance of people being embarrassed by servers telling them they're not allowed to order xyz and the drink tab for the night doesn't run into outrageous figures.

This was one thing that really concerned me at my wedding, my parents were paying for it and I didn't want them getting a massive bill for the toast drinks at the end of the night, particularly considering there was a lot of drink laid on for the arrival bit and during the meal. I had a word with the wedding co-ordinator on the sly and got her advice.

We ended up deciding that doubles would be grand, and cocktails were ok too because the most expensive one on they did was something like €7 so it wouldn't be too bad. We drew the line at trebles though, personally I don't know anyone who'd go out and order a treble at a bar for themselves so it'd just be them being a cheeky fecker because the drink was being bought for them. IMO it's the same as if you were buying a round for your friends in the pub. If one of your friends was drinking singles and mixers all night but then decided they wanted a treble when you were buying I don't think anyone would blame you for telling them to cop on.

BabysCoffee

Toots* wrote: »

Easy way to avoid that is to give everyone a glass of champagne/prosecco for the toast that way everyone gets a drink for the toast but there's no chance of people being embarrassed by servers telling them they're not allowed to order xyz and the drink tab for the night doesn't run into outrageous figures.

This was one thing that really concerned me at my wedding, my parents were paying for it and I didn't want them getting a massive bill for the toast drinks at the end of the night, particularly considering there was a lot of drink laid on for the arrival bit and during the meal. I had a word with the wedding co-ordinator on the sly and got her advice.

We ended up deciding that doubles would be grand, and cocktails were ok too because the most expensive one on they did was something like €7 so it wouldn't be too bad. We drew the line at trebles though, personally I don't know anyone who'd go out and order a treble at a bar for themselves so it'd just be them being a cheeky fecker because the drink was being bought for them. IMO it's the same as if you were buying a round for your friends in the pub. If one of your friends was drinking singles and mixers all night but then decided they wanted a treble when you were buying I don't think anyone would blame you for telling them to cop on.

Trebles!!!! Now that is taking the piss!!!

All of the above sounds great! Good call going with the cocktails......sure a vodka and coke would nearly be €7 so no difference to a cocktail

Toots

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Trebles!!!! Now that is taking the piss!!!

All of the above sounds great! Good call going with the cocktails......sure a vodka and coke would nearly be €7 so no difference to a cocktail

Yeah, that's what we figured. Also the wedding co-ordinator pointed out that a lot of guests would probably order a pint for the toast, which would balance out the odd double that was ordered.

Valentine1

I disagree with you on almost all your points but I'm only going to address these ones so I've cut the others.

Fair enough you don't get certain elements of an Irish wedding and granted some things are idiosyncratic but I don't get any sense that you have tried to understand why they are the way they are and you've dismissed some explanations in thread with a simple "I don't get it". perhaps the thread would be better titled "things that aren't readily apparent to me about Irish weddings.":P

amdublin wrote: »

2. The obsession with church weddings for non practicing/non religious people.
I'd wager 9/10 b&g's don't see the inside of a church from one year to the next but they must have a church wedding. Doubt they see the inside of the church again for a long time after.
I just don't get it.



I just don't get it. Loads more of stuff I don't get either. I'll add to it later.

What you think about above? Anything you don't get?

My own experience in relation to church weddings is the exact opposite to yours, over the last 3 years I've been to or been invited to 10 or 12 weddings and only 2 of them have Church weddings.

I think there are a number of reasons why non Church goers would opt for a church wedding. Some people have simply always wanted to get married in a Church, perhaps it represents tradition and marks the occasion for them, It wouldn't be my choice but I think its a valid reason and easy to understand.

Other people my choose a Church wedding because it makes their parents or other family members happy, it could be argued that they shouldn't have to do that but it may not be a question of having to do it. Certainly one of the weddings I was at last summer was held in a Church because the Bride's father would have been deeply upset otherwise. It made him happy and proud to have it in the church in his home town and both the Bride and Groom were pleased to do it simply because it him happy. Certainly I can get that.

amdublin wrote: »

Ah yes that reminds me of another thing I don't get

6. Start time and dinner time
Early ceremony (12.30/1pm etc) and then dinner not until 5.30 with no food in between.
Why not just married at 3.30/4pm and go straight into dinner?
OR (please!) provide food in between - and not cupcakes, cocktail sausages or something!

8. Long speeches
Imo only really close family find the speeches interesting/entertaining.
Imo everyone finds them tedious and boring but we are all too polite to say this so we labour under the pretence that we enjoyed sitting there for 45 minutes while we'd rather be at the bar.

You've said elsewhere in thread that you are usually bored and starving between the ceremony and the meal, is everyone else bored at these weddings? Again my experience is entirely different. I'm never bored during this time (often called the champagne reception) It's a great opportunity to spend time circulating, catching up with old friends meeting the families of the bride and groom and simply relaxing and enjoy the setting before sitting down to dinner where you won't get to interact with so many people when you are at your tables. I'd be very disappointed if this wasn't a feature at a wedding or reduced to a short time. I don't think thats hard to understand.

I do agree that some sort of food should be served during this time but agian every wedding that I have been to recently has served some sort of canape. I went to a wedding in New York a few years ago where they had "cocktail hour" where they essentially served what I would describe as "Dinner" about an hour before we actually sat down to dinner. Perhaps thats what you're used to (I'm presuming you are American from your name) but I thought it was total overkill and in at n irish wedding I think it would risk being either confusing to guests or seen as a display of extravagance. Lord knows thats a Cardinal Sin in Ireland (now more than ever!).

Its also worth considering whether its logistically possible to have the ceremony and Dinner closer together, I'm sure that in many cases later times for the ceremony simply aren't available and serving the meal early isn't ideal if the party is to continue into the early hours.

As for the speeches I agree that a poor speaker who drones on for 30 minutes is terrible but a good or even reasonable speaker (as most tend to be in my experience) is great, I've been to many weddings where the speeches were the stand out highlight for everyone present.

As for the duration well I think that is obvious, other's have mentioned that its not all that often that people have others make loving public speeches about them but look at it from the perspective of the speakers. How often do you get to speak to a room of family and friends about how wonderful you think your Friend/Brother/Sister/Son/Daughter are? Many Fathers of the bride look forward to this speech for years upon years and likewise all the best men I have known have relished it and considered it a great honour.

I don't think everyone should speak for 25 minutes but I can easily see why so many people want to speak for 10 minutes or so and furthermore why most guests are more than happy to listen to them!

I'm getting married myself next year (to an American as it happens), some of these elements we'll include and others we won't but I think that with a little consideration its easy to see why people do choose to have them.

BabysCoffee

I don't get why Irish weddings are such marathons. You're up at the crack of dawn getting hair done to go off to the early church ceremony to then go off on a jaunt to the reception. Here you are left hanging around at a loose end until finally dinner gets served. After dinner the serious drinking starts and then you finally get free at about 2am.

Not me though, I just slip away about 12......I just don't have the stamina.

I find it all so uncivilised.......

username123

Toots* wrote: »

Easy way to avoid that is to give everyone a glass of champagne/prosecco for the toast that way everyone gets a drink for the toast but there's no chance of people being embarrassed by servers telling them they're not allowed to order xyz and the drink tab for the night doesn't run into outrageous.

The problem with that is you just end up with loads of left over full glasses of Champagne and prosecco, just money down the drain. Loads of people won't drink either or won't interrupt pint drinking to drink them.

hoodwinked

BabysCoffee wrote: »

They are all fair points......

but

I was at my friends wedding where my other friend I were drinking cocktails all day -I bought the bride one too and we all sat and chatted together and enjoyed our drinks.

When the staff member came around to take our drinks for the toast I ordered the cocktail that I was drinking - and my friend was about to also.

The staff member however then proceeded to bark loudly at all at our table (who I barely knew) "No doubles, no cocktails, only beer,wine singles"

Not only was I mortified for myself I was also embarrassed for the B&G. I understand why they made the rules (as outlined by the other posters above) but it just made them appear stingy. I'm sure they also didn't want to be mortifying their guests like I was (I was made to feel like I was taking advantage of the free drink on offer) ......maybe it was just a staff member who was a little tactless in getting the message across???

are you sure that wasn't just part of the hotel package? i know some hotels were offering toasts with wine or beer as part of the package, which would explain why the staff was so snappy, as it would be on their head when the hotel/bar manager was down a cocktail when it should have been the cheaper wine/beer....

BabysCoffee

hoodwinked wrote: »

are you sure that wasn't just part of the hotel package? i know some hotels were offering toasts with wine or beer as part of the package, which would explain why the staff was so snappy, as it would be on their head when the hotel/bar manager was down a cocktail when it should have been the cheaper wine/beer....

Maybe. Perhaps the B&G should have advised the hotel that they would compensate them for cocktails - especially when the bride knew that some of her friends liked a cocktail or two! ;-)

Teyla Emmagan

I have to say I think the 'oh you wouldn't get this because you're not Irish' attitude from some of the posters on this thread is hilarious. As if it matters, as if some of these 'traditions' can't be criticised by anyone who isn't one of our own. I agree with the OP's opinion on the majority of her points and I am Irish.

I generally hate receiving a wedding invite, because it immediately throws up a wall of dread of having to endure a marathon day of boredom, hunger, standing around, driving ages, waiting ages, being polite to people you have no interest in and food I don't like. To be honest, I think if some of the ways in which we 'do' weddings were changed a lot more people might see the invite coming in and think 'great, that will be a super day' instead of 'Oh God, no'.

amdublin

Firstly just to clarify, I'm Irish! I'm as Irish as irish can be :pac: My username is because I'm from Dublin...and I was setting up my boards account in the morning (am!)

I just posted because of all the things I just don't get...or are not "readily apparent" to me. I just think if you/we took a step back and realized that you don't have to do anything/everything that everyone else does a wedding day will still be good...and indeed might even be better.

Some of it is lighthearted! Your mam doesn't have to wear a fascinator. Give the poor woman a break, she'd never wear something like that in a fit on any other occasion, she kind of "knows" it looks really silly on her, she even IMO feels a bit uncomfortable (she certainly looks it!) but no, she's the mother of bride...she must put a bit fluff and feather in her barnet!

But some of the other stuff I really and truly do not get. A church wedding....but "I've always wanted it"... Nice and all...but there is other stuff connected to church, it's called religion and part of it is a commitment to go to mass quite regularly, it's all very well saying you are a catholic and wanting a catholic wedding but there is a part of it that requires some doing. And part of that doing is getting up off your @ss on a Sunday morning, getting out of bed and going to mass. I cringe at weddings when the b&g don't even know when to kneel and stand. Come on why bother with the farce!

Thumby

i'm not Catholic and my oh is and he's been told in no uncertain terms that's he has a snowballs chance in hell of having a church wedding. It's ridiculous imo that i should be expected to "stand before god" and all that other malakry when to me i'll just be standing there spouting lies to a deity that I don't believe in. My oh understands my reasons for not wanting a church wedding, even though "one or two"(ready my mother aarrgghh) of the parents do but it's not happening. I really don't understand why people who don't go/believe in the church insist on having a wedding there. You can have just as wonderful a wedding (decorated and all) by getting married in the same place as your reception. Most places actually throw in the wedding room and decorations for free as well once you have a certain number of sit down guests. So yeah that bugs me lol

ronjo

Thumby wrote: »

i'm not Catholic and my oh is and he's been told in no uncertain terms that's he has a snowballs chance in hell of having a church wedding. It's ridiculous imo that i should be expected to "stand before god" and all that other malakry when to me i'll just be standing there spouting lies to a deity that I don't believe in. My oh understands my reasons for not wanting a church wedding, even though "one or two"(ready my mother aarrgghh) of the parents do but it's not happening. I really don't understand why people who don't go/believe in the church insist on having a wedding there. You can have just as wonderful a wedding (decorated and all) by getting married in the same place as your reception. Most places actually throw in the wedding room and decorations for free as well once you have a certain number of sit down guests. So yeah that bugs me lol

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

amdublin

ronjo wrote: »

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

What, so you both can be hypocrites?

Seriously, if you are genuinely serious about your faith then super. But seriously if you don't even know when to kneel, when to stand, resent the premarital course etc etc what is the point?

You might as well find a building that just looks like a church to get the same effect.

lazygal

ronjo wrote: »

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

As someone similar to the Op it would've been a deal breaker for me if my partner insisted ona church wedding. I wouldn't be compatible with someone religious or a hypocrite who.wanted a church wedding despite not believing any of it. Luckily I married someone who didn't want to start married life telling lies in a church.

BabysCoffee

Oh yes!! Those wedding courses!!

I happen to think they are a good idea but because I didn't get married in a church I never got to go on one.

I don't get the couples who choose to get married in a church but don't want to go on the required marriage course and do everything in their power to get out of it.

ronjo

amdublin wrote: »

What, so you both can be hypocrites?

Seriously, if you are genuinely serious about your faith then super. But seriously if you don't even know when to kneel, when to stand, resent the premarital course etc etc what is the point?

You might as well find a building that just looks like a church to get the same effect.

It was a question for Thumby. I am just genuinely interested.

Sligo1

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I have to say I think the 'oh you wouldn't get this because you're not Irish' attitude from some of the posters on this thread is hilarious. As if it matters, as if some of these 'traditions' can't be criticised by anyone who isn't one of our own. I agree with the OP's opinion on the majority of her points and I am Irish.

I generally hate receiving a wedding invite, because it immediately throws up a wall of dread of having to endure a marathon day of boredom, hunger, standing around, driving ages, waiting ages, being polite to people you have no interest in and food I don't like. To be honest, I think if some of the ways in which we 'do' weddings were changed a lot more people might see the invite coming in and think 'great, that will be a super day' instead of 'Oh God, no'.

Then don't go to the whole day? Just go to the ceremony? Simples. And no people won't be offended if you give a good excuse. Unless of course you're very close family, part of the bridal party or extremely close friends. We had a couple of people who didnt make it to the ceremony but came to the meal... And a couple of people who came to the ceremony but couldn't make the meal. Didnt bother me in the slightest. But that's just my opinion.

username123

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I happen to think they are a good idea but because I didn't get married in a church I never got to go on one.

I think the "idea" of a pre marriage course is a good one. But having a celibate man giving marital relations advice is just silly.

hoodwinked

Thumby wrote: »

i'm not Catholic and my oh is and he's been told in no uncertain terms that's he has a snowballs chance in hell of having a church wedding. It's ridiculous imo that i should be expected to "stand before god" and all that other malakry when to me i'll just be standing there spouting lies to a deity that I don't believe in. My oh understands my reasons for not wanting a church wedding, even though "one or two"(ready my mother aarrgghh) of the parents do but it's not happening. I really don't understand why people who don't go/believe in the church insist on having a wedding there. You can have just as wonderful a wedding (decorated and all) by getting married in the same place as your reception. Most places actually throw in the wedding room and decorations for free as well once you have a certain number of sit down guests. So yeah that bugs me lol

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

ronjo

hoodwinked wrote: »

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

Thats what I was getting at with my question. I dont personally understand how it can be a deal breaker. (just my opinion)

lazygal

hoodwinked wrote: »

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

What is the compromise, exactly? You had a full church wedding and christened the child. How is that a compromise?

username123

ronjo wrote: »

Thats what I was getting at with my question. I dont personally understand how it can be a deal breaker. (just my opinion)

Well if you think its all nonsense (like me), it seems hypocritical to stand there and partake in the ceremony promising things to a god that you dont believe exists.

Would you think it silly if two people stood making serious vows about their love for each other in the eyes of the Great Spagetti Monster, or Santa Claus? I just wouldnt be able to take it seriously if my partner was doing that with no actual faith.

I admire the poster above who is able to go along with her husbands faith while she is agnostic - I couldnt.

Banjoxed

Ties askew. The whole day.

Hands in pockets. The whole day.

Fascinators. They are not.

A ten million year wait in the church while they sign the register. Have they only gone looking for it when the celebrant went in off the altar?

B&G's kids as child bride and page boy.

In fact, any child bride and page boy. It's naff. Stop it now.

A ten million year wait between getting out of the Church and, after travelling half way across the country to the reception, for food. I always go to McDonalds or Supermacs in between.

Beef or Salmon.

Red or White Paint Stripper, Sir?

Clapping the food in. In the name of God, why?

Ballyragging by the groomsman or best man, with his tie askew and hands in his pockets, pointing out the obvious about exactly how ignorant the groom or the best man is. We know.

Naff twinkly music as a sound track to a "romantic" montage is so inoffensive it is utterly offensive. Celine Dion's "Falling into you" when you know the whole thing started with fingers and a shift at the back of a seedy niteclub years ago.

Country and Irish.

Said Country and Irish band doing "Say you love me" by Wee Daniel and calling it Rock 'n' Roll.

The immense hangover you got for nothing when the only loose women at the wedding were so bovine that the cows went calling for them.

€200 plus drinks out of pocket.

Screw that.

Sligo1

username123 wrote: »

I think the "idea" of a pre marriage course is a good one. But having a celibate man giving marital relations advice is just silly.

I don't think that's the case anymore. Well it Wasnt with ours anyway. We had a man and a woman give our course. Each whom had been married to their respective partners for around 20 years and they had children.

I don't think it's the priests or nuns who teach these courses anymore... I could be wrong?

amdublin

hoodwinked wrote: »

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

Aww that sounds like you managed to get a nice compromise (and put a lot of groundwork to achieve that).

I don't get it when it is patently obvious neither the b&g ever go to mass (the kneeling & the standing as an example), when they vow to bring the children up as Catholics and when you see this translate (years later) into eventually starting to go to mass the year of the Childs communion and then give it up after it until confirmation year.

If it was my wedding and i demonstrated to all present (including the priest) that actually for all my saying a church wedding was important to me, but really it was not (well not enough to get put of bed every Sunday morning) I'd be embarrassed and let's not kid myself in my heart of hearts I'd know I was being disrespectful.

hoodwinked

lazygal wrote: »

What is the compromise, exactly? You had a full church wedding and christened the child. How is that a compromise?

because it made no difference to my views, i am not religious but still got to marry the man i loved still got the day out in the beautiful venue and dress and i didn't have to compromise my views or vows or make false promises to "god", and my husband who is religious also got his way got to get married in church before the eyes of his god,

christening the child makes no difference to me, did i believe she'd go to limbo if we didn't no, does he take her to mass yes, and i go too it really doesn't hurt me to give up one hour every fortnight to sit in a church and support my husband and child in what they believe in, i don't believe in it that doesn't mean she won't, but if she finds some small happiness or comfort in her religion then i am happy my child will have that option.

ronjo

username123 wrote: »

Well if you think its all nonsense (like me), it seems hypocritical to stand there and partake in the ceremony promising things to a god that you dont believe exists.

Would you think it silly if two people stood making serious vows about their love for each other in the eyes of the Great Spagetti Monster, or Santa Claus? I just wouldnt be able to take it seriously if my partner was doing that with no actual faith.

I admire the poster above who is able to go along with her husbands faith while she is agnostic - I couldnt.

As I said in my original post I am talking about if its important for one partner. Not when partner has no faith.

amdublin

Sligo1 wrote: »

I don't think that's the case anymore. Well it Wasnt with ours anyway. We had a man and a woman give our course. Each whom had been married to their respective partners for around 20 years and they had children.

I don't think it's the priests or nuns who teach these courses anymore... I could be wrong?

I think these courses are a great idea. I'm all for "counsel" and advice. And I think it's a great idea to take some time out as a couple and explore your relationship.

But anyone I know who went on one (as part of their church wedding) gave out about having to give up their weekend. Well just don't do it if you don't want to do it. Another part of Irish weddings I just don't get.

kkcatlou

Banjoxed wrote: »

Ties askew. The whole day.

Hands in pockets. The whole day.

Fascinators. They are not.

A ten million year wait in the church while they sign the register. Have they only gone looking for it when the celebrant went in off the altar?

B&G's kids as child bride and page boy.

In fact, any child bride and page boy. It's naff. Stop it now.

A ten million year wait between getting out of the Church and, after travelling half way across the country to the reception, for food. I always go to McDonalds or Supermacs in between.

Beef or Salmon.

Red or White Paint Stripper, Sir?

Clapping the food in. In the name of God, why?

Ballyragging by the groomsman or best man, with his tie askew and hands in his pockets, pointing out the obvious about exactly how ignorant the groom or the best man is. We know.

Naff twinkly music as a sound track to a "romantic" montage is so inoffensive it is utterly offensive. Celine Dion's "Falling into you" when you know the whole thing started with fingers and a shift at the back of a seedy niteclub years ago.

Country and Irish.

Said Country and Irish band doing "Say you love me" by Wee Daniel and calling it Rock 'n' Roll.

The immense hangover you got for nothing when the only loose women at the wedding were so bovine that the cows went calling for them.

€200 plus drinks out of pocket.

Screw that.

You sound great craic!!! :eek:

lazygal

hoodwinked wrote: »

because it made no difference to my views, i am not religious but still got to marry the man i loved still got the day out in the beautiful venue and dress and i didn't have to compromise my views or vows or make false promises to "god", and my husband who is religious also got his way got to get married in church before the eyes of his god,

christening the child makes no difference to me, did i believe she'd go to limbo if we didn't no, does he take her to mass yes, and i go too it really doesn't hurt me to give up one hour every fortnight to sit in a church and support my husband and child in what they believe in, i don't believe in it that doesn't mean she won't, but if she finds some small happiness or comfort in her religion then i am happy my child will have that option.

The church doesn't care that you only had a church wedding and baptism as a "compromise", only that they've more fuel in the fire for their numbers.

Milly33

Haha another one not to invite.. Jes do people really take the piss out of lets say a free bar and the toast drinks like that (as in ordering cocktails or doubles or trebles). I would not mind lets say a double whiskey or something like that, that you would drink straight but cocktails ne ne bad form.

We would normally just get another glass of vino

Sligo1

amdublin wrote: »

I think these courses are a great idea. I'm all for "counsel" and advice. And I think it's a great idea to take some time out as a couple and explore your relationship.

But anyone I know who went on one (as part of their church wedding) gave out about having to give up their weekend. Well just don't do it if you don't want to do it. Another part of Irish weddings I just don't get.

Lol... I gave out. It was on a really rare hot weekend! Haha.

Banjoxed

kkcatlou wrote: »

You sound great craic!!! :eek:

I take it the invite is off

hoodwinked

lazygal wrote: »

The church doesn't care that you only had a church wedding and baptism as a "compromise", only that they've more fuel in the fire for their numbers.

let them have my numbers,

what is more important to me, is my happiness and the happiness of my family, religion has helped my husband and his mother through some very tough times, it works for them like counseling worked for me in tough times,

his uncle is a priest and maybe that effects me as i really respect the man and i can differentiate between the man and his job. (in fact he is my favorite in-law) so having him marry us was also important to me and an honour, and he knows i am not religious (as we tend to debate the topic a lot) but then he is a pretty cool person and it was his idea to re-word it so i wouldn't be uncomfortable saying things i didn't believe. (he also spent the ceremony making us all laugh it was so unique friends of ours have also asked him to officiate their non-religious ceremony too)

Kontrapasa

lazygal wrote: »

The church doesn't care that you only had a church wedding and baptism as a "compromise", only that they've more fuel in the fire for their numbers.

+1

A compromise would have been having a civil ceremony and then a catholic blessing or something like that. Standing up there in front of your husband, the priest and your guests, you got married by God in the eyes of everyone...I don't think having your wows tweaked to suit you doesn't mean you didn't marry by the church. You basically gave in. Same about christening the baby, that's no compromise but another new member of the catholic church for the stats and you allowed her to be "signed up" (with no opt out option) for a thing you don't even believe in.

Sligo1 wrote: »

I don't think that's the case anymore. Well it Wasnt with ours anyway. We had a man and a woman give our course. Each whom had been married to their respective partners for around 20 years and they had children.

I don't think it's the priests or nuns who teach these courses anymore... I could be wrong?

My friends were at one few weeks ago, it was a priest. Find this hilarious. Same when they're giving marital advice during mass or how to bring up children during christenings...Sure you wouldn't take driving lessons from somebody that hasn't ever driven a car, right? :rolleyes:

hoodwinked

Kontrapasa wrote: »

+1

A compromise would have been having a civil ceremony and then a catholic blessing or something like that. Standing up there in front of your husband, the priest and your guests, you got married by God in the eyes of everyone...I don't think having your wows tweaked to suit you doesn't mean you didn't marry by the church. You basically gave in. Same about christening the baby, that's no compromise but another new member of the catholic church for the stats and you allowed her to be "signed up" (with no opt out option) for a thing you don't even believe in.

really? it doesn't feel to me like i gave in? so isn't that what really counts here? i don't base my thoughts or feelings on what my guests think...

a civil ceremony would have been my husband losing out on the wedding he always wanted, thats not a compromise either, i was happy with our choice as was he so surely the compromise worked for us?, i couldn't be happy getting married if i knew he was only doing something for me. And any way im not even sure the honan in UCC is a catholic church (i think it may be non de-nom), but it is a beautiful venue to get married in.

and as for the christening thing, i was christened, i did my communion, and by my confirmation i knew i didn't believe and did it anyway. did it hurt me in any way? no,

when i decided to declare myself agnostic did the church hunt me down and beat me with sticks? no.

in fact what effect does me being a number to the church have on my life?....none!

i can't assume my daughter will feel the same as i do and i would never push her to, she can make her own mind up when she is ready to, we don't push her in either direction we are just giving her choices, its the same as activities, you don't know what they'll like so you sign them up to scouts, soccer/rugby or a martial art and then they keep doing it (or quit if they don't like it)

Kontrapasa wrote: »

My friends were at one few weeks ago, it was a priest. Find this hilarious. Same when they're giving marital advice during mass or how to bring up children during christenings...Sure you wouldn't take driving lessons from somebody that hasn't ever driven a car, right? :rolleyes:

<sorry chrome quit unexpectedly and posted this before i finished >

but as i said above my husband's uncle is a priest, and he is like a grandfather to our 4 year old, she adores him, he could tell you a few things about raising children, and where to buy the best clothes for children, and how to get your one year old to say "i am precocious"

as for marriage, he spends 365 days a year around married couples, observing them from the outside, seeing what they are like with one another, who better than someone who's job it is to do something to ask for advice on that something?

some people forget that these priests also went to college and most of them have done psychology courses too, and counseling courses, as they effectively work as counsellors to people, when they have deaths, weddings and births.

they are around these situations 24/7 so yes although i am biased i would accept any advice given by a priest.

lazygal

Giving your child choices would be letting her decide when she's old enough whether she wants to be Catholic and be baptized.

Sligo1

Kontrapasa wrote: »

My friends were at one few weeks ago, it was a priest. Find this hilarious. Same when they're giving marital advice during mass or how to bring up children during christenings...Sure you wouldn't take driving lessons from somebody that hasn't ever driven a car, right? :rolleyes:

This I agree with!

PCros

Ok so it seems the atheist brigade have latched onto this thread which started off as light hearted banter and will now ultimately be closed as the last few pages has turned in to a religion debate.

If Hoodwinked wanted her husband to be happy, and she was happy about that, then leave it be!

Thumby

ronjo wrote: »

If it was really important to your husband would you agree to it for his sake?

If it was really important I would try and see if there was anyway we could find something that suits us both.
As it is we're both compromising about where we are getting married. I would have been just as happy to get married in a registry office but my oh was adamant that he didn't want that so we are getting married in the same place as we're having our reception.

amdublin wrote: »

What, so you both can be hypocrites?

Seriously, if you are genuinely serious about your faith then super. But seriously if you don't even know when to kneel, when to stand, resent the premarital course etc etc what is the point?

You might as well find a building that just looks like a church to get the same effect.

Exactly amdublin

hoodwinked wrote: »

wow,

well i am one of those "not religious" people, in fact i would probably be classed as agnostic,

my husband is religious, his mother is fiercely so, his uncle is a priest,

i agreed to have a catholic mass wedding, (the full deal) as to me it was the vows and the civil parts that mattered where as to him the religious side was important, so we compromised, i would never dismiss any part of him especially his religion as he finds comfort there in times when he needs to, (i also wouldn't have married him if i did dismiss a part of him or showed such blatant disrespect for his views)

his uncle was our priest and we re-worded the ceremony so i wasn't saying anything hypocritical, and worded the vows so that i could mean and keep every word i said, (it was actually quite easy to do with the options the church gives to you)


we got the best of both worlds.

when it came to christening our child, we did the same thing, it was an easy choice to me as it was sprinkling her head with water, and a day out, where to him it meant so much more and to her, well she might be like her dad and find great comfort there, or like me and not believe a word of it, either way she makes her own choices now.

I am not dismissing my oh views or beliefs. If he was attending church on a regualar basis or was more than just paying lip service to the way he was brought up then it would be a different story. Like you we would manage to find something that works for both of us. None of our family memebers are particuluarly religious they just identify themselves as catholic and those who pay more than just lip service to the occasional mass (midnight mass at xmas, easter mass etc) don't expect us to get married in a church. It's just not important to them. They just want us to be happy and want to be to see us get married and celebrate with us.
The only reason my mother wants us to get married in a church is so that she can show off and say oh well my daughter had this that and the other etc etc etc.
Forget keeping up with the Joneses for my mother it's all about outdoing them.

I will admit I have had all of my kids christened, (i didn't make and promises or say any vows however,) and the older ones have made their communions and one confirmation so far. However i don't feel I am being hyprocritcal in this as I made up my own mind when i was older and my kids will do the same. It's a good thing, i think, they have something to believe in and learn the value of faith. They can make up their own mind when they are older. I know i'm gonna land myself in a pile of trouble with this,but it's like letting them believe in Santa. ( I don't mean that in a dismissive way or beratement of anyones beliefs, just that it's something they should decide for themselves when older and also i don't want them being left out in school etc and missing major milestones of a young childs life.

ronjo wrote: »

Thats what I was getting at with my question. I dont personally understand how it can be a deal breaker. (just my opinion)

Thumby

@Hoodwinked,

I think it's absolutely fantastic that you and your husband were able to come up a compromise like that and it does sound genuienly lovely. However as i've stated my oh is most def not like your hubby and there's probably more religious belief in an inanimate object than in my oh, and i just won't bow down to my mother and her vanity and be out of pockets because she wants and i'm quoting "the day she never got" when she married my dad. Looking back at the pix of their wedding it was absolutely lavish compared to most back then and she still wasn't happy. That's the only reason she wants us to get married in a church. She's the only one. My dad will still get to walk me down the aisle as he wants so he's not bothered by the venue ceremony.