# Eddie Hobbs - Wedding Plans



## gearoidmm (5 Mar 2006)

Couldn't help noticing that Eddie seems to have gotten it wrong with the wedding financing.  He suggested asking more people to the wedding and that the gifts that the increased number would bring would cover the entire cost of the wedding.

I think he failed to realise that you would only get one gift for every two people and inviting more people would probably cost a lot more in the long run.


----------



## askalot (5 Mar 2006)

Who said romance is dead?


----------



## zag (5 Mar 2006)

Only saw a fraction of the show, but it seemed a strange attitude to be looking for (relying on) money gifted by guests to pay for the wedding itself.  I accept that in practical terms this is what happens to some degree in almost all weddings, but surely the thought behind the gift is normally to provide something for the couple for the future and not to pay for the food on the day.

z


----------



## Audrey (5 Mar 2006)

....and the only people benefitting financially from the whole event are the hotel owner, the photographer, the florist, the ............ zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just what exactly is the point? I can't believe for one minute that most 'happy couples' actually WANT each and every one of the 200 or so people to be there on their big day. I think it's a mixture of crashing under parental pressure and/or just wanting to keep up with the Jones's, both of which are wrong reasons for spending that obscene amount of money, but of course that's just my humble opinion!!


----------



## mo3art (5 Mar 2006)

I thought it missed the point altogether.  The couple were spending an awful amount of money on a wedding, where they could have cut costs.
For example, €1K on a band, which was good value for a band in fairness but they could have done without the band and had the DJ for the evening, saving straight off.
I think with applying themselves a little they would have saved a good bit of money.  Eddie going in with 3 months to go was hardly much of a help, it would have been more informative and educational if he had featured at the start of their plans before they put down booking deposits.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Mar 2006)

I switched off when your woman said that certain things were a "must" including the church etc.


----------



## Bgirl (5 Mar 2006)

This current series is just not cutting the mustard in my opinion.  He is at his best when people are crumbling with debt and he shows them ways at getting out of the pit.  Very little tips are being passed on in this series whereas the last series had me seriously looking at my credit card spending and also looking at my mortgage with a different eye.


----------



## Carpenter (6 Mar 2006)

I though last nights show was pretty bad really, I watched with Mrs C and we were thrown back to when we were planning our own wedding on a very tight budget.  I didn't learn anything from it and I didn't think there was much entertainment value in it either.  The whole premise was quite flawed really- invite loads of extra people to your wedding to cover the cost- sure they'll never know they were just filling in the numbers!  I suppose on the one hand it's good to have high expectations or "something to strive for" but I didn't see a whole lot of realism in last nights programme.  I can't imagine why the couple wanted to appear on the show anyway- is the lure of reality TV that strong?


----------



## Sherman (6 Mar 2006)

I agree with _gearoidm_ - Eddie seemed to miss the likelihood that most of those 200 guests would be there as part of a couple, i.e. 100 couples, giving only one gift per couple, rather than one per person.

I think the guy was right when he initially rejected Eddie's suggestion, claiming that if they were relying on 'gifts' to finance the wedding, then they were no longer gifts, rather they were a 'tax' on attendance at the wedding.

It would have been a far more useful exercise if Eddie had looked constructively at ways to reduce the ludicrous cost of Irish weddings.


----------



## brodiebabe (6 Mar 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> I switched off when your woman said that certain things were a "must" including the church etc.


 
The church was obviously a "must" for that particular couple.  different strokes for different folks and all that....


Personally I switched off when the girl said there were so many things that cropped up that were pushing them over the edge like flowers for the mothers.  I'm sorry but if two bouquets of flowers (€100 maybe) tip you over the edge, you can't afford to get married.


----------



## Grizzly (6 Mar 2006)

If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Mar 2006)

I always give cash, about €200 for the 2 of us.

Similarly we got mostly cash presents for our wedding - people are very generous. I dont like wedding lists - I'd rather leave it up to the guests. They seem a bit pushy to me, and its one of those situations where the less you push, maybe the better you go.

Re the no's - there are a certain amount of "must invites" but that goes with the territory, its in the fabric of a typical Irish wedding (particularly country ones). Theres obviously no compulsion to going with this flow, and its not unheard of to "have a small family affair".

Planning a wedding isnt the worst ordeal in the world - not a patch on having a house built - and people should be advised to go with the flow a bit and enjoy the day - no point stressing about everything being perfect  - because in the end its only you and your close family will really remember it - for everyone else it'll mesh into all the other weddings they were ever at.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Mar 2006)

brodiebabe said:
			
		

> The church was obviously a "must" for that particular couple.  different strokes for different folks and all that....


 I realise that. It's just the way it was casually thrown in with the other "must have" trappings that put me off. On the other hand chances are I would have switched anyway as I don't really find these programmes (or much else on _TV_) interesting.


			
				Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


Nope. Registry office job and just immediate adult family (c. 30 people) for a meal afterwards with other friends dropping in later on for drinks/nibbles. Flew to _Donegal _for a relaxing weekend away the next day and had a proper holiday/honeymoon in _Sicily _a month or two later. Can't remember the total cost but pretty sure it was well below €5K.


----------



## fobs (6 Mar 2006)

I didn't see the show last night but if Eddie was presuming that inviting more people would cover the cost of the wedding as serious financial advice then he is making money for old rope in my opinion.

When I got married nearly 7 years ago we had the money for the wedding and were not depending on guests presents to pay for it. It would not have covered it anyway as many people gave gift instead of money and a lot of people gave very modest presents also.


----------



## JohnBoy (6 Mar 2006)

differently to the show? I cannot answer that because I have not see it but what i would have done differently..

Simplify as much as possible. My other half spent too much of the day running around looking after small details that I am not too sure if she enjoyed the day as much as I did.

Find out who is getting married in the church on the same day and see if they want to share flowers for the church. 

A single flower in a vase is just as elegant as a bunch of flowers on a table (and a fraction of the price!).

Scrap bridesmaids dresses - I have been to a load of weddings and they never look right. Just tell the bridesmaids to wear a certain colour and let them buy and outfit that they will wear again.

Have a buffet rather than a sit down meal. I think that most places will do reasonable cold food and spare the guests the standard 'chicken or beef'. I think that it is also a lot more social.

Limit ALL the speakers to maximum 10 minutes ( ideally just 7) and make sure the bestman informs the guests of this so they will start to heckle when they run over.

Get a competent and organised best man as he will take a lot of the burden off the groom (ditto on groomsmen).

Don't invite anyone who has not been in contact for the last two years (this is especially true with your wife's extended family).


----------



## Calina (6 Mar 2006)

The whole wedding thing in Ireland gets me. It's when you're planning for people's expectations that I get worried. 

It's not actually something I have to worry about right now, but when I get married (if, come to think of it), I want a small intimate wedding, with the wedding ceremony at 11am, lunch afterwards, and straight to the airport for an evening flight to wherever, preferably not long haul. Huge "keeping up with the Joness" style wedding receptions and honeymoons do not do it for me. The actual getting married part is not the expensive part, it is all the trappings, and I don't believe in doing the trappings for everyone else's benefit when I don't want them myself. 

I prefer giving presents than money myself as wedding gifts (must be a few disappointed marrieds who got things rather than cash over the years then). There's something seriously wrong if a major personal event like marriage comes down to money. There are other ways of doing it.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Mar 2006)

JohnBoy said:
			
		

> Don't invite anyone who has not been in contact for the last two years (this is especially true with your wife's extended family).


 Eh!? Can you expand on that (the second part) please...


----------



## gauloise (6 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


 
No! We had a small church ceremony,  (not a white wedding ..no flowers, music etc..) followed by a meal  in a hotel in Cavan for 25 of our friends and family that played and continue to play an ongoing role in our lives. It was a weekend long affair and all cost under 5000 in 2003 !


----------



## gearoidmm (6 Mar 2006)

Problem is that despite the fact that it makes no economic sense at this time of our lives, a lot of people still want the big traditional white wedding where there is no doubt who the centre of attention is and damn the expense.

Rational thought seems to disappear out the window when that ring goes on the hand.

That said, I'll be happy to pay whatever it takes (within reason) to make sure that we remember the day for the rest of our lives, it only happens once!


----------



## contemporary (6 Mar 2006)

gearoidmm said:
			
		

> it only happens once!



You hope 

Weddings seem to be the new rat race at the moment, she had 3 bridesmiads, so I'll have 4, and so on.


----------



## Audrey (6 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


. No, exactly the same.  Church wedding, immediate family only (27 total) for a meal in Shelbourne, followed by anybody who wanted for the DJ later on (in the same room in Shelbourne).  Total, incl photographer, cake, dresses, suit, string quartet (at church and at beginning of reception), honeymoon, etc etc - 6k.


----------



## Vanilla (6 Mar 2006)

Watching the programme, I was just wondering why they felt they had to marry at that point in time anyway. Maybe it was for religious convictions. But I felt they were putting themselves under pressure to get married, rather than buy a house which might have been more sensible financially given the high rent they were paying. Then they could still have married a few years down the line when the student finished his PhD and got a job. I did the conventional wedding route, church and hotel wedding reception but it was mainly for out of respect for my parents who were of an older generation and that was how they wanted me to get married. If I felt I could do things differently I probably would have just had a church or registry office marriage just for family only and a barbeque at home afterwards- probably with a caterer, again only for a small number of people. Or maybe if I could have organised our families ( who are all over the world), a big get together in France with a hired large house or something similar. 
Legally there are still advantages to being married rather than not, completely aside from tax issues, and more especially for women where a couple want to have children. I have always been of the view that women should be very careful about giving up their career to have children and become a stay at home mum where a couple are not married, because they have much less rights tnan a married woman would have.


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Mar 2006)

It seems in Kerry the weddings are massive altogether - 300, 350 ......

I think the Hobbs theory is at work there - marginal contribution from each extra guests, then just need the numbers to get up to breakeven point !!


----------



## Megan (6 Mar 2006)

I could not believe the advise that Eddie Hobbes gave to that couple. I am a long time married now and am glad I went down the sencible route for me that being 30 guests - all people we wanted there and are still in touch with all of them 29 years later. My nephew got married one year ago and had 300 guests present and I heard his mother afterwards saying that alot of the guests "didn't covered themselves" meaning that what they gave didnt pay for their meal. Isnt that sad!!!
Modern Ireland!!!!


----------



## Samantha (6 Mar 2006)

My advise for the couple would have been "don't get married if you can't afford it", I find it foolish to take a loan for a wedding and get in debt just for one day.


----------



## fobs (6 Mar 2006)

> My advise for the couple would have been "don't get married if you can't afford it", I find it foolish to take a loan for a wedding and get in debt just for one day.


 
Everyone can afford to get married it is the extras that cost the money. Even a Church wedding doesn't have to cost anything if getting maried in your own parish with 2 witnesses! It is the optional extras that cost the money and if you can afford these have them if not do without!
You dont have to get a 1000 euro dress,hire suits,bridesmaid dresses,honeymoon in Barbados....these are what cost the money and not the wedding ceremony! If you can afford these extras they are nice but not worth having to get a loan for!


----------



## Kiddo (6 Mar 2006)

I agree with Eddie that certain elements of a wedding are fixed costs, ie dress, suits,flowers etc will cost the same regardless of the number of guests, while the meal/wine cost is really the only variable. Its a bit late coming in with 3 months to go as most of the big expenditure is committed to ie hotel, dresses, band etc.

That said it was a bit idiotic imo to tell the couple to invite more guests in order to get more cash gifts..and then for Eddie to tell them to ask for cash only ..its just not the done thing and while I would generally give a cash gift I would take offence if asked for it. 

Relying on cash gifts from guests to pay for your wedding is a foolish thing to do. Just to shoot Eddies theory down in flames we found that some guests are incredibly generous, some wouldn't cover the cost of the meal/wine and some guests give nothing.(and before I get flamed for that comment I mean it as a way to show the fundamental flaw in Eddies thinking...it didn't make a blind bit of difference to us) 

We wouldn't do anything different. We had some pressure from our parents to invite certain people so as a compromise we gave each set of parents X number of friends to invite...and they could choose who they wanted there. 

We kept costs down as much as possible and only splashed out on one thing...the band. But as we are both big music fans it was important to us. In total we spent about €11K for 70 people...my Dad insisted on paying for the meal and got quite insulted when we initially refused. The balance we paid for from savings. Neither of us would have been happy getting into debt for one day....and we certainly wouldn't have got married without having our house first.


----------



## Covenant (6 Mar 2006)

Hmm it seemed to me that the couple had already decided to get married and were well underway before going on SMTM. They were advised to use a Credit Union loan facility and seemed to have a spread sheet done out with all the costs identified including the cost of stamps. There was no over-run with everything being monitored. I got the impression that Eddie was tongue in cheek with the idea of doubling up the wedding size. He described it himself as vulgar.


----------



## killeoin (6 Mar 2006)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> Legally there are still advantages to being married rather than not, completely aside from tax issues, and more especially for women where a couple want to have children. I have always been of the view that women should be very careful about giving up their career to have children and become a stay at home mum where a couple are not married, because they have much less rights tnan a married woman would have.


 
I belive that most would be of the view that is vital for the man to get married if having childern, basically to just have rights to see them if the couple break up.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Mar 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> They were advised to use a Credit Union loan facility


So _Eddie _the one trick pony is back on form, eh?


----------



## Vanilla (6 Mar 2006)

> I belive that most would be of the view that is vital for the man to get married if having childern, basically to just have rights to see them if the couple break up.


 
Unmarried fathers do have legal rights to see their children if a couple breaks up. What I am talking about is the difference between a married couple and an unmarried couple as regards maintenance in the event of a breakup, when a married person does have the right ( depending on the financial circumstances) to maintenance for themself but an unmarried person has no such right.


----------



## casiopea (6 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?



I had wanted to get married in Italy, but gave in to pressure from family to get married in Dublin.  That said I would do it all the same again.  I did the church thing but had none of the trappings (ie no pew bows, 1 small bouquet (total flower cost 150 euro), no bridesmaid, wedding cake, no veil, didnt spend money on shoes or accessories, no favours etc), we invited 60 people, we didnt borrow or stretch ourselves financially.  Id wanted to get married in Italy because the meal/reception we could have gotten for guests would have been so much more superior than what you'd get in Ireland for the same money.  Mention wedding in Ireland and they seem to add 1000 thousand euro onto any price!  It was also very very hard to get a venue for only 60 people, so many places wanted to charge us extra for the downfall (ie 10 euro per person not invited upto 90 for example, so one place wanted to charge 10euro x 30 and were really surprised when I cancelled the booking as a result).

I cannot believe Eddie Hobbs suggested upping guests to cover costs?  What ridiculous and narrow-minded advice.  Its not even good financial advice, as some people feel quite strongly about not giving money.  Were there any compliants about it at all?


----------



## gearoidmm (6 Mar 2006)

Surprised he didn't suggest saving money by getting married in the Cape Verde Islands


----------



## delgirl (6 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


Nope, registry office wedding in Switzerland, mainly to avoid the hoardes in Ireland who I hadn't seen for about 20 yrs!  Small reception for 25 guests afterwards - cost around €3,000.  We used our savings to put a deposit on a house in London the same year and are absolutely certain we did the right thing.

I'm amazed at how much people here in Ireland are prepared to spend on one day - a friend of mine got married in Australia, flew all and sundry over for the occasion, had a 'blessing' and party in Ireland on their return for the 180 or so guests who couldn't attend in Australia and five years later is still in rented accommodation lamenting the fact that she could have used the money to put a deposit on a house.

Would have liked to have heard Eddie say that they were foolish to put themselves into so much debt for one day.


----------



## Carpenter (6 Mar 2006)

Is €6000 the average spend on the "honeymoon" these days?  Again another frivolous expense, I thought.  You could have a very nice holiday for less than €3000 surely?  It seems that round the world trips and excursions to Bali, Singapore, South Africa or Australia are the expected norm now!  Mrs C and I had to laugh- our "honeymoon" was a 12 day stay in the Peak District: days spent sightseeing or hillwalking and plenty of real ale along the way!  I think the total cost of our wedding for 90 people or so was about £10000, back in 2000- including the honeymoon.  We had our house a year before we married- a priority for any couple.


----------



## TarfHead (6 Mar 2006)

There were about 60 guests at our wedding. I can't remember the overall total for our big day, we didn't have to borrow to fund it.

Without wishing to generalise, I think there's a different attitude outside of Dublin when you start to identify who should/must be invited.

I think SMTM has run it's course.


----------



## Vanilla (6 Mar 2006)

Definitely agree with Carpenter re the honeymoon too. €6000 is crazy money to spend on a holiday and much much more so when you have to borrow for it. Mr.V and I had a great honeymoon, but we married AFTER we started building our house when we had our finances straight, and didn't have to borrow for the wedding or honeymoon. If we had had to borrow, the honeymoon would have been two weeks at home in Kerry or at the very most a very cheap package holiday. I just don't understand the mentality of borrowing for an expensive holiday at all.


----------



## askalot (6 Mar 2006)

Vanilla said:
			
		

> Unmarried fathers do have legal rights to see their children if a couple breaks up. What I am talking about is the difference between a married couple and an unmarried couple as regards maintenance in the event of a breakup, when a married person does have the right ( depending on the financial circumstances) to maintenance for themself but an unmarried person has no such right.


Wrong. The father has an obligation to help look after the children - not his ex wife/partner. Married or not this is the same.


----------



## Vanilla (6 Mar 2006)

Read my post again. All parents, married or not have an obligation to maintain their children, yes. But only married people have a right to seek maintenance from the other spouse in respect of themselves.


----------



## Lorz (6 Mar 2006)

Getting married myself in 3 months so I'm quite interested in this topic.  It's interesting that most people here seem to have gone for the small, intimate affair here or abroad.  We're going for the full traditional wedding in my local church and on to a hotel.  We're paying for the entire day from our own savings and already have our own house.  Incidentally, we're not going to adhere to the politics of an Irish wedding - you have to invite X because we were invited to their child's wedding or if you're inviting those cousins, you have to invite your other cousins.  We are inviting people who we see on a regular basis and who know both of us.  I will not be introducing anyone to my spouse on our wedding day - they will certainly have met before.  

I cannot understand why anyone would get into debt to get married or go on a honeymoon.  We certainly won't and if we couldn't afford it now, we would simply postpone the wedding.  I suppose the people who get into debt for their honeymoon are also the people who get into debt for their annual holiday, Christmas, Holy Communion .....


----------



## gearoidmm (6 Mar 2006)

Interested in the house-before-wedding v wedding-before-house debate.  I'm getting married next year and will be returning to my rented apartment when we get back from the honeymoon.  Won't have to borrow anything to pay for the wedding or honeymoon but I don't necessarily see how you have to own a house before you get married as some others have suggested


----------



## Kiddo (6 Mar 2006)

gearoidmm said:
			
		

> Interested in the house-before-wedding v wedding-before-house debate. I'm getting married next year and will be returning to my rented apartment when we get back from the honeymoon. Won't have to borrow anything to pay for the wedding or honeymoon but I don't necessarily see how you have to own a house before you get married as some others have suggested


 
I don't think anyone was suggesting that you must have a house before getting married. 

For us the priority was to get on the property ladder first and have the wedding later rather than the reverse....especially as house prices are rising all the time...but each to their own


----------



## Carpenter (6 Mar 2006)

gearoidmm said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily see how you have to own a house before you get married as some others have suggested


 
I don't think you HAVE to own a house before you get married- but it is a good idea to have your homework done as regards how you will fund the future purchase of your home.


----------



## Lorz (6 Mar 2006)

I think the point being made was that if you had €10-€20k to spend, it would be more wise to use it as a deposit on a house - an asset which would hopefully appreciate in value as opposed to a great day out!

Each to their own!


----------



## Joe Nonety (6 Mar 2006)

Eddie's theory does make sense in some ways, in that a couple or a person that's invited is likley to cover more than just the per person cost and so all this extra money pays for the other costs of the day. However what he doesn't consider is that by inviting lots of fringe relatives and friends it'll probably mean a lot of extra invites to weddings yourself and when you add in the cost of accommodation, drink, present and new clothes it won't be worth it. So if you are going to follow Eddie's advice and go for 300 guests instead of 150, include mainly married couples in the beefed up numbers.


----------



## colc1 (6 Mar 2006)

Covenant said:
			
		

> I got the impression that Eddie was tongue in cheek with the idea of doubling up the wedding size. He described it himself as vulgar.


 
Me too!!


----------



## colc1 (6 Mar 2006)

gearoidmm said:
			
		

> Surprised he didn't suggest saving money by getting married in the Cape Verde Islands


----------



## colc1 (6 Mar 2006)

Joe Nonety said:
			
		

> inviting lots of fringe relatives and friends it'll probably mean a lot of extra invites to weddings yourself and when you add in the cost of accommodation, drink, present and new clothes it won't be worth it. So if you are going to follow Eddie's advice and go for 300 guests instead of 150, include mainly married couples in the beefed up numbers.


 
Good point Joe wasnt thinking about that!


----------



## ClubMan (6 Mar 2006)

gearoidmm said:
			
		

> Surprised he didn't suggest saving money by getting married in the Cape Verde Islands


I think it's considered polite to ignore that particular elephant in the corner when it comes to the bould _Eddie_!


----------



## Betsy Og (6 Mar 2006)

colc1 said:
			
		

> Good point Joe wasnt thinking about that!


 
but you could always not go to all the other weddings - or choose the ones you really wanted


----------



## ClubMan (6 Mar 2006)

If it is then I am already spoken for I'm afraid.


----------



## Kiddo (6 Mar 2006)

delgirl said:
			
		

> Is this some sort of weird marriage proposal?
> 
> We're talking about weddings, and the cost thereof, here - perhaps you'd like to pose your question/point of view in the Property Investment Forum?


 

Well it beats "how would you like to be buried with my people?"


----------



## minion (7 Mar 2006)

We bought the house when we got engaged and decided to wait for 2 years to get married and hopefully the equity in the house would pay 
for the wedding.  We remortgaged and paid €15K for all the trappings and 275 guests.
Bargained everyone (band, dj, photographer, cake etc) down by a lot.  Got about 40% off the price of the band, 30% off the photographer, 50% off the price of the video 30% off the flowers.  Even got €1.5k off the food and drink costs when we haggled with the hotel manager.  The secret was to book everything less than 6 months in advance.  That way they all knew they werent going to get another wedding for that date.
After we came back from honeymoon we had some of the usual rubbish (crystal, silver, toasters etc) for presents but to our surprise we had over €22K in cash.
Paid it off the mortgage then.  Actually made a profit on the wedding which is a first as far as i know.  It seems now that people realise how much its costing you to have them at your wedding and will give you cash as a present.  I think we'll get married again.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Mar 2006)

though am a cash giver and was a grateful receiver, a few "goods" are nice, especially from close family. Something to plonk on the mantlepiece or cabinet - who buys crystal for themselves??...

I'd imagine you'll get a few irate responses re describing the other stuff as "rubbish".


----------



## minion (7 Mar 2006)

Betsy Og said:
			
		

> though am a cash giver and was a grateful receiver, a few "goods" are nice, especially from close family. Something to plonk on the mantlepiece or cabinet - who buys crystal for themselves??...
> 
> I'd imagine you'll get a few irate responses re describing the other stuff as "rubbish".


But most people have plenty of 'stuff' to put on the mantlepiece.  And its stuff that they picked themselves and so like them.  They might not like some crystal that a relative thinks they will.
Even though they wont tell you almost everyone i know think it inconsiderate and a cop-out to buy people 'ornaments' as presents no matter how much they cost. We got a waterford crystal decanter from a couple.  It was very nice and one of the few useful crystal presents we got.  When they called out for dinner about 3 months after the wedding, they were disgusted to see that we had booze in it rather than have it just on display.  Also its hard to put some stuff on the mantlepiece aand put the ugly stuff away and then have the person who gave you the ugly stuff wonder why you dont have it.
We got a huge painting (about 23 ft wide and very expensive), but its ugly to us and we dont want it on the wall.  Several times the friend that gave it to us has been asking how we like it.  When he comes to the house we have to put it up.

At a time when a couple need a helping hand they dont need glorified glass or someone elses taste in what might look good 

It would be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on getting crystal, pictures or kitchen equipment for presents though.


----------



## gearoidmm (7 Mar 2006)

That's the whole point of wedding lists though, isn't it.  If there are things that you need around the house, pop into Arnotts (or wherever) and make a list of things that you would like people to buy.

A friend of mine recently got married and had a wedding list for his relatives and some of the older people coming who might not feel comfortable with the idea of giving money.  All the rest of the guests gave vouchers or cash.

I think, these days, if there's no list, it's a given that cash is what they want.  My taste in ornaments may be different from my auntie in Sligo.


----------



## Carpenter (7 Mar 2006)

Yeah, we got some hideous gifts- one in particular struck me: an Itlalian crystal "sculpture" of an eagle with a clock insert on a timber base!  It wasn't cheap but we hated it.  It languished in the attic (unused!) for 5 years until I dropped it into a local charity shop.  We also got a Waterford crystal lamp, while not unattractive it doesn't suit our decor and it met the same fate.  Neither gift was from family or close friend so we're unlikely to be asked about their whereabouts.  I have no qualms about getting rid of stuff we don't want or like- it's only cluttering your life and we have enough of that I think.


----------



## nelly (7 Mar 2006)

minion said:
			
		

> At a time when a couple need a helping hand they dont need glorified glass
> 
> It would be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on getting crystal, pictures or kitchen equipment for presents though.



i reckon the only way to go is have your house bought before you get married because folks are less likely give you stuff for your house because in theory you have already fully decorated it yourself. 
I got married and bought the house 4 months after, now we did get cash from folks who knew us - we were saving like hell and figureens were the bottom of our wish list but there were canteens of cutlery, crystal and  LAMPS and a few other bizarre gifts.
I look at one lamp we got that I know cost in excess of €400 sitting on an argos study table for €39 and i think what were these people thinking? they were obviously blessed with generosity  but at least if it was a microwave or whatever i would have been just as greatful and happy - but a load of decorative stuff (not all to my taste) sitting in the attic till i get the cash together to get furniture to display it just seems daft. 
Cash aside the best presents we got were department stores vouchers because we got to kit out the kitchen/ house with basics, soft furnishings, linen, and on one very strapped week - the groceries. we had the best craic going shopping for saucepans one saturday (being broke we didn't get out too much!)
So when attending weddings it depends on the couple whether we give cash or vouchers to the same value.


----------



## Calina (7 Mar 2006)

minion said:
			
		

> We got a huge painting (about 23 ft wide and very expensive), but its ugly to us and we dont want it on the wall.



To some extent, I rather prefer useful presents. 23 ft wide paintings are not presents bought with the recipient in mind. It's extremely unfair.


----------



## SteelBlue05 (7 Mar 2006)

Carpenter said:
			
		

> Yeah, we got some hideous gifts- one in particular struck me: an Itlalian crystal "sculpture" of an eagle with a clock insert on a timber base! It wasn't cheap but we hated it..


 
You b*a$$$$d, that cost me a fortune!


----------



## gearoidmm (7 Mar 2006)

nelly said:
			
		

> - but a load of decorative stuff (not all to my taste) sitting in the attic...


 
At least you have an attic. I dread the thought of our apartment spare bedroom filling up with lamps and cutlery after the wedding (we already have two sets of china ware we don't use and we're not even married yet)


----------



## minion (7 Mar 2006)

Calina said:
			
		

> To some extent, I rather prefer useful presents. 23 ft wide paintings are not presents bought with the recipient in mind. It's extremely unfair.



Sorry, i meant to type 3ft.  Still too big and ugly though 

I would agree that department store vouchers are good to get too.  I would count them as cash.

I know of people renting a flat who got married and got all the kitchen stuff and furniture as presents.  They had to give it away.  We brought back some newbridge silver to the newbridge shop and they said yes it was theirs but they hadnt stocked it in 2 years.  They gave us the money for it anyway - fair play.  
A lot of this ornamental stuff seems to be people passing it on at the next wedding they go to.
A friend of mine said he got his own wedding present to someone else back.  He dropped the box and the corner was dinged so he taped it.  Was easy to identify


----------



## Carpenter (7 Mar 2006)

SteelBlue05 said:
			
		

> You b*a$$$$d, that cost me a fortune!


 
It's selling for a tenner in the Gorta shop in Portlaoise!


----------



## KatieC (7 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> If you married couples out there were doing it again, the wedding I mean, would you do things differently?


 
I'd change the groom, it took a couple of minutes to get hitched and six long years to get rid of the useless feck*r!!!


----------



## RainyDay (7 Mar 2006)

KatieC said:
			
		

> I'd change the groom, it took a couple of minutes to get hitched and six long years to get rid of the useless feck*r!!!


Brilliant first post Katie - Welcome to Askaboutmoney....


----------



## Winnie (8 Mar 2006)

wow lots of different lines of conversation going on here........

on the programme - i just can't believe that they were willing to get a 10 year loan to pay for their wedding! that is just mental!  and the necessity for a €6k honeymoon when they are broke............what planet do these people live on!

wedding - we had 80 people.........no loans required.........would hate to have 200/300 people  - i don't know 200 people that I like!

Pressies - I have to say that I prefer to give a pressie than money but I suppose vouchers is the middle ground.  I found that I didnt get any useful pressies, like sheets/towels etc & I would have loved some.  But got lovely lamps & a fab painting.  Feel that if you give cash someone could be down in Tesco the next week buying their groceries with it!


----------



## microsquid (10 Mar 2006)

Hello 
Getting married next year and would always have been of the opinion that people spent far too much on weddings...
I have to hang my head now and confess that I, too, am a Bridezilla... 
We will be paying for everything out of savings but it will probably hit E15k+ (thank God for SSIAs)
A lot of that is the guest list of 125 for a Saturday May wedding, and a seven piece band, but we will be trying to skimp on other things, and given work pressures, we're unlikely to go for the honeymoon straight away.
Why so many? I'm lucky to have lots of aunties and friends and I'd love to have them all together for a big party.
And the band has a brass section that we fell in love with so thats them.
I figure I didn't have a 21st party or anything, our family doesn't really celebrate 40ths or 60ths so here we go.
Plus there will be people travelling from abroad so a BH Saturday was helpful.

I've been trawling wedding sites for tips to keep it down so I won't clog the ether here but if anyone has a sure-fire saver please PM me!

On Eddie: think it was a bit ridiculous.

On gifts: we'll have a list ready if people ask for it. We have our own home so it will be helpful. Otherwise we're grateful for whatever, although we have about 6 salt and pepper sets since getting engaged... and a toaster.


----------



## Kiddo (10 Mar 2006)

microsquid said:
			
		

> I've been trawling wedding sites for tips to keep it down so I won't clog the ether here but if anyone has a sure-fire saver please PM me!


 
I have pm'd you a few suggestions


----------

