Are you paying or contributing to your kids weddings?

[Anonymous]

Two boys. Neither will get married with a big party. Maybe courthouse and a restaurant.
They don't like attention and are conservative with money. If they do, it's all their partner's doing and they'd better pay for it too.
NW is plenty to pay for a wedding. I just don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Teen boys.

If they don't have a destination wedding, we will pay for a very nice honeymoon of their choosing within a generous budget.

Obviously, having 2 boys, we will have zero say in the matter since the bride usually gets what she wants in every wedding detail.

We find destination weddings to be so tacky, gauche, shallow and selfish.

Destination weddings inconvenience all of the guests in a very expensive way. Destination weddings:

- make less affluent friends and family have to either go into credit card debt to attend the wedding to support the bride and groom, or skip the wedding of a loved one because they can't afford to attend

- require guests to use all their precious vacation time on an expensive multi thousands of dollar trip that they did not pick out for themselves or choose the budget for

- forces guests to pay for your dream wedding in an underhanded tacky way

- results in poorer loved ones, friends and families feeling embarrased and unwanted if they cant afford to jaunt off to a resort in the carribean

- are a huge imposition for loved ones with children

- are soooo difficult for elderly family members like grandparents.

- the bride and groom end up with all their inlaws in tow on their honeymoon


For these reasons and more, we would be really embarrased if our kids have a destination wedding that requires such imposition on guests and loved ones, just to get your guests to pay for your wedding and so you can get fancy beach photos for social media.

If they choose poorly and end up with a bride that insists on a destination wedding, we will zip our mouths, smile politely, gush about how pretty the beach photos will be, and pay for a block of rooms for the family on our side who are able to attend, to lessen their financial burden, but we will not pay for a honeymoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teen boys.

If they don't have a destination wedding, we will pay for a very nice honeymoon of their choosing within a generous budget.

Obviously, having 2 boys, we will have zero say in the matter since the bride usually gets what she wants in every wedding detail.

We find destination weddings to be so tacky, gauche, shallow and selfish.

Destination weddings inconvenience all of the guests in a very expensive way. Destination weddings:

- make less affluent friends and family have to either go into credit card debt to attend the wedding to support the bride and groom, or skip the wedding of a loved one because they can't afford to attend

- require guests to use all their precious vacation time on an expensive multi thousands of dollar trip that they did not pick out for themselves or choose the budget for

- forces guests to pay for your dream wedding in an underhanded tacky way

- results in poorer loved ones, friends and families feeling embarrased and unwanted if they cant afford to jaunt off to a resort in the carribean

- are a huge imposition for loved ones with children

- are soooo difficult for elderly family members like grandparents.

- the bride and groom end up with all their inlaws in tow on their honeymoon


For these reasons and more, we would be really embarrased if our kids have a destination wedding that requires such imposition on guests and loved ones, just to get your guests to pay for your wedding and so you can get fancy beach photos for social media.

If they choose poorly and end up with a bride that insists on a destination wedding, we will zip our mouths, smile politely, gush about how pretty the beach photos will be, and pay for a block of rooms for the family on our side who are able to attend, to lessen their financial burden, but we will not pay for a honeymoon.

And, we will pay for the rehearsal dinner since that is traditionally the groom's family's obligation.

[Anonymous]

One DD7. We have $50k invested for a wedding fund for her. Lavish weddings are the norm in my culture but our hope is to give her a modest wedding and cash for a down payment.

[Anonymous]

I have three boys, but I will pay whatever I need to pay for whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

I don’t disagree but this goes both ways. Ironically my FIL worth big big $ refused to contribute anything (my parents are working class) but sent a note to his / now our entire extended family that he couldn’t wait for our big wedding.

We eloped and that was that. If you aren’t contributing don’t expect any say and don’t complain if the couple can’t afford whatever you had in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

You know what hasn't changed in the world? Brides sharing control and decision making of the wedding plans.

With rare exception, the brides are stuck in 1950s traditional wedding planning roles that exclude the groom's family's input in very sexist ways.

Until that has caught up with modern times, the bride's family should 100% bear the financial responsibility for the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

Yeah, team boy mom.

When the bride is willing to relinquish all or half of the decision making to the groom and future mother in law, then your post would make sense.

But weddings are planned almost 100% by the bride, even today, down to the shoes the groom wears, and approval of or guidelines for the dress that the mother in law wears.

A wedding is one of those things where the old adage of if you are going to expect money from someone, then get ready to earn the money in the form of their (often unwelcome) opinions

Unless a bride is willing to let the groom's side be involved in decision-making and planning, then weddings should continue to follow the traditional route of the bride's side paying for it.

Really! Your response is another sexist post. The is 2026 not 1786. Of course the groom’s family should get a voice in the planning and everything else! And you should expect to pay equally for your sons and daughters.

(Well, maybe not you. You will reap what you sow.)

[Anonymous]

No. They can pay for it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

You know what hasn't changed in the world? Brides sharing control and decision making of the wedding plans.

With rare exception, the brides are stuck in 1950s traditional wedding planning roles that exclude the groom's family's input in very sexist ways.

Until that has caught up with modern times, the bride's family should 100% bear the financial responsibility for the wedding.

News flash!!! It caught up at least 25 years ago. My ILs were involved in the planning of my wedding to the extent they wanted to be, which was every detail down to the color scheme. Honestly, I was grateful because my parents and ILs were able to spend time together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pur kids are 21 and 23, and we have $50k earmarked for each of their weddings, one boy one girl

Us too $50K each- two boys, 22 and 24.

[Anonymous]

We paid $90k for DDs wedding 6 years ago. Her DHs parents covered the rehearsal, and a grandparent hosted the post wedding brunch.

DS isn’t engaged yet, but I expect we will contribute significantly to that. It depends what they choose to do and the resources the brides parents have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest is only 15, and a boy, but if/when he gets married, I work contribute whatever they need if the bride’s parents aren’t paying or we’d do rehearsal/honeymoon. DH and I were able to fund our $100k wedding 20 years ago, and I’d want something at least as nice for them.

You expect the women’s family to pay?! Why? Because it’s tradition? It’s only tradition because historically women didn’t work or receive an education. Now that’s not the case. Don’t continue your sexist way of thinking when the world has changed.

You know what hasn't changed in the world? Brides sharing control and decision making of the wedding plans.

With rare exception, the brides are stuck in 1950s traditional wedding planning roles that exclude the groom's family's input in very sexist ways.

Until that has caught up with modern times, the bride's family should 100% bear the financial responsibility for the wedding.

Both my son and my daughter got married within the last several years, and in both their weddings, the bride’s and groom’s families were equally involved in various aspects of the planning. We did a lot of divide and conquer, delegating out jobs so that no one got overwhelmed with all the tasks.

Have your children actually had weddings? It really sounds like you are either living in a different era or you just haven’t planned a wedding in recent years.

[Anonymous]

I have sons so I guess the rehearsal dinner.