Anonymous wrote:To all those who wouldn't help the same for their sons as their daughters, I dearly hope we never become in-laws. If by chance we do, I will ensure a strict prenup that will ensure my daughters maintain full financial control over their assets and inheritance.
From very wealthy mom who has evolved past the stone age
Anonymous wrote:To all those who wouldn't help the same for their sons as their daughters, I dearly hope we never become in-laws. If by chance we do, I will ensure a strict prenup that will ensure my daughters maintain full financial control over their assets and inheritance.
From very wealthy mom who has evolved past the stone age
Anonymous wrote:To all those who wouldn't help the same for their sons as their daughters, I dearly hope we never become in-laws. If by chance we do, I will ensure a strict prenup that will ensure my daughters maintain full financial control over their assets and inheritance.
From very wealthy mom who has evolved past the stone age
Anonymous wrote:To all those who wouldn't help the same for their sons as their daughters, I dearly hope we never become in-laws. If by chance we do, I will ensure a strict prenup that will ensure my daughters maintain full financial control over their assets and inheritance.
From very wealthy mom who has evolved past the stone age
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbingly sexist. Is it the stone age? Offer the same exact amount of support to each of your children, regardless of gender. Jesus.
+1, I’m shocked at how many people are sexist. This sounds more like Alabama Debutante Moms, not DC Urban Moms…
Just want to say that I know lots of old monied, southern families. They all give the same amount or very close to it for the son's wedding.
I think it's a WASP thing that you don't give anything to your sons for their wedding. My inlaws gave $250 for our wedding. Dh and I paid for it ourselves. They paid for both of his sister's weddings in full.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbingly sexist. Is it the stone age? Offer the same exact amount of support to each of your children, regardless of gender. Jesus.
+1, I’m shocked at how many people are sexist. This sounds more like Alabama Debutante Moms, not DC Urban Moms…
Anonymous wrote:As a father of three beautiful daughters. All very smart, talented, graduating college debt free. I will gladly pay 100 percent all three weddings.
But I do have stipulations.
1) respectful Groom to be
2) a wedding that considers aunts, uncles, parents of bride and groom.
3) I would like a Catholic mass or at l at some type of service.
4) a guy without piles of debt and. Good career
5) a guy who realizes it is the brides day
6) a guy who has a place for couple to live in.
My widowed poor Mom and my broke older sister paid 100 percent her wedding. Was a very nice wedding. Catholic mass before and the groom had saved me very penny and a little help his parents put 20 percent down on a house with my sister on title. Both had just finished masters degree debt free.
Meanwhile my brothers daughter is marrying a guy without a pot to pee in. Although Catholic and knows a big deal my brother to do a mass does not feel like it, he also wants it in a place 100 percent totally in middle of nowhere. Meaning most guests live in Ny, some in Florida a few in another state. He wants it near his apt in a fourth state. He also wants to control invitation list.
My brother finally said look I am paying 100 percent in NY, or Florida it the third state even. He said no.
The couple then had the balls to say keep the $50,000 you have saved for wedding in your vanguard account and let it grow. As if to say we can inherit more later.
My brother finally said I always wanted a new Camaro Convertible full loaded and could do an extra vacation or two. I will just spend it.
It was hilarious. I honestly think if you gave guy 50k to disappear he would.
Sadly most of today’s men are not worth the dad paying for wedding.
My father in law said you 109 percent plan wedding and pay 100 percent and if good I will give a generous gift.
Anonymous wrote:Rich people problem alert! (none of this money will effect our retirement money or plans)
Do you try to make that "fair" with your sons? DH wants to just offer each of the kids the same amount, say $100,000, and let them use for wedding and house downpayment. But in truth, I cannot see denying DD the fancy wedding (which we will all truly enjoy) and also helping her get into her first house. For the oldest son, we paid closing costs and whatever else after DS first secured a mortgage loan on his own, which came to just under $100,000.
Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbingly sexist. Is it the stone age? Offer the same exact amount of support to each of your children, regardless of gender. Jesus.
Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbingly sexist. Is it the stone age? Offer the same exact amount of support to each of your children, regardless of gender. Jesus.
Anonymous wrote:I plan to follow tradition. Pay only part of sons' weddings (rehearsal dinner and maybe booze) and the majority of DD's. The only thing that would make me change my mind is if DSs fall in love with girls from very modest backgrounds and, without our help, there wouldn't be much wedding to speak of. But otherwise I don't agree it's unfair--each couple gets a wedding.
And I definitely would not short DD downpayment help! These are different things.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thing I am missing a wedding is not a lot of money to do.
I got married in 1998. We did a nice wedding. We kept guests to 110. We had older aunts and uncles and some couples young kids.
We did a 10 am Mass, did a catering hall near church for a 1-6 wedding.
We spent money on great food and drink, dancing. Pre wedding outside top of line food and drinks, sit down dinner. Wonderful desert selection on top of cake.
Everyone stayed to end unlike those crazy 7- midnight weddings where 1/2 folks leave.
In the end since we focused on guests, kept guest list tight we broke even.
My wife and I paid ourself but got 100 percent back in wedding day. So by not doing it would have saved zero.
That is a very transactional view of a celebration.