Ok, I had to post this one. There's an article about a couple out of England who are asking their guests to pay $200 to attend the wedding. The cheek.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-41317297
Quote:
|
"People always pay a large amount of money to go to a wedding anyway, so why not have it paying towards the actual wedding rather than just to a business owner?" Farina told the BBC.
|
Yes, of course. People pay money indirectly to go to a wedding - fuel cost for the drive, new dress or shirt, wedding gift, etc. But, this isn't the case here. The guests still have to book the 3-day package with the business owner.
Quote:
|
"I sold it to them a bit like an all-inclusive holiday, so all the food and drinks will be incorporated in that cost.
|
That's funny. Because most weddings are free to attend and the food and drinks are provided to the guests by the hosting couple, you know, for free.
Look, the groom says that the $202 includes three-night's stay at the venue. Copy. But now people are forced to spend the whole weekend there for a one day wedding. Also, his argument about how he and his bride had spent $2,600 to attend a friend's wedding in Greece is rubbish. First off, flying off to Greece for a destination wedding is not the same thing as asking your guests to drive 40 miles out of town to a day wedding. Secondly, it's not an argument that you and the bride overspent on someone else's wedding in Greece, therefore it's ok to ask your guests to outright pay to come to yours. Perhaps they should have skipped the Greek wedding, sent a lovely gift check, and then saved the remaining $2,400 dollars towards their own wedding?
Here is the groom's defense in a different article:
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news...-guests-503762
I wonder if this is all probably some kind of publicity stunt for the venue or something. That or one of the guests had to be offended enough to tip off the newspapers.
