<p>Yes, Bedford Hills. A 10 acre estate is what I hear.</p>
<p>Good for them. And good for the Bushes too. Serving our country is so hard I don’t begrudge any of them living the post-WH life in comfort.</p>
<p>If it is outrageous to spend $x on a wedding, is it outrageous that Clinton gets such high speaking fees? IMO no.</p>
<p>Haven’t read the thread thoroughly, just scanned it - but I heard that the grooms parents did not attend the wedding. Any confirmation?</p>
<p>They were there along with the groom’s 10 siblings. The mother, a former congresswoman, made a joke at the reception that she had voted for some unpopular Clinton bill “in exchange for his firstborn.”.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m glad.</p>
<p>Love the joke! 10 siblings, and the mother had time to run for office?</p>
<p>and wanted someone else s firstborn on top of the 11 she already had.</p>
<p>I have been following this thread with interest. I have to say that I agree with mythmom (from a way back) that the over-the-top quality of Chelsea’s wedding was somewhat unseemly in these times. We are not only in hard economic times, but at war. Hillary is Secretary of State. I can’t imagine looking back to Eleanor and Franklin that they would dream of staging a wedding such as this in those similarly hard times. I can understand that perhaps Hillary and Bill are making up for the guilt they have felt in putting Chelsea through the spectacle her father caused, but it is still in poor taste in my view. I read that Jenna Bush’s wedding cost around $100,000–totally modest for a family of their means and the wedding looked lovely.</p>
<p>As for the dress, I think Chelsea looked perfect. I believe she is a dancer, and the upswept hair and gown gave her that ballerina fairy tale quality. I’m glad she had a perfect day (she deserves it). But do we need the Clintons staging this kind of wedding and Michelle traveling with her entourage to Spain during these anxiety-producing dog-days of summer? Not so much.</p>
<p>bonniemom, the $3M figure is questionnable. We don’t really know how much the Clintons spent on their only child’s wedding. And weddings upwards of $200K, apparently, happen even in these times - just watch the TLC show about 4 brides competing for the most perfect wedding.</p>
<p>First of all, this is their only child/daughter and they both work at high level, high profile jobs. I’m not the least surprised they spent a lot of money on the wedding. My niece, also a high power woman, marrying a financial guy had a Vera Wang wedding dress too. And it wasn’t national news. I would be surprised if the Clintons hadn’t spent that kind of money. However, I think it’s almost petty to see the breakdown of what they spent the money on. </p>
<p>Think of it this way: they just tried to jumpstart the economy.</p>
<p>Lets remember this was <em>Chelsea</em>'s wedding, not Bill and Hillary’s. It sounds like they let her have the wedding that she wanted, and that Chelsea/Marc drove the guest list, and I am sure she decided the size, tenor, Bill’s weight, and whatever else about the wedding. If Chelsea had wanted a wedding with 20 people, I am sure her parents would have said OK. You want 500, that’s OK too. So lets stop talking about what Bill and Hillary should or should not have done. </p>
<p>Speaking of jumpstarting the economy, it occured to me that we should not discount the money spent by the guests. Figure minimum of $1000/guest for clothing, travel, gift etc (likely more for most of them) and that’s another $500K+ that was moved from those who have to those who need. I say we need more!</p>
<p>From most recent accounts the 3 million dollar figure was completely off the wall:</p>
<p>[No</a> $3 Million Wedding for Chelsea – and Other Rumors Put to Rest - Weddings, Barack Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Danson : People.com](<a href=“http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20406627,00.html]No”>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20406627,00.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By all accounts this was a tasteful affair. Proportional to their income and assets, they probably spent a whole lot less than most. I imagine a large portion of the budget was spent on security and related expenses such as transportation. </p>
<p>The article also states that the Clintons would not be allowed to accept any gifts because of her position as Secretary of State.</p>
<p>Yes, the Clintons cannot, but Chelsea can. The article does say that they registered under a fake name (not to fake out the Feds, I’m sure).</p>
<p>^^^ ihs, I was referring more to gifts of the wedding expenses themselves, but that is still a very good point. Vera Wang could have given the gown to Chelsea as a gift (and a good marketing op), for example. So, it might have cost them a lot less than we are imagining all around.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly fine for the Clintons to spend their personal money any way they want it. As others said, it stimulates the economy.
I do have problems with Michelle going to Spain. We are paying for her airfare and security. Why does she need an entourage of 70 at a cost of $275 per person per diem? On top of that, the money went overseas.</p>
<p>I never believed for a minute that they spent the kind of money being bandied about by the media. I can’t believe anyone believed it.</p>
<p>“Sources close to the bride’s parents…” ;)</p>
<p>I don’t care how much people spend on weddings generally. But the Clintons are not just <em>any</em> people. They are connected to the current administration which seems to have no problem advising the “folks” to tighten their belts during these rough economic times…while they do just the opposite (because they don’t have to…how nice). Just tacky.</p>
<p>I can’t believe anyone thinks that it’s a <em>bad</em> thing that the Clintons created jobs for a lot of people in the area (the caterers, calligraphers, florists, waiters, hotel staff, etc.). Well, given how people are politically motivated, yes I guess I can believe it. If they’d done brunch after a justice-of-the-peace wedding, they’d have been mocked for being cheap. This doesn’t appear anything that was remotedly over the top in terms of personal style. Pretty standard upper class fare, just complicated by higher than usual security concerns. Really, no elephants were flown in from India or anything.</p>
<p>Bonniemom, (or whoever you really are)</p>
<p>Not only are the figures for Chelsea’s wedding likely grossly exaggerated, as mentioned above, but didn’t the Bush’s hold Jenna’s wedding on their farm in Crawford,Texas? Of course an event will be less expensive if they do not have to rent facilities for the event. In contrast, the cost of renting facilities in NY is going to add significantly to the cost of the bill. I also imagine that the cost of catering, etc is higher in NY than in Crawford, Texas. And perhaps, as Bush was a current sitting president when Jenna married, its likely they were concerned that this very type of conversation would occur, so chose (a) not to hold the wedding at the white house and face people complaining that it was partly at taxpayers expense and (b) they chose to do what the BRIDE wanted for her wedding. </p>
<p>I think Jenna was entitled to have a less formal wedding on the ranch (though she did have, according to this article, an Oscar de la Renta gown and 14 attendants) [The</a> Sleuth - President Bush’s Personal Recession: Jenna’s Wedding](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/04/president_bushs_personal_reces.html]The”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/04/president_bushs_personal_reces.html) and feel that Chelsea was entitled to hold the kind of wedding SHE wanted. And Jenna’s wedding was much smaller. I believe she had about 100-200 guests (depending on which articles you read), whereas Chelsea had 400. Costs go up when the event has 2-4x the number of attendees. Perhaps if Clinton was a sitting president they might have handled it differently. But he wasn’t. I think being Sec’ty of State is different in terms of expectations for these things. JMO</p>
<p>^^^ Oops, I meant ranch, not farm :o</p>