<p>While I understand that if neither the B or G is at all religious, they may not want to get married in the Catholic Church, remember that, in a way, your MIL to be is paying you a compliment. She wants you to be married to her son in the Church, which means that she fully expects that your marriage will be for life. </p>
<p>I’m Catholic and I know the principal reason my kid got married in the Church is that it would break my heart if the wedding hadn’t been a Catholic one. I know that’s a big item and otherwise I made no demands or requests. (I actually didn’t have to demand or request it–my kid did it but let me know the reason was really respect for me.) </p>
<p>One of my neighbors, a devout Catholic, told her son that it would be fine with her if they married in his fiancee’s faith. Other neighbors were surprised at how “liberal” and “understanding” she was being. I cracked up laughing. I knew her well enough to know that saying that was tantamount to saying “I don’t think this is going to work, so I don’t want you to get married in the Church. That way, you can divorce and remarry in the Church, with no need for an annulment.” Her son knew that too–and informed his mom that they would be getting married in the Church–which was his way of saying “This woman is my choice of wife and you better accept that and my wife.” </p>
<p>So, while it is, of course, the couple’s right to choose how they will celebrate their wedding, it’s not all bad when a Catholic parent pushes for a Catholic wedding.</p>
<p>Consolation, you and me both! I am doing almost all the wedding planning! :eek: I run everything by S & DIL, but they are both very happy to let me organize. </p>
<p>I will say that S did the Save the Dates mailing and his handwriting on the postcards was LEGIBLE. Wonders never cease!</p>
<p>jonri, I never said it was a bad thing. But both boy and I are atheists and I have a terrible history with the church. This has been explained to her and we have asked repeatedly for her to respect our wishes. She chooses not to. That is where it crosses the line for me. (We’ve had other issues, like her once a month rants about how I absolutely must take his last name :rolleyes:). When we’re not discussing politics or religion, we get along fabulously and she’s really great to us. It’s what makes this pesky issue so annoying. </p>
<p>The parents and in-laws are allowed to give input. I just don’t approve of trying to control. There’s a huge difference.</p>
<p>The type of destination wedding I find to be rude is one held in a location with no connection to anyone. It is just a place that the bride and groom want to have the ceremony - so everyone will have to travel. Even if it is small, it can still be a hardship to the family and the wedding party. They may not say anything negative about it, but it may mean that a rare vacation is to be held at a destination not of your choosing. If money is no object, then fine. If the bride and groom can afford to pay for travel and lodging for family and wedding party, then fine. My business has struggled for a few years and I haven’t taken a vacation in years. Friends of mine are having a destination wedding in an area that is lovely I’m sure, but not my choice for my first vacation in years. None of their friends or family are anywhere near the location so it will be a big trip for everyone. The families are not wealthy so I feel it will be a hardship for others too. The bride is of the “it’s my day so bite me” generation.</p>
<p>First wedding was the day after Christmas…big wedding, but not a huge reception. Cake, champagne and punch and the like in the parish hall. Then a reception after at my mom’s sans the couple with appetizers type fare, for family and friends to carry on the party. The date worked well because everyone had already traveled to the area for Christmas at the grandmothers’ houses. That way they didn’t have to make an extra trip.</p>
<p>romani, there is no need for you to pretend religious beliefs you do not feel on your wedding day. My mother is a serious practicing Catholic, and to her credit we heard no BS about it “breaking her heart” if we didn’t get married by a priest. She does not regard our marriage as temporary or fake. As long as you and your fiance are on the same page, all is well.</p>
<p>If I wanted to go to a wedding more than I minded the cost of travel there, either because it would be hard to afford or I just didn’t want to spend the money that way, I’d go. But if the cost of travel or the idea of a trip I didn’t want to make outweighed my desire to attend, I wouldn’t go. As jym said upthread, it’s an invitation, not an obligation. I don’t think it’s rude to me when a couple does whatever it wants regarding a wedding - location, scheduling, the kind of ceremony, no kids at the reception, whatever. I have the right to refuse to attend for whatever reason, and that’s not rude, either, as long as I respond by the RSVP date.</p>
<p>My daughter and her bf are talking casually about marriage and I wonder how that will work out. He is pretty religious Catholic, she is pretty religious Protestant. One of them will have to give and he tends to be a little of a bully. She will not promise to raise any children Catholic and he fully expects children to be Catholic. I don’t see how they resolve this and I wish they would break up because I don’t like him. But I smile and nod and send him care packages every time I cook food he likes.</p>
<p>That sounds like a lot of fun, but I am confused how this wedding is “technically NOT a destination wedding.” Isn’t a destination wedding one in which the bride, the groom, and the majority of those attending will have to travel and stay in hotels in order to attend? Or is this one different because the bride owns the summer home?</p>
<p>I actually like destination weddings if I’m close to the participants and they have chosen a pretty place. Of course, finances can rear their ugly head, so it’s not always possible to go.</p>
<p>My nephew and then-fiancee wanted a destination wedding. No one was thrilled with the idea, except them, of course, but no one would just say no. When we were invited we said, “That sounds like fun, but we can’t afford to take our family of four to a Mexican resort so we’re sorry but we won’t be able to attend.” His dad is well off and knew that he’d have to pay for various members to attend if they wanted anyone out there. They finally changed their minds!</p>
<p>I wonder why the destination wedding thing has taken hold. Seems like the honeymoon has always provided the couple with the vacation they seem to be going for in many cases. For me, the honeymoon was a great ending to rest from all the hubub of the wedding. Personally, I wouldn’t have wanted the whole family there where I’m going to be on my honeymoon. </p>
<p>But I did really enjoy a destination wedding I attended in Mexico once and another in California.</p>
<p>A longtime friend of mine had a destination wedding in Europe, at the home village of the groom’s maternal family. His grandmother still lived there, as well as other family members. Unfortunately, we were unable to afford the trip, but one or two of our mutual friends went. (It was very small: second wedding for her.) I would say that that particular destination wedding was not an imposition on the invitees, most of whom were people in their 40s or older who like to travel. Another friend was married in South Africa, but that was where she was living (and still is) and where the groom’s family lived. Same circle of friends. Again, we were unable to afford the trip, but everyone else went.</p>
Yes–at least, where I come from, which is probably a caveat that should be added to almost every post here. But also where I come from, most weddings are still held in the church, with a (relatively) modest reception in the church fellowship hall or in some other venue–hardly ever a seated meal. But if all the cousins have been invited to the weddings of cousins 1 through 7, it can cause hurt feelings if all the cousins aren’t invited to the wedding of cousin 8. Whether it should cause hurt feelings is debatable, but people can feel left out, especially if the cousin getting married was invited to their weddings.</p>
<p>To me, it’s not a destination because the bride in the case of the wedding Thumper references has a home in the area. Similarly, my D’s wedding will be in the neighborhood of our home in the area, which she spends a lot of time at. Also, much of my h’s family lives there either full or part time. Though some people will be staying in hotels, or renting houses, we’re in the same state as they all live, just too far away for a one day visit. And some will be in their own home and putting up relatives. Even though people have to travel farther to Thumper’s friend’s wedding, it still isn’t the bride and groom choosing some arbitrary destination; she has a home there. That, to me, makes it not a “destination” wedding, which I think connotes the idea of a new place chosen solely from a visiting point of view, without a permanent attachment to it of some sort.</p>
<p>Garland – “It’s their event, not ours” – is spot on. At my/DH’s wedding 31 years ago, we had 125 guests…mostly my mother’s friends and work colleagues, people DH and I didn’t really know (and some we didn’t like!). I remember my mother saying that so-and-so had to be invited because she and my father went to so-and-so’s son’s wedding five years ago and gave an expensive gift. It was payback time, according to my mother. I didn’t want to make waves as my parents were paying, but the event ended up being what my mother wanted, not really what DH and I wanted. I even wore my mother’s (itchy 1950s) wedding gown, because it was what she wanted. DH and I will be sure to let our kids and their spouses drive the train when their turn comes.</p>
<p>Garland - I would not label that wedding a destination wedding, because it seems to be quite convenient to a large number of family and guests. I’m talking about a couple from the east coast having a wedding in Colorado even though 90% the guests and family live within 100 miles of each other and no one lives in Colorado.</p>
<p>I agree it’s not a destination wedding if there are links to the location such as a summer home. To me, a destination wedding is - the bride / groom like Barbados, so poof, everyone is expected to fly to Barbados.</p>
<p>Back in the “olden days” before the term destination wedding existed, I briefly entertained the thought of H & me getting married in the chapel of H’s alma mater (military academy with gorgeous, historic campus). We dropped the idea quickly as everyone we invited would have had to travel a considerable distance. Our friends and family members were/are of varying financial circumstances and we wanted these people to have the option of attending our wedding without a financial strain.</p>
Or is this one different because the bride owns the summer home?</p>