Weddings from Hell: Goth wedding and Guests from Hell: Follow-up

[Kendo_Bunny]

If I were the bride, I think I would've asked 'Tay' why he brought that girl. She sounds like a real piece of work.

That being said, I like non-traditional weddings. My sister had a semi-mideval service in the backyard: they were already legally married, they were just doing a ceremony for the family. The unity candle was set on the birdbath, and the buffet meal was cooked mostly by me- the only attendant of any kind.

My best friend's wedding was also semi-mideval. The bride wore a blue velvet gown like Eowyn's sheild maiden dress from LoTR (no veil, instead she had a chain headdress), her sister wore red velvet with a bodice, and I wore green velvet with a sash- instead of bouquets, we had glass goblets with candles in them, trimmed with honeysuckle. The groom wore all-black swashbuckling get-up, and all the men in the party carried swords (my father's). My sister dressed up in gypsy maiden gear, complete with muffin hat, and served the food. Definitely not your standard service, but everyone commented on how unusual and pretty it was.

[LJM]

I am 5'11", bf is 5'7." To heck with "convention"! 

Well, the "convention" is just leftover baggage from a time when the man was supposed to be taller, better educated, physically stronger, make more money, be more authoritative, and in every conceivable way give the aura of being the one "in charge" of the marriage. 

In a more enlightened world where marriage is seen as a partnership between equals, who does or does not have which symbol of power shouldn't matter anymore. Both are on the same team, after all 

[Tagy]

No flowers, pants on the female attendants, and makeup on the male attendants.

Goodness, the first time I read over this I thought that the female attendants weren't wearing pants! LOL

It actually sounds like it was a pretty cool and interesting affair.

[Shortcake]

No flowers, pants on the female attendants, and makeup on the male attendants.

Goodness, the first time I read over this I thought that the female attendants weren't wearing pants! LOLIt actually sounds like it was a pretty cool and interesting affair.

That would make the affair pretty interesting! 

For me, as long as no one is hurt and folks are behaving in a considerate way (and not doing anything I am morally against, I enjoy attending affairs that are "out of my confort zone."
I learn so many interesting things that way!

[Nandy Pandy]

Haha, I had to read that section twice before realizing that she was disgusted at the lack of flowers, as well as the pants on the women, not that there was a lack of both flowers and pants.

I think that the OP was more rude than the couple she was talking about. Yes, it was a little out of the ordinary for a wedding, but she was not treated rudely or made to feel out of place by any of the guests or the hosts. I wonder what kind of Bridezilla she will be if someone decides to marry her!

[Mrs. Eclipse]

Haha, I had to read that section twice before realizing that she was disgusted at the lack of flowers, as well as the pants on the women, not that there was a lack of both flowers and pants.

I think that the OP was more rude than the couple she was talking about. Yes, it was a little out of the ordinary for a wedding, but she was not treated rudely or made to feel out of place by any of the guests or the hosts. I wonder what kind of Bridezilla she will be if someone decides to marry her!

I like the way you use the qualifier 'if.'

[tmmkitten]

i remember reading this a while back and being mad at how entitled and mean the writer was being at assuming the personal touches and alternative ideas were a  "mockery to marriage." 
since when does a bride and groom have to dress a certain way. an oh my goodness! they didn't do their wedding the way you wanted them to! well, send me down to etiquettehell too for not doing the extravagant, poofy, fake wedding you feel is necessary in order forthat event to be considered a "proper" wedding.

ugh, some people.

[nliedel]

Your wedding, your life, your rules. If someone finds a wedding tacky, imo, they need to be quiet and gracious guests. No, it's not the wedding of my dreams, but it's not my wedding and I would be honored to have been invited.

HARUMPH!!

[Kate]

Your wedding, your life, your rules. If someone finds a wedding tacky, imo, they need to be quiet and gracious guests. No, it's not the wedding of my dreams, but it's not my wedding and I would be honored to have been invited.

HARUMPH!!

IMO if a person feels that the way a particular wedding is being conducted is offensive to their standards of decency , ie they see marriage as a holy or sacred thing, they could leave quietly, not be rude or make a scene about it.

[bionelly]

CRUD MONKEYS!!!! I wonder what the OP would have thought of my wedding?  Keep in mind that it was pretty much as "traditional" as we could afford...

There were even no decorations in the wedding area.

We had very few decorations, just a couple of bouquets near the altar.

Most of the guests wore black.

Heck, my entire wedding party (except for me) wore black!  I thought the black-and-white look was very elegant, and since my wedding party was small enough I didn't have to worry about people matching, they were able to use things they already had instead of buying something special.  (I didn't really like the idea of telling somebody else what they had to buy for my wedding anyway.)

Some even had black hair and makeup.

I'm sure we had at least a few people with black hair, and even mine can look black in certain lights.  So sorry I didn't bleach it for the ceremony, or ask my guests to do so! 

There was NO clear MOH or BM.

I guess we did have a clear MOH and BM, but only because there was only one attendant on each side!

The pastor was old, he looked about five minutes away from disintegration.

Our wedding was the last our pastor did before retiring.  I wasn't aware that having an elderly pastor was a faux pas.

There was no champagne, instead they had a lot of red wine to drink and toast with.

No champagne for us, either.  We didn't even have wine because:
1. I was not of legal drinking age,
2. The place where we had our reception prohibited it, and
3. We realized most of our guests (and ourselves) would be making long drives immediately afterward, and didn't want to take any risks with drunk driving.

There was no planned seating arrangement, they barely had tables.

I'm not sure I've ever been to a wedding with a strictly planned seating arrangement for those not actually in the wedding party.

Anyway, the point is, it seems like the OP would manage to find something wrong with pretty much any wedding, even one where the participants made an active effort to be traditional!

[cashew]

Noob to the forums, but I had to throw in my two cents. I agree with everyone who's posted about the truly shocking rudeness of this submitter; however, I disagree with the comments that a cemetery wedding would be totally inappropriate/offensive/what-have-you. In cities, people quite frequently have lunch or go for a stroll in church graveyards (my mother used to eat her lunch almost every day on a bench in St. Nick's in Aberdeen when she was young, and I've often seen people having a bite or lounging around in the many tiny cemeteries dotting Manhattan), as otherwise they'd be something of a shocking waste of space in an urban environment. Yes, people are buried there, yes, it's "sacred ground" if you're religious, and yes, you should be respectful, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to enter unless you're just going to sit solemnly and think about the dead. While I'm not sure having a birthday party would be very respectful, a marriage is a "sacred" religious ceremony, so I think it's perfectly fine. Besides, married in the church next to the graveyard or just married next to the graveyard without the church.. I don't see a big difference. And I certainly don't think most people consider "proximity to human remains" when considering their wedding revenue (how many churches that hold weddings also contain crypts or other burials within the church, I wonder?).

Besides, as someone else pointed out, I don't think the dead mind. Hell, if they're still stuck hanging about the graveyard, I'd think they'd welcome a bit of activity now and then, especially something a bit more upbeat than a funeral.

Other than that, I'm kind of stunned that someone who obviously visits (or has visited the site) would be able to pen this stream of bile and not realise that she was the one 100% in the wrong. Perhaps she didn't bother to actually read anything and assumed this was just a place for complaining about "trashy" weddings? Because giving a bride a note telling her how horrible her entire wedding is at the reception has to rank pretty highly on the list of "Assuming that other people welcome your opinion on their personal lives and will suddenly repent their ways and see the light after hearing your keen, insightful criticisms" category of etiquette breaches. Nevermind her grievous error of confusing etiquette with simply upholding tradition for tradition's sake.

[Lisbeth]

Cashew,

Welcome to the forum.

I agree that the poster of the original website story was wrong to leave that note and then sneak away, but I disagree with you about the appropriateness of a cemetery as a wedding venue.

Regardless of whether or not the deceased mind, wedding ceremonies are about the future lives of the couple together, not about their deaths or about the deceased who are buried in the cemetery.  I would not find a visit to the cemetery in close proximity to the wedding date macabre, but I would find that holding the ceremony there would be.

There have been several threads in this forum about how prominent mentions of deceased loved ones, or of death itself, should be at weddings and in wedding correspondence, and I think the general consensus, and etiquette itself, is that one's wedding is not a memorial service and that while mentions of the deceased in a wedding program, or a discreet tribute such as leaving a picture or memento of the deceased at the altar, are acceptable, overdoing mention of the deceased or death itself is not.

[Crazy Chicken Lady]

Original:
So I wrote two notes, one saying they should be disgusted at what they're doing to the tradition of marriage, and another breaking up with Tay

Follow-up:
this girl left a note IN MY BOUQUET, written on tissue, accusing me of making a mockery of marriage, and telling ME, the bride, to tell "T" that she didn't want to see him anymore!

CRUD MONKEYS!!!! She left a breakup note in your bouquet-that's horrible.  Just curious-what happened to Tay?  Hopefully he found a more sane person.

[artk2002]

I agree that the poster of the original website story was wrong to leave that note and then sneak away, but I disagree with you about the appropriateness of a cemetery as a wedding venue.

Regardless of whether or not the deceased mind, wedding ceremonies are about the future lives of the couple together, not about their deaths or about the deceased who are buried in the cemetery.  I would not find a visit to the cemetery in close proximity to the wedding date macabre, but I would find that holding the ceremony there would be.

There have been several threads in this forum about how prominent mentions of deceased loved ones, or of death itself, should be at weddings and in wedding correspondence, and I think the general consensus, and etiquette itself, is that one's wedding is not a memorial service and that while mentions of the deceased in a wedding program, or a discreet tribute such as leaving a picture or memento of the deceased at the altar, are acceptable, overdoing mention of the deceased or death itself is not.

We'll have to tell Forest Lawn cemeteries and mortuaries that their business of holding weddings is offensive, then.

[Lisbeth]

I agree that the poster of the original website story was wrong to leave that note and then sneak away, but I disagree with you about the appropriateness of a cemetery as a wedding venue.

Regardless of whether or not the deceased mind, wedding ceremonies are about the future lives of the couple together, not about their deaths or about the deceased who are buried in the cemetery.  I would not find a visit to the cemetery in close proximity to the wedding date macabre, but I would find that holding the ceremony there would be.

There have been several threads in this forum about how prominent mentions of deceased loved ones, or of death itself, should be at weddings and in wedding correspondence, and I think the general consensus, and etiquette itself, is that one's wedding is not a memorial service and that while mentions of the deceased in a wedding program, or a discreet tribute such as leaving a picture or memento of the deceased at the altar, are acceptable, overdoing mention of the deceased or death itself is not.

We'll have to tell Forest Lawn cemeteries and mortuaries that their business of holding weddings is offensive, then.

I guess...one of their cemeteries is located near my house.