Worst thing/biggest faux paux or mistake you've seen at a wedding?

larrygaga

At my FI sister's wedding, we had this big 3 day family reunion thing because it was at a lodge and they are polish so weddings are usually a 3 day party with a wedding stuck in the middle (mine will be too, lol) Now his mom's side isn't just claiming polish ancestry, his mom is first generation. Anyway, basically anyone who was attending parties besides the wedding was asked to contribute to the potlucks the day before and after but you didn't have to. I know, I know, but that's not the part that bothered me because it's a cultural thing and the wedding was fully hosted. Cultures get a pass for me. I really only care about the wedding related functions being hosted. Anyway, groom's dad offers to pay for full bar the entire night, blew off that it was for about 300 people and didn't budget properly for himself or something. An hour into the reception he turns the full bar into a cash bar. The lodge is in a super rural area, so they are still trusting of people and didn't demand payment before the wedding. FI's parents are so upset and embarrassed that they just hurry up and pay for the full bar. The groom's family, who bitched and moaned about the day before and day after party that had free beer and wine and was potluck who was not forced to stay, continued to raid the buffet and keg. Without bringing anything. I remember FI's grandma reigning sweet, sweet justice the day after and yelling at them in broken english that if they can't contribute they need to dump their beer and leave. You don't show up to a potluck without bringing SOMETHING. Hopefully that's the last we will ever see of this rather absent family. They are ASSHOLES.

And before you guys bitch about my wedding having potlucks, since FI is only half polish and I am no polish we are just doing a big day before party and only the immediate family is offering to make food. I know his entire family will expect to bring food, but I will have already brought enough for everyone. My wedding day is 100% fully hosted yo. I really didn't want my wedding to be a 3 day spectacle where everyone brought food, but that was a hill I had to die on. It's little old me vs. 300 polish people.

charcoalandblush

peachy13 said:

Pretty much 85% of the weddings I've been to have had a cash bar. It's seriously at the point where when I mention we're doing an open bar, people usually give me a look as if I was telling them we're having an elephant as an officiant. Actually, before coming on TK I didn't know a cash bar was considered rude. I always wanted an open bar at my wedding someday so that everyone would have a good time and let loose, but I'm obviously also happy that it's the polite thing to do. 

Cash bars at weddings always rubbed me the wrong way, but I never realized that they were actually improper before TK. I thought I just didn't like them. Every wedding I've ever been to for DF's friends or relatives has had a partial cash bar. His mom asked what we were doing for the bar and we didn't know, and she said it would be EXTREMELY rude of our guests to expect their cocktails to be paid for. We probably won't tell her what we're doing until it's already done.

peachy13

charcoalandblush said:

peachy13 said:

Pretty much 85% of the weddings I've been to have had a cash bar. It's seriously at the point where when I mention we're doing an open bar, people usually give me a look as if I was telling them we're having an elephant as an officiant. Actually, before coming on TK I didn't know a cash bar was considered rude. I always wanted an open bar at my wedding someday so that everyone would have a good time and let loose, but I'm obviously also happy that it's the polite thing to do. 

Cash bars at weddings always rubbed me the wrong way, but I never realized that they were actually improper before TK. I thought I just didn't like them. Every wedding I've ever been to for DF's friends or relatives has had a partial cash bar. His mom asked what we were doing for the bar and we didn't know, and she said it would be EXTREMELY rude of our guests to expect their cocktails to be paid for. We probably won't tell her what we're doing until it's already done.

I know what you mean. It always felt to me like the bride and groom or whoever was hosting decided that in order to have something they felt they needed (expensive venue, over-the-top floral arrangements, lavish candy bar), they could cut costs by doing a cash bar.

So funny you mentioned that about your FMIL. My friend got married last year and her mother said something similar, like "they shouldn't expect free drinks on us... we'll give them the first hour free and then let them pay." I quietly watched as the B&G unfortunately took her advice. Glad you'll be doing the opposite. If she puts up a stink, just tell her that you don't want any of your guests to have to pay for anything. 

arrrghmatey

Went to a wedding in November, and it was a 6pm ceremony start time. The bride and groom didn't convey *anywhere* that the ceremony would be outdoors. No heat lamps provided. People showed up expecting the ceremony to be indoors but ended up shivering outside during the 40 minute ceremony. Luckily I brought a jacket at the last minute.

Edit: Because I thought of another one:

Another wedding had a partial cash bar. Bride and groom provided beer and wine only, and liquor was available for purchase. I would have been okay with this, as I understand people are on a budget and provide their guests what they can afford. I would just have beer and wine. But what I had a problem with is that it was not stated *anywhere* what alcohol was included/not included. I'm used to seeing signs at the bar stating what is covered by the hosts. If there isn't a sign, then I assume everything is provided. Perhaps that's presumptuous on my part. But when I ordered a rum and coke and the bar tender told me $10…..o_O. Yeah, I was a bit miffed.

princessgracekelly

  

arrrghmatey said:

Went to a wedding in November, and it was a 6pm ceremony start time. The bride and groom didn't convey *anywhere* that the ceremony would be outdoors. No heat lamps provided. People showed up expecting the ceremony to be indoors but ended up shivering outside during the 40 minute ceremony. Luckily I brought a jacket at the last minute.

Edit: Because I thought of another one:

Another wedding had a partial cash bar. Bride and groom provided beer and wine only, and liquor was available for purchase. I would have been okay with this, as I understand people are on a budget and provide their guests what they can afford. I would just have beer and wine. But what I had a problem with is that it was not stated *anywhere* what alcohol was included/not included. I'm used to seeing signs at the bar stating what is covered by the hosts. If there isn't a sign, then I assume everything is provided. Perhaps that's presumptuous on my part. But when I ordered a rum and coke and the bar tender told me $10…..o_O. Yeah, I was a bit miffed.

Not related, but I like the juxtaposition of your drink choice and your signature gif.

futuremrsfama

I think the cash bar thing is maybe a bit from the past, and also really depends on the couple's situation.  As I am sure we have all experienced, or are experiencing, weddings are $$$.  Where I am from cash bars are very common, though often $1 or $2 rather than full price.  I like to think that couple's do what they can, and sometimes cannot afford an open bar.

That being said, I think if guests are going to have to pay for drinks (even $1) it needs to be VERY clear.  I haven't experienced it, but I can't imagine anything worse than thinking it's open bar, ordering a drink and being told $10 please. YIKES.   I also think it's super tacky to do open bar for the WP and not all guests, that seems rude.  So do these tiered weddings/receptions.  Both of these I have never heard of, but sound quite rude.

Cookie Pusher

futuremrsfama said:

I think the cash bar thing is maybe a bit from the past, and also really depends on the couple's situation.  As I am sure we have all experienced, or are experiencing, weddings are $$$.  Where I am from cash bars are very common, though often $1 or $2 rather than full price.  I like to think that couple's do what they can, and sometimes cannot afford an open bar.

That being said, I think if guests are going to have to pay for drinks (even $1) it needs to be VERY clear.  I haven't experienced it, but I can't imagine anything worse than thinking it's open bar, ordering a drink and being told $10 please. YIKES.   I also think it's super tacky to do open bar for the WP and not all guests, that seems rude.  So do these tiered weddings/receptions.  Both of these I have never heard of, but sound quite rude.

Yes, weddings can be expensive. We always tell couples to host what they can afford. If they can only afford non-alcoholic drinks, that is perfectly acceptable. If they can afford beer and wine, that is totally fine. If they can afford a full open bar, that is an option. What is never encouraged is expecting your guests, those people who are supposedly your nearest and dearest, to open their wallets to pay for something you as the host cannot or will not provide. If you're grown up enough to get married, you're grown up enough to figure out a budget and properly host your guests.

.defunct635833965868395700

Cash bars being common in your area does not make them okay... In my area, and my family, cash bars are pretty much expected. I have been to exactly one wedding with an open bar and that was fi's sister. I was pregnant. FML.

Jen4948

futuremrsfama said:

I think the cash bar thing is maybe a bit from the past, and also really depends on the couple's situation.  As I am sure we have all experienced, or are experiencing, weddings are $$$.  Where I am from cash bars are very common, though often $1 or $2 rather than full price.  I like to think that couple's do what they can, and sometimes cannot afford an open bar.

That being said, I think if guests are going to have to pay for drinks (even $1) it needs to be VERY clear.  I haven't experienced it, but I can't imagine anything worse than thinking it's open bar, ordering a drink and being told $10 please. YIKES.   I also think it's super tacky to do open bar for the WP and not all guests, that seems rude.  So do these tiered weddings/receptions.  Both of these I have never heard of, but sound quite rude.

Nope. Cash bars being "common" or "expected" in your or any other area does not make them in any way polite. This rule has never gone out of effect, so it is not "from the past."

If it's important to you to serve alcohol, then you pay for it-not the guests, who should never be expected to pay for anything at a wedding. If you don't want to pay for it or can't afford it, then don't provide it. Nobody is entitled to alcohol at a wedding. But everyone is entitled not to be expected to pay for their drinks. Anyone who complains about no alcohol being available needs to grow up and get over themselves, and you need not to cater to their rudeness and immaturity by providing alcohol that isn't free of charge to your guests.

melizabethp

My last cash-bar wedding (I haven't been to many, thankfully!) was several years ago. Is it typical for even non-alcoholic drinks to cost money at a cash bar? Because they did here. And we had no warning. I don't carry cash. The only thing I drank all night besides water was a nip from the flask of gin the officiant's boyfriend totally got in trouble for bringing. (They also created a private Facebook event three weeks before the wedding in lieu of sending paper invitations. That should have been my first clue.)

One wedding I went to, the ceremony was at an equestrian center (read: stinky) 40 miles out of town. The hall was in town. All the guests lived in town. And the ceremony lasted all of five minutes. So we drove 80 miles round-trip for something that lasted five minutes (and, again, smelled bad). That was easily the shittiest thing I've ever encountered at a wedding.

The first time my high school BFF got married, the groom's mother claimed the most expensive place they could afford for a rehearsal dinner was Golden Corral. BFHS refused to take us there, so we ended up having appetizers outside at Houlihan's. And not heavy apps. Like, celery and spinach dip. It was my third time in a WP in three years, and the rehearsal dinners for the other two had been prepared by some ladies from church and served in the fellowship hall; I found myself wondering what would have been so bad about that.

YogaSandy

db1984 said:

ohannabelle said:

short+sassy said:

jenna8984 said:

3rd wedding- 2 hour long Catholic Mass (no offense to anyone but that's torturous to non-Catholic me) then a 3 hour gap. We didn't know where to go and googled a random bar nearby.

SIB:

It definitely wasn't a "worst" wedding.  But the long Catholic Mass portion was a big fail for me for two reasons (neither one the couple's fault).

1) My Catholic b/f (at the time) should have warned me there would be a mass.  I had never been to a wedding that had one.  There I was, expecting the ceremony to be about wrapped up, when all of a sudden the priest starts going into sermon mode.  In my mind, I was like, "What?  WTF?  What is happening?"

2) To the priest.  Here's an idea, when you are orating a mass for a wedding, give just a touch of thought to the fact that a good portion of your audience might be Protestant or not Christian at all.  Your entire sermon was about the eucharist, a very Catholic-specific term.  It took me 20 minutes to figure out WHAT you were even talking about.  For other Christians, it is the same thing as communion.  For non-Christians, it is a Christian rite celebrating the body and blood of Christ that was given for us, usually using red wine/grape juice and bread/host.  Extra snark: Do you see how quickly I explained that?

One of my biggest wedding pet peeves...and I'm not even a guest for this one...is couples who hire the police department to escort and stop traffic in all directions...including the entire freeway (one side) sometimes...while the wedding guests are traveling from the ceremony site to the reception site.  It's not necessary, it's rude, and it is very dangerous.  So just STOP IT!!!  I realize this is region-specific and, fortunately, in most cities this kind of ridiculousness is not done or allowed.        

Here's a better idea: understand what you're asking, here, with your "suggestions."

A priest isn't allowed to change the rituals or traditions of mass or the sacraments of marriage to accommodate possible visitors. It doesn't go like that. The traditions and rituals are not optional. You don't wing it. No leaving parts out or changing things for your convenience.

You really really seriously can't possibly think that anyone should change the most sacred and holy rites of their religious traditions because visitors might not "get it?" Seriously? You're griping because a priest used a Catholic term in a Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church? Give just "a touch of thought" to that.

Priests aren't there to entertain an "audience."  That isn't what it's about. You wouldn't go to a Jewish ceremony and whine about people speaking Hebrew but you don't, or go to a Greek Orthodox ceremony and complain that you didn't get the rituals, so they should change them to be more accommodating to Protestants or whatever to please you?

Here's a better idea. Before I go to another person's church, I do a little research and read up on what to expect and what I might be participating in. Ten minutes on Google, you should be good.

There are many many many things at weddings to snark about, but other people's religious traditions aren't one of them. 

Sorry, but this whole thing just sounded entitled. Everybody should change their religious traditions for me, because I didn't get it. 

Nope. 

1)  He may not have known it was going to be a full Nuptial Mass.  It is possible to be married in the Catholic Church without a full Mass.

2) No, it's not the same as communion in other Christian churches.  We Catholics believe that the wine and Host are actually the Blood and Body of Christ.  This is why no one is allowed to partake unless they are practicing Catholics in a state of grace.


Late to the party, but I'm Lutheran and that is exactly what we believe. Not just Catholics.

geebee908

YogaSandy said:

1)  He may not have known it was going to be a full Nuptial Mass.  It is possible to be married in the Catholic Church without a full Mass.

2) No, it's not the same as communion in other Christian churches.  We Catholics believe that the wine and Host are actually the Blood and Body of Christ.  This is why no one is allowed to partake unless they are practicing Catholics in a state of grace.

Late to the party, but I'm Lutheran and that is exactly what we believe. Not just Catholics.

Difference between Lutherans and Catholics is consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation. For Catholics, not only is the bread and wine actually the Body and Blood of Christ, but it ceases to be bread and wine in all but appearance and never returns to its original state.

For Lutherans, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but also remain bread and wine and revert to their original state after communion. A difference in belief which is significant enough to preclude Lutherans from partaking in the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

futurecptkirk

@geebee908 Never in a million years did I expect the Knot of all places to teach me about the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation. I'm impressed with your theological knowledge.