who gets married first

PrettyGirlLost

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

mikenberger

PrettyGirlLost said:

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

I've heard of this before as well. It's pretty archaic though. Y'know back when the older you got, the less womanly you were and the more crazy cat lady you became.

Blech. Hooray for 2015. 

mollybarker11

DOUBLE WEDDING. it's the only solution.

lnixon8

I got engaged, started planning my wedding, 3 months later FSIL gets engaged. Same venue (family property) , same basic style/colors/budget/ similar guest list, hers 3 weeks before mine. 

I'm VERY happy to have a friend to plan with (you call tent company A, I'll call tent company B ), vent with, celebrate with... and I basically get to see a trial run of my own wedding

Congrats OP!

Edit: tent company B not company smiley man with sunglasses

misshart00

Obviously whoever got engaged first gets dibs.






Or not. They can get married whenever they want. But I'm still curious about a lot of PP's questions.

PrettyGirlLost

mikenberger said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

I've heard of this before as well. It's pretty archaic though. Y'know back when the older you got, the less womanly you were and the more crazy cat lady you became.

Blech. Hooray for 2015. 

Well the older you got the less likely you were going to be able to produce children a male heir, which back then was really the only reason a woman was worth anything.

thespeshulestsnowflake

Are you paying? If not, you get no say.

thisismynickname2

mikenberger said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

I've heard of this before as well. It's pretty archaic though. Y'know back when the older you got, the less womanly you were and the more crazy cat lady you became.

Blech. Hooray for 2015. 

My sister, who is older than me by three years, told me in our early 20's that under no circumstances was I allowed to get married before her. 

But, she's kind of a bitch.

In the end she didn't have anything to worry about. She was married 5 years before I had my turn.

But, OP, everyone is right that unless you're contributing you don't have a say. My best friend is getting married 5 months after her much-younger sister. Their parents are thrilled to have two engaged daughters. The extended family is thrilled to have two celebratory events this year. 

[Deleted User]

I agree with others that it's up to them; however, I do encourage you to mention to them that they should seriously take into consideration their guests.   

There are 3 weddings within my extended family this year (all within a 3.5 month span). and it's become somewhat of an inconvenience.  I love all my family members dearly and I want to support them fully, but this means that I need to travel (airfare) for three weddings.  I've been invited to three showers and I need to give three wedding gifts.   I couldn't just go to some relatives without going to others; so it was all or nothing.   The cost is starting to get up there, and I definitely can't afford to give as much in gifts to each couple as I would like. 

I know four is a lot more than two; however, your son's family/friends will really appreciate some space in between the two events.   

jenna8984

Am I really the only one thinking this is MUD and she is the one who got engaged at the same time as someone else? 

misshart00

jenna8984 said:

Am I really the only one thinking this is MUD and she is the one who got engaged at the same time as someone else? 

Ooo. Plot twist. OP, come back and talk to us.

lyndausvi

jenna8984 said:

Am I really the only one thinking this is MUD and she is the one who got engaged at the same time as someone else? 

I read it that "Oh Fuck, how can I afford 2 weddings in a short period of time?"

There are a lot of parents out there who still help contribute to their kid's weddings. 

There are a lot of us out there who do not live near their families any more.   

There are a lot of couples choosing to have DW and/or OOT weddings these days.

Any of those things can be stressful for a parent when they have 2 kids engaged at the same time.  For some families, while inconvenient, its not  financially  an issue.  Others may might not be able to afford to take 2 OOT trips and/or help out on say the RD like they would if there was more time between the weddings.

slothiegal

The son whose name starts with the letter closest to N, as that's the letter the word "nupitiae" starts with, which of course is the Latin word for "wedding".  If both sons' names start with a letter equidistant from the letter N, then the honor of being wed first goes to the one who has been with his FI the longest, because their relationship is more established and therefore, legitimate.  If THAT doesn't work, they then must engage in a Pinterest-styled obstacle course, complete with challenges such as writing out (legible!) chalkboard signs, tying pieces of burlap into bows, and a chugging contest from mason chairs.  All, of course, while wearing fedoras, suspenders and ironic mustaches.

IrishPirate60

Why so quick to dismiss a double wedding?

wrigleyville

IrishPirate60 said:

Why so quick to dismiss a double wedding?

The OP did not indicate if her sons were interested in that. I know I wouldn't be. My sister and I have wildly different tastes.

misshart00

wrigleyville said:

IrishPirate60 said:

Why so quick to dismiss a double wedding?

The OP did not indicate if her sons were interested in that. I know I wouldn't be. My sister and I have wildly different tastes.

I think that was meant to be facetious.

PrettyGirlLost

misshart00 said:

wrigleyville said:

IrishPirate60 said:

Why so quick to dismiss a double wedding?

The OP did not indicate if her sons were interested in that. I know I wouldn't be. My sister and I have wildly different tastes.

I think that was meant to be facetious.

That word just makes me think of poop!

Bubblegum5586

mikenberger said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

I've heard of this before as well. It's pretty archaic though. Y'know back when the older you got, the less womanly you were and the more crazy cat lady you became.

Blech. Hooray for 2015. 

Yea like biblical- so that is a long time ago!

Jacob wanted to marry Rachel (the younger sister) and her father agreed to it if Jacob worked for 7 years. The night of the wedding the father instead switches Leah (the older sister) in and tricks Jacob explaining it is uncustomary to give away the younger daughter first and agrees he can also marry Rachel for another 7 years of work.

Fun fact for the day!

flantastic

"Are any of your younger sisters out, Miss Bennet?"

"Yes, Ma'am, all.''

"All! -- What, all five out at once? Very odd! -- And you only the second. -- The younger ones out before the elder are married! -- Your younger sisters must be very young?''

"Yes, my youngest is not sixteen. Perhaps she is full young to be much in company. But really, Ma'am, I think it would be very hard upon younger sisters, that they should not have their share of society and amusement because the elder may not have the means or inclination to marry early. -- The last born has as good a right to the pleasures of youth, as the first. And to be kept back on such a motive! -- I think it would not be very likely to promote sisterly affection or delicacy of mind.''

-- Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Elizabeth Bennet

So, archaic even in Jane Austen's time.

[Deleted User]

flantastic said:

"Are any of your younger sisters out, Miss Bennet?"

"Yes, Ma'am, all.''

"All! -- What, all five out at once? Very odd! -- And you only the second. -- The younger ones out before the elder are married! -- Your younger sisters must be very young?''

"Yes, my youngest is not sixteen. Perhaps she is full young to be much in company. But really, Ma'am, I think it would be very hard upon younger sisters, that they should not have their share of society and amusement because the elder may not have the means or inclination to marry early. -- The last born has as good a right to the pleasures of youth, as the first. And to be kept back on such a motive! -- I think it would not be very likely to promote sisterly affection or delicacy of mind.''

-- Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Elizabeth Bennet

So, archaic even in Jane Austen's time.

Just read Pride & Prejudice and had this conversation in mind throughout this thread.

NowIamMrsKlein

My much younger sister and I got engaged around the same time. She decided she wanted a short engagement and was married 8 months later. My FI and I however decided that we wanted a longer engagement, and our wedding is 14 months after hers was.

There was no issue, or even any question of 'who got to get married first'. We simply both looked at our timelines and desires and made our own decisions. If I had decided to get married the month after her or the month before her then whatever. Each person gets one day.

Cookie Pusher

My much younger sister got engaged around the time I did and was married... almost 2 years before I was? No biggie.

ohannabelle

PrettyGirlLost said:

LtPowers said:

Certainly there used to be a rule that younger sisters couldn't marry before their older sisters. But AFAIK that never applied to men, and it doesn't apply today regardless.

Powers  &8^]

Huh?  Where did you see this "rule"?  Was this enforced during the time that women were merely property?  Because I'm pretty sure during that time Dad gave nonefucks who got married first so long as he could get rid of them as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Yep. Back in the day when you were basically brokering property deals. Move the older merchandise out before the newer, to avoid the risk of it being left on the shelf so long that you can't unload it. Unsold merchandise in the house, and people might get suspicious that something's wrong with the product you're selling. 

SP29

Mad points for quoting Jane Austen!

OP, perhaps if you share your concerns about why you're asking this question, everyone will seem less "mean".

There is no rule on who gets married first, or when. Whenever each of your sons (and their fiancees) want. 

drunkenwitch

mikenberger said:

Knottie4247776 said:

My two sons got engaged at the same time

I think they should Thunderdome it. Best man gets to live. And get married first.

I would shell out my hard earned cash to watch that on pay per view.

wrigleyville

misshart00 said:

IrishPirate60 said:

Why so quick to dismiss a double wedding?

The OP did not indicate if her sons were interested in that. I know I wouldn't be. My sister and I have wildly different tastes.

I think that was meant to be facetious.

Dammit. I hate when I don't know people well enough to know if they're screwing with us. 

WhatawagSBNy

Old Emily Post books say, if two society people who are in the same family, brothers or sisters, become engaged in the same year, they must realize that only one wedding in a family can properly be managed in a social season and they must schedule their weddings in successive seasons.

These are rich people, it was not about parents paying and spreading out the costs. It was partly but not only because plans were so elaborate, since they could and did hire social secretaries to help plan.

It was because the cream of society want to be able to go to each others' weddings, and there was much competition to have the most notable guests at one's child's wedding. And simply unfair for one blueblooded family to take two dates in the short spring, summer, fall social season.

What a hoot, the rich are different.
The original society Emily Post etiquette book is under Reference at Bartleby.com for anyone interested.

JoanE2012

Knottie4247776 said:

My two sons got engaged at the same time

Whichever one is your favorite.  Duh!

jenajjthr

lyndausvi said:

jenna8984 said:

Am I really the only one thinking this is MUD and she is the one who got engaged at the same time as someone else? 

I read it that "Oh Fuck, how can I afford 2 weddings in a short period of time?"

There are a lot of parents out there who still help contribute to their kid's weddings. 

There are a lot of us out there who do not live near their families any more.   

There are a lot of couples choosing to have DW and/or OOT weddings these days.

Any of those things can be stressful for a parent when they have 2 kids engaged at the same time.  For some families, while inconvenient, its not  financially  an issue.  Others may might not be able to afford to take 2 OOT trips and/or help out on say the RD like they would if there was more time between the weddings.

I had a co-worker who referred to having his kids "on the payroll." He and his wife pay for college, pay for the girls weddings, pay for them to live in the house until they get married. So they are thrilled when they are married and move out..."get off the payroll."  So for him, having 2 daughters getting engaged at the same time would probably be a financial burden and he would only want to pay for one daughter at a time. I try not to open my mouth and get myself in trouble because how he chooses to spend his money is his choice. 

In this case, if it was my coworker and he was in the same situation, asking the same question as you OP....same advice as PP's. It isn't your decision. It is your son's and their FI's. If you are giving some money, or even all the money, they still get to decide the dates. You can decide how much you can give financially based on those dates. 

rcher912

It really depends on who you love more, I think.