Cruise Wedding

[Deleted User] · January 2016

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

The difference between having a wedding on an Island and having a wedding on a Cruise is the amount of time REQUIRED. My sister had a destination wedding in St. Croix, USVI. Some people arrived on the Saturday before the wedding, some arrived throughout the week, I arrived on Wednesday, some arrived on Friday. Some people left on Sunday morning the day after the wedding, most left on Monday morning, a couple left on Wednesday. So really, while some people made it a week-long vacation, others only took Friday and Monday off, and still others came in later Friday and left early Sunday. On a cruise, this is not an option. IF you want to be witness to the wedding, you MUST be on the boat for the entire trip, all 7 days. You can't decide that a Saturday afternoon flight to the departure location will be cheaper if the cruise leaves at 8am on Saturday morning. You can't cut your trip short if it turns out your kid is sick and you need to get home, or something came up at work, or you just plain don't want to be on a boat for 7 days. This is the difference.

LondonLisa · January 2016

ILoveBeachMusic said:

AW3380 said:

@spockforprez I thought the same as you until we recently handled a divorce case where upon research we learned the couple was legally married despite not going through with their ceremony and filing their marriage license. They were hoping to negotiate a settlement between them out of court but they had to go through legal divorce proceedings. Now, in other states things may vary, but when the attorneys did the research they found most states considered couples legally married when the license was obtained. In MO you are supposed to have an officiant certify and sign the license in order to obtain the marriage certificate but in this case even that did not matter.

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

Wrong. " The officiant performing the ceremony must complete the bottom portion of the marriage license and mail or deliver it to the Clerk's office."

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

Seriously, people. Being married when you pick up a license to get married makes no sense. You are married when you FILE it. In some states, like Lynda said, you don't need an officiant but you still pick up the license, complete it, sign it and then file it to be married. I'm not even American and I grasp this concept.

KittenMittens84 · January 2016

LondonLisa said:

ILoveBeachMusic said:

AW3380 said:

@spockforprez I thought the same as you until we recently handled a divorce case where upon research we learned the couple was legally married despite not going through with their ceremony and filing their marriage license. They were hoping to negotiate a settlement between them out of court but they had to go through legal divorce proceedings. Now, in other states things may vary, but when the attorneys did the research they found most states considered couples legally married when the license was obtained. In MO you are supposed to have an officiant certify and sign the license in order to obtain the marriage certificate but in this case even that did not matter.

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

Wrong. " The officiant performing the ceremony must complete the bottom portion of the marriage license and mail or deliver it to the Clerk's office."

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

Seriously, people. Being married when you pick up a license to get married makes no sense. You are married when you FILE it. In some states, like Lynda said, you don't need an officiant but you still pick up the license, complete it, sign it and then file it to be married. I'm not even American and I grasp this concept.

SITB
LondonLisa is correct
Each County in IL has different rules regarding this. The officiant had to sign for my father's wedding as well as myself. Some counties require just the officiant and other both a witness and officiant.

lyndausvi · January 2016

LondonLisa said:

ILoveBeachMusic said:

AW3380 said:

@spockforprez I thought the same as you until we recently handled a divorce case where upon research we learned the couple was legally married despite not going through with their ceremony and filing their marriage license. They were hoping to negotiate a settlement between them out of court but they had to go through legal divorce proceedings. Now, in other states things may vary, but when the attorneys did the research they found most states considered couples legally married when the license was obtained. In MO you are supposed to have an officiant certify and sign the license in order to obtain the marriage certificate but in this case even that did not matter.

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

Wrong. " The officiant performing the ceremony must complete the bottom portion of the marriage license and mail or deliver it to the Clerk's office."

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

Seriously, people. Being married when you pick up a license to get married makes no sense. You are married when you FILE it. In some states, like Lynda said, you don't need an officiant but you still pick up the license, complete it, sign it and then file it to be married. I'm not even American and I grasp this concept.

I know right?

There are some black and white areas. You have to apply for a license. You have to have a "ceremony" of sorts. It must be filed with the county/parish.

Grey areas would be what is considered a ceremony in your state and/or county? ETA - do the witnesses have to sign? Do you even need a witness? If you do, how many? (USVI requires 2, other places 1, still other none)

Again if picking up the license meant your are married what is the need for an expiration date 60 days out in Cook County?

ILoveBeachMusic · January 2016

LondonLisa said:

ILoveBeachMusic said:

AW3380 said:

@spockforprez I thought the same as you until we recently handled a divorce case where upon research we learned the couple was legally married despite not going through with their ceremony and filing their marriage license. They were hoping to negotiate a settlement between them out of court but they had to go through legal divorce proceedings. Now, in other states things may vary, but when the attorneys did the research they found most states considered couples legally married when the license was obtained. In MO you are supposed to have an officiant certify and sign the license in order to obtain the marriage certificate but in this case even that did not matter.

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

Wrong. " The officiant performing the ceremony must complete the bottom portion of the marriage license and mail or deliver it to the Clerk's office."

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

Seriously, people. Being married when you pick up a license to get married makes no sense. You are married when you FILE it. In some states, like Lynda said, you don't need an officiant but you still pick up the license, complete it, sign it and then file it to be married. I'm not even American and I grasp this concept.

Thanks for the clarification. I was repeating what my daughter, who got married in Chicago, told me.

lyndausvi · January 2016

ILoveBeachMusic said:

LondonLisa said:

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

Wrong. " The officiant performing the ceremony must complete the bottom portion of the marriage license and mail or deliver it to the Clerk's office."

http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

Seriously, people. Being married when you pick up a license to get married makes no sense. You are married when you FILE it. In some states, like Lynda said, you don't need an officiant but you still pick up the license, complete it, sign it and then file it to be married. I'm not even American and I grasp this concept.

Thanks for the clarification. I was repeating what my daughter, who got married in Chicago, told me.

I think some people think there is some signing ceremony of sorts. When really the officiant normally fills out all their stuff not in front of the couple. So the couple might have thought he didn't have to sign when in reality it was just done when they were not around.

I know in our case, our witness(es) signed the license at the kitchen table during our welcome open house. I was entertaining people at the time. I couldn't tell you when or where the officiant filled out his information. All I know he filled it and I got the certificate back about 3-4 weeks after we got married.

SP29 · January 2016

lyndausvi said:

I know in our case, our witness(es) signed the license at the kitchen table during our welcome open house. I was entertaining people at the time. I couldn't tell you when or where the officiant filled out his information. All I know he filled it and I got the certificate back about 3-4 weeks after we got married.

Our witnesses signed the license during the ceremony, and our officiant signed it sometime after. I remember there were 2 pieces to it (perforated- tear apart after everyone signs)- we got to keep the small piece with some signatures as proof (I remember because I tried to use this piece to change ID and was told I had to have the official certificate to do this). Our officiant then mailed the other portion for us to the registry and we got the certificate in the mail.

themosthappy91 · January 2016

adk19 said:

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

The difference between having a wedding on an Island and having a wedding on a Cruise is the amount of time REQUIRED. My sister had a destination wedding in St. Croix, USVI. Some people arrived on the Saturday before the wedding, some arrived throughout the week, I arrived on Wednesday, some arrived on Friday. Some people left on Sunday morning the day after the wedding, most left on Monday morning, a couple left on Wednesday. So really, while some people made it a week-long vacation, others only took Friday and Monday off, and still others came in later Friday and left early Sunday. On a cruise, this is not an option. IF you want to be witness to the wedding, you MUST be on the boat for the entire trip, all 7 days. You can't decide that a Saturday afternoon flight to the departure location will be cheaper if the cruise leaves at 8am on Saturday morning. You can't cut your trip short if it turns out your kid is sick and you need to get home, or something came up at work, or you just plain don't want to be on a boat for 7 days. This is the difference.

Ah this makes sense- I've never been on a cruise so this is going to sound dumb but I didn't fully realize you can't like get off and on at different ports and such.

Honestly though, while I fully concede a cruise is a different circumstance than a destination wedding, I still don't think the host should have to pay for all guests. I guess it's just a point of etiquette I disagree with- if people know the trip is X days and costs X amount and they want to come I think they can decide that's how they want to spend their time and money, otherwise they can decline to come.

That being said, I personally think getting married on a cruise is kind of a dumb idea whether you follow etiquette and pay or don't. It's just so much to ask of your guests, and sure I can see circumstances where guests would be down for this- families that take cruises together a lot or something- but there are just a million more cases where it's way too much to ask. It's one of those cases where no matter how accommodating you try to be, I'm going to kind of side-eye the level of commitment to a "vision" it would take to go through with that.

lovesclimbing · January 2016

AW3380 said:

I work for a law firm that practices family law so I look at the PPD situation a little differently. In most states, when you go to whichever government building you need to in order to obtain your marriage license once the clerk hands you the marriage license you are technically "legally" married at that point. In the State of Missouri where I live an officiant has to certify the marriage and sign the license in order to get the marriage certificate. But if I were to change my mind in between the short time I obtained the marriage license and the ceremony was to be held, I am still considered married in the eyes of the law and would have to go through annulment or divorce proceedings to change that. The ceremony is solidify the marriage for religious and/or social purposes. I am not sure how Alaska works but if its similar to Missouri this is all really a moot point because you will be legally married anyway the day you obtain your license!

I have known several people who have had a PPD and I have never personally felt insulted as a guest. They are grown adults and its none of my business why they chose to make that decision. I am of the unpopular opinion here but I say if your guests are fine with the cost of the cruise to attend your wedding and the plans you have made, then do what you have to do and have the event the way you envision.

I can't comment on whether this is the case in Missouri since I've never been there, however, I'm really questioning this. (And I just googled and found this link that says the license is void if it's not used within 30 days - http://www.mo.gov/home-family/marriage-divorce/)

As an Alaskan, I can say this is not true in Alaska. A ceremony must be performed and the officiant and witnesses must sign the license before you are married.

charcoalandblush · January 2016

spockforprez said:

AW3380 said:

I work for a law firm that practices family law so I look at the PPD situation a little differently. In most states, when you go to whichever government building you need to in order to obtain your marriage license once the clerk hands you the marriage license you are technically "legally" married at that point. In the State of Missouri where I live an officiant has to certify the marriage and sign the license in order to get the marriage certificate. But if I were to change my mind in between the short time I obtained the marriage license and the ceremony was to be held, I am still considered married in the eyes of the law and would have to go through annulment or divorce proceedings to change that. The ceremony is solidify the marriage for religious and/or social purposes. I am not sure how Alaska works but if its similar to Missouri this is all really a moot point because you will be legally married anyway the day you obtain your license!

I have known several people who have had a PPD and I have never personally felt insulted as a guest. They are grown adults and its none of my business why they chose to make that decision. I am of the unpopular opinion here but I say if your guests are fine with the cost of the cruise to attend your wedding and the plans you have made, then do what you have to do and have the event the way you envision.

Er, is this really accurate? Doesn't a marriage license just give you permission to get married? You can't be married in most places unless you have, at minimum, the declaration of intent ("do you take so and so") witnessed by a legal officiant and then that officiant signs the certificate and files it with the courthouse. I'm not a lawyer and I can't find anything of significance on google, but do you have a source for the claim that the license itself makes you married and if you canceled your wedding you'd need a divorce?

Actually I'm pretty positive that's not true. Your license is usually only good for a certain period, maybe 30 days or 60 days depending on the state. If you don't get married within that timeframe it expires and if you tried to file it, your marriage would not be legal. I don't know, maybe Missouri is super duper special or something, but I can't see that being accurate.

My opinion on PPD... I don't see the point. I mentioned this recently, but if I were to get legally married, it wouldn't be possible for me to treat it just as "paperwork." It would be emotional and it would matter. Redoing it later would be so bizarre as to be ridiculous. Even if I was just in sweatpants (can you wear sweatpants to the courthouse?) I would consider that to be the day FH and I became husband and wife. So, to me PPD is putting the vision of white dress and big party (or in this case "wedding at sea") over the emotional and legal transformation of becoming married, and I think that's pretty lame.

@AW3380 On a totally unrelated note, just as an FYI, I would be careful about sharing confidential client information like this online. Assuming what you said is true, it wouldn't be very hard with someone for Westlaw or Lexis access to identify that client.

CMGragain · January 2016

Cruise weddings where you get married at sea are fine for either a very small wedding or for very wealthy people. My daughter loved cruises, and they considered a cruise wedding where just the immediate family would cruise, and this fell within the budget. After about 5 seconds of thinking about it, they opted for a land wedding where they could host all their friends and extended family within the same budget. They went on a cruise for their honeymoon.

You can't have it both ways. You must host your guests, and if they are forced to go on a cruise with you in order to attend the wedding to which you have invited them, then YOU PAY! You cannot expect guests to pay admission to your wedding.

SP29 · January 2016

That being said, I personally think getting married on a cruise is kind of a dumb idea whether you follow etiquette and pay or don't. It's just so much to ask of your guests, and sure I can see circumstances where guests would be down for this- families that take cruises together a lot or something- but there are just a million more cases where it's way too much to ask. It's one of those cases where no matter how accommodating you try to be, I'm going to kind of side-eye the level of commitment to a "vision" it would take to go through with that.

I kind of agree with you, a guest can decline to go, but I also see what CMGragain is saying- guest should not be paying admission to attend a wedding. But then I think how much different is that from the DW where the guest has to pay for a plane flight and lodgings, or even an OOT wedding that requires a plane flight and overnight hotel stay. The guest is still paying SOMETHING to attend- but they aren't paying for their dinner or drinks.

Overall, I do agree that unless the wedding is immediate family, a cruise wedding (and I'll be honest, most DWs- I'm thinking tropical island) are asking too much of the guest. Yes, absolutely you can do it, but I think it is pushing a vision over guest comfort, and don't be peeved when guests decline. I hear a lot of brides and grooms say, "but it will be an awesome trip!"- well then plan this trip as part of your HM!

Back to cruises... I have only seen this work out when it is immediate family only. A previous co-worker of mine (the groom) got married on land in Hawaii then took a cruise from there- they invited everyone as they would if the wedding was local and ended up with A LOT of declines. It was only close family. The groom was pretty bummed out about it, as he was really hoping to have an awesome fun party time on the cruise with friends and family, and while I felt bad because he is a great and kind person, I also thought, "well what do you expect with a cruise out of Hawaii??". Of course I didn't say that out loud.

tigerlily6 · January 2016

charcoalandblush said:

spockforprez said:

AW3380 said:

I work for a law firm that practices family law so I look at the PPD situation a little differently. In most states, when you go to whichever government building you need to in order to obtain your marriage license once the clerk hands you the marriage license you are technically "legally" married at that point. In the State of Missouri where I live an officiant has to certify the marriage and sign the license in order to get the marriage certificate. But if I were to change my mind in between the short time I obtained the marriage license and the ceremony was to be held, I am still considered married in the eyes of the law and would have to go through annulment or divorce proceedings to change that. The ceremony is solidify the marriage for religious and/or social purposes. I am not sure how Alaska works but if its similar to Missouri this is all really a moot point because you will be legally married anyway the day you obtain your license!

I have known several people who have had a PPD and I have never personally felt insulted as a guest. They are grown adults and its none of my business why they chose to make that decision. I am of the unpopular opinion here but I say if your guests are fine with the cost of the cruise to attend your wedding and the plans you have made, then do what you have to do and have the event the way you envision.

Er, is this really accurate? Doesn't a marriage license just give you permission to get married? You can't be married in most places unless you have, at minimum, the declaration of intent ("do you take so and so") witnessed by a legal officiant and then that officiant signs the certificate and files it with the courthouse. I'm not a lawyer and I can't find anything of significance on google, but do you have a source for the claim that the license itself makes you married and if you canceled your wedding you'd need a divorce?

Actually I'm pretty positive that's not true. Your license is usually only good for a certain period, maybe 30 days or 60 days depending on the state. If you don't get married within that timeframe it expires and if you tried to file it, your marriage would not be legal. I don't know, maybe Missouri is super duper special or something, but I can't see that being accurate.

My opinion on PPD... I don't see the point. I mentioned this recently, but if I were to get legally married, it wouldn't be possible for me to treat it just as "paperwork." It would be emotional and it would matter. Redoing it later would be so bizarre as to be ridiculous. Even if I was just in sweatpants (can you wear sweatpants to the courthouse?) I would consider that to be the day FH and I became husband and wife. So, to me PPD is putting the vision of white dress and big party (or in this case "wedding at sea") over the emotional and legal transformation of becoming married, and I think that's pretty lame.

@AW3380 On a totally unrelated note, just as an FYI, I would be careful about sharing confidential client information like this online. Assuming what you said is true, it wouldn't be very hard with someone for Westlaw or Lexis access to identify that client.

Exactly. Furthermore, even if you are lucky enough to just get a slap on the wrist, your supervising attorneys could face some major repercussions, including even disbarment, since it seems you're walking a fine line in the gray area of possibly violating the MRPC . I don't think your firm would be too happy to face sanctions for their paralegal gossiping on TK. Leave the paralegal you at the office.

db1984 · January 2016

I have a good friend who was engaged about 10 years ago and called off the wedding the night before. They'd already gotten the license.

Three years later, she marries another guy. If just getting that first license made her legally married to the first FI, then she'd be a bigamist. It can't possibly be true that just obtaining a license makes you legally married.

Btw, I'm not a lawyer nor do I work for one, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once.

flantastic · January 2016

themosthappy91 said:

adk19 said:

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

The difference between having a wedding on an Island and having a wedding on a Cruise is the amount of time REQUIRED. My sister had a destination wedding in St. Croix, USVI. Some people arrived on the Saturday before the wedding, some arrived throughout the week, I arrived on Wednesday, some arrived on Friday. Some people left on Sunday morning the day after the wedding, most left on Monday morning, a couple left on Wednesday. So really, while some people made it a week-long vacation, others only took Friday and Monday off, and still others came in later Friday and left early Sunday. On a cruise, this is not an option. IF you want to be witness to the wedding, you MUST be on the boat for the entire trip, all 7 days. You can't decide that a Saturday afternoon flight to the departure location will be cheaper if the cruise leaves at 8am on Saturday morning. You can't cut your trip short if it turns out your kid is sick and you need to get home, or something came up at work, or you just plain don't want to be on a boat for 7 days. This is the difference.

Ah this makes sense- I've never been on a cruise so this is going to sound dumb but I didn't fully realize you can't like get off and on at different ports and such.

Honestly though, while I fully concede a cruise is a different circumstance than a destination wedding, I still don't think the host should have to pay for all guests. I guess it's just a point of etiquette I disagree with- if people know the trip is X days and costs X amount and they want to come I think they can decide that's how they want to spend their time and money, otherwise they can decline to come.

That being said, I personally think getting married on a cruise is kind of a dumb idea whether you follow etiquette and pay or don't. It's just so much to ask of your guests, and sure I can see circumstances where guests would be down for this- families that take cruises together a lot or something- but there are just a million more cases where it's way too much to ask. It's one of those cases where no matter how accommodating you try to be, I'm going to kind of side-eye the level of commitment to a "vision" it would take to go through with that.

I really think it's shitty, though, because a) as someone pointed out, you're really making the guests pay to host themselves for the wedding bit and b) it is SO MUCH commitment. If I want to see my own brother get married, I have to at minimum take a week's vacation?

I am in the camp that DWs (for everyone, not just that a wedding will require travel for many guests) are silly prioritization and a lot to ask of everyone, but at least they can be done somewhat on the guests' terms. Cruises are next-level.

Viczaesar · January 2016

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

It's very simple. If your guests have to pay a fee in order to be able to attend your wedding - over and on top of travel expenses to get to the wedding location - if is the host's job to pay that. If your wedding is at a country club that charges guests a fee, it's your job to pay that fee on behalf of your guests. If you're getting married at Disneyland you pay for your guests' entrance fees. If you're getting married at an AI resort and the resort charges a day fee for every wedding guest who is not staying at that resort, the couple pays the resort fee. If you're getting married on a cruise ship not at port, so that people have to pay a fee in order to attend your wedding, you pay for the cruise. They have to pay for themselves to get to the event, but you pay the costs for them to actually attend the event.

Viczaesar · January 2016

themosthappy91 said:

Ah this makes sense- I've never been on a cruise so this is going to sound dumb but I didn't fully realize you can't like get off and on at different ports and such.

Honestly though, while I fully concede a cruise is a different circumstance than a destination wedding, I still don't think the host should have to pay for all guests. I guess it's just a point of etiquette I disagree with- if people know the trip is X days and costs X amount and they want to come I think they can decide that's how they want to spend their time and money, otherwise they can decline to come.

That being said, I personally think getting married on a cruise is kind of a dumb idea whether you follow etiquette and pay or don't. It's just so much to ask of your guests, and sure I can see circumstances where guests would be down for this- families that take cruises together a lot or something- but there are just a million more cases where it's way too much to ask. It's one of those cases where no matter how accommodating you try to be, I'm going to kind of side-eye the level of commitment to a "vision" it would take to go through with that.

A guest can also know that they are expected to pay for their own dinner at the reception at $50 per person and can decide whether or not to accept based on that knowledge, but what the host is doing in that case is still rude and wrong.

LD1970 · January 2016

1. When you're married isn't grey, it's black and white. As a family law ATTORNEY for nearly 20 years, I can tell you I've never once heard of a couple being considered married after just picking up the license, and it definitely doesn't work that way in NY/NJ. The paralegal poster is misunderstanding something.

2. I can't see that it'd be illegal to get married over water just because it's not international waters. My friends got married in Boston harbor on a boat years ago. Since you'll technically be in Alaska for the wedding, albeit over water, hire an Alaskan officiant to come also and marry you over water. Done.

InLoveInQueens · January 2016

LD1970 said:

1. When you're married isn't grey, it's black and white. As a family law ATTORNEY for nearly 20 years, I can tell you I've never once heard of a couple being considered married after just picking up the license, and it definitely doesn't work that way in NY/NJ. The paralegal poster is misunderstanding something.

It's just ridiculous that she's trying to argue that, even in self-solemnizing states the license still needs to be filed, which makes the couple married. Getting the license does not a marriage make.

themosthappy91 · January 2016

Viczaesar said:

themosthappy91 said:

Ah this makes sense- I've never been on a cruise so this is going to sound dumb but I didn't fully realize you can't like get off and on at different ports and such.

Honestly though, while I fully concede a cruise is a different circumstance than a destination wedding, I still don't think the host should have to pay for all guests. I guess it's just a point of etiquette I disagree with- if people know the trip is X days and costs X amount and they want to come I think they can decide that's how they want to spend their time and money, otherwise they can decline to come.

That being said, I personally think getting married on a cruise is kind of a dumb idea whether you follow etiquette and pay or don't. It's just so much to ask of your guests, and sure I can see circumstances where guests would be down for this- families that take cruises together a lot or something- but there are just a million more cases where it's way too much to ask. It's one of those cases where no matter how accommodating you try to be, I'm going to kind of side-eye the level of commitment to a "vision" it would take to go through with that.

A guest can also know that they are expected to pay for their own dinner at the reception at $50 per person and can decide whether or not to accept based on that knowledge, but what the host is doing in that case is still rude and wrong.

Yeah, that's a really good point. I hadn't thought of it like that.

CMGragain · January 2016

In 1969, freshman students at the U. of Iowa were required to live in the dormitory. The only exception was students who were married. The easy way out was to get a friend to file for a marriage license with you, fill it out, and submit it to the University housing board. Since you never filed the license at the courthouse, and the University never bothered to check, you could then go live wherever you wanted and smoke pot to your heart's content. No, you weren't really married.

[Deleted User] · January 2016

lyndausvi said:

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

Because at normal destination and/or OOT weddings the guests can make their own plans. They can arrive into town when they want and stay as long as they want.

You can't do that with cruises. Either the 5,7, 10, whatever days the cruise sails for or nothing. You only have one option for lodging.

I personally do not think they should have to pay, however I think it's a LOT to ask of guests. Some people only get 2 weeks off a year. Depending on the location it can be a good 7 days just to see a wedding. Again a lot of ask of guests to witness you getting married.

I can help clarifying that the people we are inviting can afford and do have the time to easily accommodate a cruise wedding. We are only inviting family and very close friends. Both our sets of parents are retired and the rest of our family has very flexible schedules. We were very fortunate.

Viczaesar · January 2016

skyhannon said:

lyndausvi said:

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

Because at normal destination and/or OOT weddings the guests can make their own plans. They can arrive into town when they want and stay as long as they want.

You can't do that with cruises. Either the 5,7, 10, whatever days the cruise sails for or nothing. You only have one option for lodging.

I personally do not think they should have to pay, however I think it's a LOT to ask of guests. Some people only get 2 weeks off a year. Depending on the location it can be a good 7 days just to see a wedding. Again a lot of ask of guests to witness you getting married.

I can help clarifying that the people we are inviting can afford and do have the time to easily accommodate a cruise wedding. We are only inviting family and very close friends. Both our sets of parents are retired and the rest of our family has very flexible schedules. We were very fortunate.

Doesn't matter.

100yroldblinddog · January 2016

skyhannon said:
I can help clarifying that the people we are inviting can afford and do have the time to easily accommodate a cruise wedding. We are only inviting family and very close friends. Both our sets of parents are retired and the rest of our family has very flexible schedules. We were very fortunate.

It's not a good idea to assess for other people what they should choose to spend their money on, or to decide for them that they can (all) afford your wedding, no matter how you choose to proceed.

Remember that while this is a really exciting time for you and your FI, it's just not going to be the same high priority to your guests that it is to you.

charlotte989875 · January 2016

skyhannon said:

lyndausvi said:

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.
Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.
That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.
All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.
you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry.

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country.

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

Because at normal destination and/or OOT weddings the guests can make their own plans. They can arrive into town when they want and stay as long as they want.

You can't do that with cruises. Either the 5,7, 10, whatever days the cruise sails for or nothing. You only have one option for lodging.

I personally do not think they should have to pay, however I think it's a LOT to ask of guests. Some people only get 2 weeks off a year. Depending on the location it can be a good 7 days just to see a wedding. Again a lot of ask of guests to witness you getting married.

I can help clarifying that the people we are inviting can afford and do have the time to easily accommodate a cruise wedding. We are only inviting family and very close friends. Both our sets of parents are retired and the rest of our family has very flexible schedules. We were very fortunate.

You don't get to determine if it's something they can afford or accommodate, they get to decide that.

Jells2dot0 · January 2016

We had a vision for our wedding: to get married on a remote tropical beach. We booked one of the most remote resorts we could find that suited our vision. Because of this, we eloped. It would have been extremely selfish of us to invite any guests and assume they'd fly to Australia, take a domestic flight, hop on a helicopter, then hop on a boat and stay at a resort with only 6 rooms and costs over $1k/night. We legally married in our dream location and "celebrated" our marriage with each family in our own way.

PrettyGirlLost · February 2016

tigerlily6 said:

charcoalandblush said:

spockforprez said:

AW3380 said:

I work for a law firm that practices family law so I look at the PPD situation a little differently. In most states, when you go to whichever government building you need to in order to obtain your marriage license once the clerk hands you the marriage license you are technically "legally" married at that point. In the State of Missouri where I live an officiant has to certify the marriage and sign the license in order to get the marriage certificate. But if I were to change my mind in between the short time I obtained the marriage license and the ceremony was to be held, I am still considered married in the eyes of the law and would have to go through annulment or divorce proceedings to change that. The ceremony is solidify the marriage for religious and/or social purposes. I am not sure how Alaska works but if its similar to Missouri this is all really a moot point because you will be legally married anyway the day you obtain your license!

I have known several people who have had a PPD and I have never personally felt insulted as a guest. They are grown adults and its none of my business why they chose to make that decision. I am of the unpopular opinion here but I say if your guests are fine with the cost of the cruise to attend your wedding and the plans you have made, then do what you have to do and have the event the way you envision.

Er, is this really accurate? Doesn't a marriage license just give you permission to get married? You can't be married in most places unless you have, at minimum, the declaration of intent ("do you take so and so") witnessed by a legal officiant and then that officiant signs the certificate and files it with the courthouse. I'm not a lawyer and I can't find anything of significance on google, but do you have a source for the claim that the license itself makes you married and if you canceled your wedding you'd need a divorce?

Actually I'm pretty positive that's not true. Your license is usually only good for a certain period, maybe 30 days or 60 days depending on the state. If you don't get married within that timeframe it expires and if you tried to file it, your marriage would not be legal. I don't know, maybe Missouri is super duper special or something, but I can't see that being accurate.

My opinion on PPD... I don't see the point. I mentioned this recently, but if I were to get legally married, it wouldn't be possible for me to treat it just as "paperwork." It would be emotional and it would matter. Redoing it later would be so bizarre as to be ridiculous. Even if I was just in sweatpants (can you wear sweatpants to the courthouse?) I would consider that to be the day FH and I became husband and wife. So, to me PPD is putting the vision of white dress and big party (or in this case "wedding at sea") over the emotional and legal transformation of becoming married, and I think that's pretty lame.

@AW3380 On a totally unrelated note, just as an FYI, I would be careful about sharing confidential client information like this online. Assuming what you said is true, it wouldn't be very hard with someone for Westlaw or Lexis access to identify that client.

Exactly. Furthermore, even if you are lucky enough to just get a slap on the wrist, your supervising attorneys could face some major repercussions, including even disbarment, since it seems you're walking a fine line in the gray area of possibly violating the MRPC . I don't think your firm would be too happy to face sanctions for their paralegal gossiping on TK. Leave the paralegal you at the office.

Aren't most legal proceedings public record though?

lyndausvi · February 2016

PrettyGirlLost said:

tigerlily6 said:

Exactly. Furthermore, even if you are lucky enough to just get a slap on the wrist, your supervising attorneys could face some major repercussions, including even disbarment, since it seems you're walking a fine line in the gray area of possibly violating the MRPC . I don't think your firm would be too happy to face sanctions for their paralegal gossiping on TK. Leave the paralegal you at the office.

Aren't most legal proceedings public record though?

The specifics of the divorce proceedings can be sealed.

[Deleted User] · February 2016

CMGragain said:

Cruise weddings where you get married at sea are fine for either a very small wedding or for very wealthy people. My daughter loved cruises, and they considered a cruise wedding where just the immediate family would cruise, and this fell within the budget. After about 5 seconds of thinking about it, they opted for a land wedding where they could host all their friends and extended family within the same budget. They went on a cruise for their honeymoon.

You can't have it both ways. You must host your guests, and if they are forced to go on a cruise with you in order to attend the wedding to which you have invited them, then YOU PAY! You cannot expect guests to pay admission to your wedding.

Very true. We are fortunate enough to to be able to afford a cruise wedding but even still, the guest list is considerably shorter then if it would be a land wedding. That being said I disagree about paying for all the guest to attend. Even in a destination wedding you don't pay for everyone's hotel room or flight tickets. Guests have to choice if they can choose to afford it or not.

Viczaesar · February 2016

skyhannon said:

CMGragain said:

Cruise weddings where you get married at sea are fine for either a very small wedding or for very wealthy people. My daughter loved cruises, and they considered a cruise wedding where just the immediate family would cruise, and this fell within the budget. After about 5 seconds of thinking about it, they opted for a land wedding where they could host all their friends and extended family within the same budget. They went on a cruise for their honeymoon.

You can't have it both ways. You must host your guests, and if they are forced to go on a cruise with you in order to attend the wedding to which you have invited them, then YOU PAY! You cannot expect guests to pay admission to your wedding.

CMGragain said:

Cruise weddings where you get married at sea are fine for either a very small wedding or for very wealthy people. My daughter loved cruises, and they considered a cruise wedding where just the immediate family would cruise, and this fell within the budget. After about 5 seconds of thinking about it, they opted for a land wedding where they could host all their friends and extended family within the same budget. They went on a cruise for their honeymoon.

You can't have it both ways. You must host your guests, and if they are forced to go on a cruise with you in order to attend the wedding to which you have invited them, then YOU PAY! You cannot expect guests to pay admission to your wedding.

Very true. We are fortunate enough to to be able to afford a cruise wedding but even still, the guest list is considerably shorter then if it would be a land wedding. That being said I disagree about paying for all the guest to attend. Even in a destination wedding you don't pay for everyone's hotel room or flight tickets. Guests have to choice if they can choose to afford it or not.

Apples and oranges, as has already been explained here numerous times.

Cruise Wedding

Re: Cruise Wedding

Choose Another Board

Search Boards