'My brother-in-law is demanding I cough up over £3,000 to attend his wedding'

683     0
The man has had to pay for other guests too (stock photo) (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
The man has had to pay for other guests too (stock photo) (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Weddings can be eye-wateringly costly affairs, mainly for the bride and groom and their immediate family, if the traditional, 'parents pay' rule is followed. But also for guests who, as well as being expected to wear their finest attire on the big day, are expected to travel to the venue, which can often be in far flung places and involve overnight stays or even longer breaks if it's a two-day event or holiday.

One very disgruntled man found himself in such a position when his brother-in-law decided to get hitched in a destination that required travel. To make matters worse the man realised that he also had to pay for the groom's own parents to get to their son's wedding. Salt was really rubbed in the financial wound when his in-laws couldn't decide on the finer arrangements so dragged their feet in making a decision, meaning the cost shot up even more.

He took to Reddit to air his grievances at what he was being asked to do: "We were waiting to get tickets because my wife's family were all over the place about who was going with who, staying with who, etc. Literally 2 weeks ago my wife's parents finally decided to give a real answer," he explained, "and made my wife get the tickets because nobody else would."

Although his in-laws gave him around £325 towards their tickets, it didn't cover the whole price and he was expected to cough up the rest. The man revealed that each one cost £480 and because he had two kids, plus his wife - his bill reached almost £3,000.

Despite making "decent money" he couldn’t afford to fork out that amount on one wedding and was furious that he could have saved money if he hadn’t had to wait for them to make their minds up. "We could have got tickets a while ago probably for much cheaper," he said, "but because they took so long figuring everything out this is what we got. Then I still have to pay for somewhere to stay, a car to rent, etc."

'I don't want children staying up late at weekends - I really need adult time' dqxikeidqkikdinv'I don't want children staying up late at weekends - I really need adult time'

His wife said she would talk to her brother but the man wasn't convinced anything would come of it: "My in-laws don't have s*** for money, and I try to help, but it's honestly annoying that their son doesn't pay for them to go to HIS wedding. My wife is going to ask him for the rest, but I doubt it's going to happen. Am I wrong for being a bit sidelined and a little annoyed?" he asked.

One user cut to the quick with his solution to the problem. They wrote: "Don't go. If it takes almost $4K to get to your wedding then you need a reality check that a lot of people aren't going to be able to make it. And that includes if your plans are all over the place to the point where your guests can only get tickets last minute."

However, the original poster said that simply wasn't an option and would result in "nuclear divorce", which he wasn’t willing to go through over money - he just wanted to know if he was right for losing his mind over it.

Another poster agreed he was justified in feeling that way: "Geeze this family sounds awful. Good luck to you. But yeah no you are in the right. It's super entitled to expect that much monetary output from your wedding guests."

A third suggested there was a big issue with the whole of his wife’s family: "If not going would mean, in your words, 'nuclear divorce', That just kinda screams red flag to me. At least about your wife's side." While another was a little more diplomatic: "Well would just your wife going be an option, or drive???"

Another gave some tips for the future: "The only advice i can offer for future is to buy your family (you, wife and kids) tickets first and if someone else will be added later on, then those tickets will be handled extra and not increase the expense of everything."

The general consensus was that he wasn't in the wrong to be so hot under the collar for it, although one poster didn't think the situation called for anger: "I'm not saying son in law should pay for them, but I don't think he has a right to be mad at the bride and groom for it either. Again, I think you are in a s****y situation, but I don't think being mad at the people getting married about it is fair."

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

Beth Hardie

Print page

Comments:

comments powered by Disqus