Weddings Bring Out The BEST In Families... Who's Right Here?

[AKL_Megs]

First let me preface by saying, yes, I know a LOT of people with a LOT of drama... but I keep the Dis interesting, so...

...That, and I am enjoying a BIG glass of red, so I am feeling a little dramatic myself...

Someone tell me who is right and who is wrong in this situation.

"Jack" and "Jill" got married last month. Jack and Jill both work from home and make the kind of money people DREAM of making. While Jack and Jill live in Virginia now, they are from Michigan. Their wedding took place over a 3-day weekend, and actually included TWO weddings and TWO receptions, with a BBQ before all of that.

The BBQ, ONE of the weddings and ONE of the receptions took place in Upper Michigan (where HIS family is), and the OTHER wedding and OTHER reception took place in Lower Michigan (where HER family is).

Jill's cousin "Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater" was IN the wedding party, and took 3 days off of work to attend the 3-day weekend wedding.

Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater coincidentally has HIS wedding to "Mary Mary Quite Contrary" planned for the following month, in Lower Michigan... a typical, one day wedding.

Peter and Mary invited Jack and Jill to their wedding, but Jill declined the invite because they "couldn't afford to come up" for the wedding "after all they had spent on theirs".

Should Jill have to suck it up and come to Peter and Mary's wedding out of obligation and to avoid being shunned by certain members of the family, or does she have every right to decline?

And no, I am neither Jill nor Mary... I am Goosey Goosey Gander, a family member and bystander, who has had too much wine...

 

[Mary•Poppins]

Just my opinion ...

But if someone was IN your wedding, the least you can do is attend their wedding. I think if they had an excuse ... like death in the family, expecting a baby, etc.... you could understand. However, I think the money issue is a cop out ... but, if you ever look on the "Live Like No One Else Board", you will find people who do make A LOT of money ... but also spend like they are Rockfellers. This couple could really be in financial difficulties ... but I personally find it pretty cheesy to not attend someone's wedding when you were in theirs.

 

[kellyg403]

Jack and Jill should make the trip. Geez, I can't imagine NOT!


Kelly

 

[bumbershoot]

If they can't, they can't. If they can but are saying that they can't, well, there's no way to prove it unless you sneak a peek at their financial papers, and that wouldn't be nice.

In J&J's situation, looks like they spent all their money on their huge wedding (and probably honeymoon)...in P&M's situation, P went, probably had it budgeted, and the money for the wedding isn't spent yet...very different sort of budgeting situation, IMO (if you're not perfect at budgeting).

Or heck, maybe J&J became insta-pregnant after their wedding and she's throwing up 24/7, but doesn't want to share that yet since it's so early... No matter what, you can't force a person to go to a wedding, no matter what seems proper...P made his choice, and shouldn't be sparing a moment for thoughts of why J&J aren't going, and should simply be focusing on his wedding. IMO.

 

[klacey1]

They absolutely should go. If Peter makes less money than Jack + Jill (which you made it sound like) and he made the effort to take off the time from work and spend the money that is required to be in a wedding party, they should absolutely reciprocate. At the very least, they DEFINITELY should send a gift.
Maybe they did spend a lot on their wedding-- they can charge a trip to southern Michigan. If they make good money, I'm sure they can pay it off quickly.

 

[Scurvy]

If they can't, they can't. If they can but are saying that they can't, well, there's no way to prove it unless you sneak a peek at their financial papers, and that wouldn't be nice.

I agree. Of course it would be nice if they would go if it was at all possible. It might really not be, though. They could have spent every penny on their wedding. I personally suspect that isn't the case, but there is no way to know for sure. I can certainly see why it would bother Peter and Mary - it would bother me, too - but they need to try to just put it out of their minds and focus on their own wedding.

I admit that I am still a little hung up on the "Two weddings" thing. They didn't really have two weddings, of course, since once you're married you can't get married again unless you divorce first. They can call it whatever they want but what they really had was one wedding, one reenactment and two receptions. (Unless the reenactment was actually a blessing or something, and not a big production that was masquerading as a wedding.) That seems way over the top to me, personally! Maybe if they had cut out the fake wedding they could have afforded to go to Peter and Mary's wedding.

 

[luvmy3]

Would it be nice if they attended, yes. Do they have to, no.

 

[Rora]

They don't have to attend but they really should. It seems sad that they wouldn't but hey, if they can't, they can't.

And, I really enjoyed your storybook alteregos!

 

[wdwfan16]

Jill is wrong. Peter bent over backwards to attend their three day affair and now they need to attend his one day affair.

 

[FireDancer]

Should Jill have to suck it up and come to Peter and Mary's wedding out of obligation and to avoid being shunned by certain members of the family, or does she have every right to decline?

Should they decline? Probably not. Do they have the right to decline? Yep.

As for an obligation, unless there has been legislation passed that mandates reciprocal wedding attendance they are not obligated.

 

[Pigeon]

I don't believe anyone is required to accept any invitation.

However, in this situation it would be nice to do so.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

What about "Mr. Ivan Irritated"? "Jack" and "Jill" had "Peter" in THEIR wedding and they are NOT in his wedding.

I could see some of that coming into play in this scenario. Not to say that this is the case, however it could be.

Either way, Peter chose to be in this wedding and should have taken into account the relationship he had with his cousin before he said yes. My guess is that he would have attended his cousin's wedding anyway even if he was not in it. Sounds like a nice guy.

 

[Katie Dawn]

Jack and Jill should go down the hill...

If someone was important enough in my life for me to ask them to be a part of my marriage ceremony then I would do whatever I could to be there on THEIR special day.

But wait... you're saying that Peter was a groomsman in Jack's wedding. And it sounds like Jack IS going to Peter's wedding... it's just that Jill doesn't want to go. I'm assuming Jill is the family member that has "married into" the family? That puts another spin on it. It's less of a slap in the face, but still makes them look a little fishy. I wonder if things are tense at the Jack & Jill residence? I certainly wouldn't want to be Jack at Peter's wedding, constantly answering the question, "Where's Jill?"

 

[chloelovesdisney]

Yes, they should attend. To not attend is obnoxious, sorry.

 

[joviroxx]

Obligated? NO.. no one is obligated to do anything except die and pay taxes!

Morally? I would make every effort to go especially since Jill knew about Peter Peter's wedding while hers was going on. So , does she have to? no, should she? I say yes!

 

[ZephyrHawk]

No one is required to "suck it up" and go to a wedding. However, they should send a nice gift in their place.

That being said, I'm having a hard time imaging anyone wanting to have one, let alone two, weddings in February in Michigan (Upper or Lower). Clearly they have more than one screw loose.

 

[Eeyore'sthebest]

Jill is wrong. Peter bent over backwards to attend their three day affair and now they need to attend his one day affair.

ITA! Even if just Jill attends. Can't she stay with relatives while she's out there to save money. So it would probably just be the flight cost. I would hope she is giving a gift regardless of her attendance so that shouldn't be taken into consideration!