Spending more money on a wedding than a car or a deposit for a house is just frackin stupid.

Also chances are that it will not be a one off so why go over board? I am all in favour of a low cost wedding, maybe keeping the extra money for a house deposit or a decent holiday.

There's a third way to interpret what she said.

She thought she compromised more than him but, like most wives who say this, her statement bore little or no resemblance to reality. When he made a decision that she didn't agree with, she would wait until she had him on her own and then nag/guilt-trip him ceaselessly until he changed his mind.

It's a rather.. cynical interpretation I think but it bears a grain of truth. I suspect if you asked her husband he would equally say he compromised more than she did. I suspect in the majority of couples this is true. The fact is though unequal relationships don't tend to last beyond medium term (say a couple of years) for obvious reasons. Most people will feel they give more than they take but in fact they're pretty much even.

Jon

Indeed.

Most of us will compromise on things that aren't important to us and not on those things that are.

I'm getting married this year. We're going to Italy to do it. The wedding itself costs around £600 with another £1000 of extras (photography, car, balloons, etc) and I'll need a suit too.

Her dress - paid for by her mum
Flights/hotel - not applicable as technically honeymoon paid for by my parents
Guests - told the parents ONLY on each side they can come but they have to pay for themselves
Reception in UK - at her Nans farm house and is being sorted out by her (large) family

Even if we add on some new clothes, spending money and wedding rings, etc I think the cost to us is no more than £4k.

I can see that that kind of spending could result in a lot of unrest in the future when the realisation that they’ve pissed away a small fortune dawns.

I expect that it will be before then. As soon as they start to have a tough time financially, will they regret it.

Night-time weddings to be allowed

Night time weddings will be able to take place in future under plans outlined by the government.

The changes allowing marriages to take place 24 hours a day in England and Wales are part of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill. They will also apply to civil partnerships.

Currently couples can only wed between 0800 and 1800 under rules dating back to the Marriage Act of 1836.

The move comes after suggestions to a government consultation.

The Church of England says any relaxation in the times of church weddings would require a change Canon Law from the General Synod, which meets twice a year. And the Catholic Church has reportedly said it would not conduct late night ceremonies.

But the changes are expected to boost the demand for evening civil wedding ceremonies, especially in the summer months.

In 2002, rules were amended to allow ceremonies to take place in sites other than churches, registry offices or specially-licensed venues.

Since then sites including Blackpool Tower, Tower Bridge and race courses have hosted civil weddings.

However, there will be no prospect of Las Vegas-style chapels where some couples have wed on the spur of the moment after a night of heavy drinking - couples will still have to give at least 15 days advanced notice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12439232

By the sound of it, the churches haven't realised that this would help their influence, not that I'm a big supporter there...

Not necessarily. If you are on a long bender then chances are you will still be drunk when you start the process and still be drunk when you go through with it.

If you're on 'a long bender' the religious types will be even unhappier

I was using it as a drinking term.