Are there any etiquette guidelines for a younger "encore bride?"

April 14, 2007 4:35 AM

Second Marriage Filter - I need some resources on etiquette for second weddings!

My younger sister is getting married next year. This is the second marriage for her and the first for her fiance.

Here's the tricky part: she got married for the first time in 2004 at the age of 20. They separated this past January and their divorce hearing is later this month, but she's already engaged to her new fiance and plans to marry in late 2008. Needless to say, my parents aren't thrilled even though my sister is.

What I'd like are some websites regarding second wedding etiquette, especially regarding payments, showers, gifts, or responsibilities. I think that things may get heated between my parents and my sister, and I'd love a few neutral websites I can point to and say, "Well, here's what the experts think."

I've found a lot of great websites that imply that the couple is in their 40s or 50s and therefore much more financially stable, but I haven't found much for a young second-time bride-to-be. Any advice directed towards younger couples, or that apply to younger couples, would be welcome. And if anyone has personal experience with a situation like this, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks!

posted by christinetheslp to human relations (11 comments total)

Here's a section on The Knot about remarriage.
posted by tastybrains at 6:19 AM on April 14, 2007

The Second Marriages forum at Indiebride might be a good place to find some info. In general, though, I think even the second-time brides there tend to post in the relevant section (such as dresses or receptions or etiquette), rather than just on the second-time board, so don't limit yourself to that section.
posted by belladonna at 6:28 AM on April 14, 2007

Given the fairly brief interval between weddings, it would be gracious to advise people (informally, of course, not printed on an invitation) who went to the first wedding and are to be invited to the second that they aren't expected to give gifts (again). Most of those people will still give gifts, anyway, but the gesture is still a good one.

And if the horse isn't out of the barn, it wouldn't hurt to hold back the news about the engagement for a good amount of time. Separated in January and engaged in April invites unkind speculation.
posted by MattD at 6:42 AM on April 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

especially regarding payments

If your parents are unable or unwilling to pay for a large wedding celebration, good etiquette would preclude demanding that they do so. I can't imagine that payments would be an issue in any other way.
posted by yohko at 7:52 AM on April 14, 2007

By the same token, if your parents are going to refuse to pay for a reception, it's rude to pawn this off onto "experts." If they're not going to pay, it's their decision not to pay, and they should own up to it being their decision. It's not that they really want to pay, but "experts" or Foo-Froo, the God of Etiquette are preventing them from doing so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:29 AM on April 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

i got married twice in my twenties. the first time my parents paid for everything. the second time we did everything, from making our outfits to cooking the food to the music and favors ourselves, with some contributions from guests (we held the ceremony at my husband's grandmothers' place with flowers from her gardens, his uncle made our cake, and one of our friends took photographs). the only things that we had to pay for were groceries, alchohol and renting a tent and tables, which my husband's family paid for because they wanted to contribute; if they hadn't we would probably have bought the food ourselves (well under $1000) and gone without the rentals since it was an outdoor picnic type of thing. only my immediate family came, largely due to unrelated reasons, but it was still pretty big because of friends and his (large) family. we said if people wanted to give gifts that we suggested charitable donations or something small of personal significance (a lot of our friends are artists and the like) and a few of our friends followed this advice, but pretty much all of the family got us normal sorts of gifts. it was an awesome day and actually much cooler than my first wedding, and everyone seemed to have fun.
posted by lgyre at 10:56 AM on April 14, 2007

I got married in my early twenties, divorced, and then remarried two years ago. The second time around, I didn't take a dime from my parents- they had already paid for one wedding, which was plenty generous of them.

In the long run, the wedding itself isn't really all that important. It's the marriage that is important. The wedding is just one day. Lots of people get married without much or any financial help from their families, even the first time around.
posted by ambrosia at 11:14 AM on April 14, 2007

I know of a number of people who've married twice, but the only case similar to your sister's situation involved a friend of a friend -- she and her second fiance has a modest wedding so that they could pay for absolutely everything for themselves on the principle that her parents had already thrown her a lavish wedding the first time around, and therefore it was out of the question to expect her parents to pay for anything a second time around. By the same token, she only registered for modest gifts, didn't publicize her registry (i.e., only gave out the info if people asked directly), and didn't have a shower.
posted by scody at 12:48 PM on April 14, 2007

Besides reading about rules of etiquette, you have to take other things into account. If it's the boyfriend's first wedding, he might really want to celebrate with a lot of friends and relatives, dress up in fancy clothes, and be at the center of a big, happy fuss. You can't just toss all that because the bride drained a lot of people's wallets a few years earlier. Many people who attended your sister's first wedding are going to feel put upon if the same demands are made of them the second time around. I'm okay with having to get new clothes and shoes, pay for travel, and buy multiple gifts because a young couple are about to start a new life together; but I don't like doing it again for the same bride or groom after just 4 years.

Your parents may have several reasons not to want your sister to have another full-on wedding. There's the money, and their concerns about her judgment, and possibly their embarrassment at the idea that their family and friends may be appalled and think your sister is greedy and selfish.

It's good for brides and grooms to try to get what they want (good wishes and a festive party in their honor) without being slaves to what a wedding is usually like. Suggest that they think of it as a special party or celebration, and primarily a way to have fun with people they care about. Even your parents should like that idea. A plus: if you tell caterers, bakers, florists, etc., that you're preparing for a party instead of a wedding, prices may be a lot lower.
posted by wryly at 2:01 PM on April 14, 2007

A family friend recently got married, and rather than gifts, she asked her *close* friends and family to each bring something to the wedding. My Mom brought two baskets of roses cut from her garden, other guests brought chairs, played musical instruments, cooked lasagna, etc. She made her dress, her Dad cooked the cake, and the rest of the wedding party wore their own dresses in roughly the same colors/styles. They had the ceremony in her parent's backyard, and ended up costing a couple of hundred dollars.

Seems like it might be a good choice; your parents can be part of your sister's second wedding without spending a large chunk of their annual income, and guests can show their love/affection for your sister and her new husband without feeling compelled to spend money on the bride's second wedding in four years.

Maybe a good expenditure, however, would be investing in pre-marital therapy?
posted by arnicae at 3:37 PM on April 14, 2007

I think everything has been covered above pretty well.

They separated this past January and their divorce hearing is later this month, but she's already engaged to her new fiance and plans to marry in late 2008.

This sentence strikes me as odd. Is there an error? Did you mean late 2007?

To be marrying in late 2008, they sure were in a hurry to get engaged. If they were waiting almost 2 years to get married, they couldn't hold off another month or so for engagement?

Just seems odd. *shrug*
posted by Ynoxas at 9:07 PM on April 14, 2007