It's his marriage as well as hers, so why is the groom expected to pay for the dress, the reception, the honeymoon, the food, the drinks, the stag/hen dos and the rings?
Seems unfair really. I can imagine a lot of wives start to lose interest because he's lost most of dosh.
Do you think this is unfair, do you think it isn't? Let's here it.
Most Helpful Guy
All depends on the culture.
But my family who are very much UK descent, certainly the groom would not pay for the bride's dress.
A long time ago, the groom would have been expected to be able to support himself (and her). She was likely still living under her father's financial support. The groom would have paid for the wedding - that is he'd have paid for the church, paid the priest, etc. Once upon a time people would not have rented some outfit to wear - if they were of the class that wore tuxedos or morning suits, they would have owned those things already, if not, they would have put their best suit on, which would have been absolutely appropriate. He would have paid for her rings.
The bride's family would of course have paid (or had made) her dress, or she might have made it herself if poor. She'd have shown up and married him.
It was then traditional for the bride's family to throw a party or reception afterward, in honor of the couple. They would invite their friends and family, and being kindly, likely invite some of the groom's side, and the couple's friends. But the couple wouldn't have been whining about details - it was not 'their' party, it was a party -for- them, and there's a difference.
At some point, I suspect not as far back in time, it became a custom for the groom's family to pay for the (smaller) rehearsal dinner.
And then, at some point, couples started paying for more themselves, seizing control of the wedding, etc. I'd say caused by a mix of people (women) being less tied to their families, and also couples getting married later when they are more established. So now you have a mix of people paying for things.0