Discussion:
Sapphire Jubilee
(too old to reply)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-06 17:19:32 UTC
Permalink
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?

Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?

(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Lothar Frings
2017-02-06 17:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>

gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
70 should be steel or something.
Harrison Hill
2017-02-06 18:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
70 should be steel or something.
Besser or Bessemer?
Lothar Frings
2017-02-06 18:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
70 should be steel or something.
Besser or Bessemer?
Sorry... all of the above, I guess.
Whiskers
2017-02-06 18:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German it's just "iron" which
probably describes it much besser. 70 should be steel or something.
I think those actually celebrating such anniversaries might appreciate
something a lot softer.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Sam Plusnet
2017-02-06 22:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German it's just "iron" which
probably describes it much besser. 70 should be steel or something.
I think those actually celebrating such anniversaries might appreciate
something a lot softer.
It would be a lot cheaper for the husband trying to buy the appropriate
gift for his spouse.

Question: Why is the husband expected to buy presents for his wife on
such occasions, rather than vice versa?
I asked my wife, but she ignored the question.
--
Sam Plusnet
Harvey
2017-02-06 23:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Question: Why is the husband expected to buy presents for his wife on
such occasions, rather than vice versa?
My wife bought me a plain silver pinky-ring for our 25th. (Granted,
I suggested it when she asked me what to get.)

This year will be anniversary No. 34, so I don't have to think of
appropriate round-number commemorations for a few years.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I asked my wife, but she ignored the question.
:)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years), indiscriminately mixed
GordonD
2017-02-06 19:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German it's just "iron" which
probably describes it much besser. 70 should be steel or something.
70 is Platinum. My dad's cousin and her husband celebrated their
platinum anniversary two years ago.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-02-06 20:14:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:27:51 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
"besser"? Is that a typo for "better".

It reminded me of the Bessemer proces which produces steel from iron!
Post by Lothar Frings
70 should be steel or something.
70 is platinum (in the UK).
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2017-02-06 21:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:27:51 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
"besser"? Is that a typo for "better".
It's the German word for "better", and as such probably bester
known to Lothar's fingers.
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-06 23:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:27:51 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary>
gives "sapphire" for both US and UK. In German
it's just "iron" which probably describes it much besser.
"besser"? Is that a typo for "better".
It's the German word for "better", and as such probably bester
known to Lothar's fingers.
I assumed Lothar was making a macaronic joke.
charles
2017-02-06 19:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything --
sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether
"sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold,
and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry
given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70
years ago -- which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Wikipedia lists Blue Sapphire for a 65th anniverary gift.

I attended a 70th wedding anniversary party a few years ago - a wartime
wedding. Sadly the wife died a couple of years later.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
LFS
2017-02-07 08:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.

Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 15:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?

(Just last week I saw an explanation for the supposed 130-year-old Georgians:
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
Lothar Frings
2017-02-07 15:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 15:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
Lothar Frings
2017-02-07 16:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 17:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Lothar Frings
2017-02-07 17:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.

In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 20:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.
In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
(Another macaronic word from Lothar!)

What's unclear about

(Just last week I saw an explanation for the supposed 130-year-old Georgians:
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)

I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier, say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Lothar Frings
2017-02-07 22:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What's unclear about
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier, say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Sorry, I didn't read that.
I also didn't delete anything.
But it seems reasonable to come
to this conclusion.
On the other hand, it should be possible
for an expert to determine the real
age of a person.
Robert Bannister
2017-02-08 02:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.
In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
(Another macaronic word from Lothar!)
What's unclear about
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier, say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Did they really have birth certificates in Georgia that long ago?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-08 04:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.
In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
(Another macaronic word from Lothar!)
What's unclear about
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier, say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Did they really have birth certificates in Georgia that long ago?
That's why I said "or baptismal." How bureaucratic was the Russian Empire?
Cheryl
2017-02-08 10:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.
In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
(Another macaronic word from Lothar!)
What's unclear about
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so
born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier,
say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Did they really have birth certificates in Georgia that long ago?
Documentation goes back a long way, particularly when it's a matter of
dealing with some kind of government. They might not have a piece of
paper in a drawer back home, but there could easily have been some
documentation in the local church (which was done here before the
central government got around to doing it), and maybe even a local
office that recorded who was born, died and owned or bequeathed what bit
of farmland.
--
Cheryl
Pavel Svinchnik
2017-02-08 13:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual. Or do Brits in general have life
expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
My theory is that those Caucasians reach
such ages not because of the yogurt but because
they don't know for sure when they were born.
Do you reject the theory that you deleted?
-v please
What is "-v"?
Sorry, I thougt that kind of Usenet folklore was
universal. -v is the usual Unix parameter for
"verbose", meaning that a command which can
explain its use do that elaborately.
In Usenet it usually means "Could you
explain what you mean? I didn't unterstand."
(Another macaronic word from Lothar!)
What's unclear about
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
I assume everyone knows that this must have been before 1917 and probably before
1905, so someone who appeared to be of military age -- say, 18-35, so
born ca. 1880, would have claimed a birthdate a generation earlier,
say ca. 1860. That
would make them 130ish when the ads were done in the 1980s(?). I don't remember
whether they included any 130-year-old women in the ads.
Did they really have birth certificates in Georgia that long ago?
Documentation goes back a long way, particularly when it's a matter of
dealing with some kind of government. They might not have a piece of
paper in a drawer back home, but there could easily have been some
documentation in the local church (which was done here before the
central government got around to doing it), and maybe even a local
office that recorded who was born, died and owned or bequeathed what bit
of farmland.
--
Cheryl
About 20 years ago, I visited the parish priest in the small town in Slovenia that my grandfather was born in. They had a hand-written registry of births going back to about 1800. There was a note by my grandfather's entry that he went to America in a certain year. The priest said that registries older than the one he had were kept in the records department in Ljubljana.

Paul
LFS
2017-02-07 15:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Do beware of thinking that correlation implies causation. That may not
be the only reason for the reports. The people involved are usually
people who have contributed significantly to the local community.

Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
Post by Peter T. Daniels
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
when the czar's army impressers came round, they would produce the birth
/ baptismal certificates of their fathers to show that they were too old for
military service.)
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual.
And because it's Chuck Berry who is relatively famous.

Did they have a sapphire anniversary
Post by Peter T. Daniels
party three years earlier?
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Tony Cooper
2017-02-07 18:03:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:53:34 +0000, LFS
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Do beware of thinking that correlation implies causation. That may not
be the only reason for the reports. The people involved are usually
people who have contributed significantly to the local community.
The _Orlando Sentinel_ runs a few of these notices, but I believe that
they are paid insertions. Someone in the family placed the notice.

If it's a "human interest" article about the couple, it will cover
more information about the couple, how the met, etc.

When we're on the road, I often pick up a copy of one of those
small-town weekly newspapers that still carry a "society" column. It's
interesting to read that Howard and Velma Mertz entertained Norbert
and Marsha Walters for evening of cards and Velma's famous avocado
dip.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
RH Draney
2017-02-07 15:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
Peter Moylan
2017-02-07 21:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
In recent Australian lore, "The Sapphires" was the name of an all-black
singing group from the outback that achieved some success and fame.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Janet
2017-02-07 21:37:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <o7ddfi$6pd$***@dont-email.me>, ***@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
In recent Australian lore, "The Sapphires" was the name of an all-black
singing group from the outback that achieved some success and fame.
There's a film about them, I've seen it

Janet.
Mack A. Damia
2017-02-07 22:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
The cultural association of "Sapphire" is the image of a "belligerent
black woman", the character on the radio and TV show.

I guess it started in the 1960s after A & A had diminished in
popularity, but black families began naming their daughters with
exotic African names such as "J'mom", "Lackadaisica" and "Butterfry".
Tony Cooper
2017-02-08 03:46:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 14:28:10 -0800, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
The cultural association of "Sapphire" is the image of a "belligerent
black woman", the character on the radio and TV show.
I'm ancient enough to have listened to Amos 'n' Andy on the radio and
remember "Kingfish" yelling out her name. But, I do wonder if the
current generations have any idea of who Sapphire was and associate it
with racism of any kind.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Garrett Wollman
2017-02-08 05:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm ancient enough to have listened to Amos 'n' Andy on the radio and
remember "Kingfish" yelling out her name. But, I do wonder if the
current generations have any idea of who Sapphire was and associate it
with racism of any kind.
First I've heard of it, and I'm not young. "Sapphire" to me means
nothing more than corundum with the right impurities in it to make it
blue.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Robert Bannister
2017-02-08 02:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
I seriously doubt it...African-American women have been known to
complain that "Sapphire" is a racist nickname, because it was the name
of a fishwife character in the old Amos & Andy radio program....r
They'd have to be old to remember Amos & Andy.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Janet
2017-02-07 16:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.

(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics

"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Out of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were
aged 105 years and older.
More than half a million people aged 90 and over were living in the
UK in 2012.

Janet.
Quinn C
2017-02-07 17:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything -- sometimes
one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder whether "sapphire" has
traditionally been established for 65, like silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire jewelry given
to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a wedding gift, 70 years ago --
which she wears in the official Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries reports
of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies
like those of Georgians in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Out of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were
aged 105 years and older.
More than half a million people aged 90 and over were living in the
UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have
both gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first
marriage has risen above 30 even for women.
--
The country has its quota of fools and windbags; such people are
most prominent in politics, where their inherent weaknesses seem
less glaring and attract less ridicule than they would in other
walks of life. -- Robert Bothwell et.al.: Canada since 1945
charles
2017-02-07 17:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Cheryl
2017-02-07 17:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
--
Cheryl
Quinn C
2017-02-07 18:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
My theory is that what we called marriage has three aspects -
legal, social, religious -, where the importance of each one
varies by couple and can be 0. The party would represent the
social part.

My wedding was a dozen people accompanying us to city hall and
having some bubbly in the foyer afterwards. So the religious
aspect was at 0 and the social one pretty low.

I have argued in the past that people would recognize this if we
gave the three things different names.

We probably should also make sure they happen at separate
locations. The latter actually used to be the case in Germany when
I grew up, but that is not the anglo tradition.
--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 20:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Cheryl
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
My theory is that what we called marriage has three aspects -
legal, social, religious -, where the importance of each one
varies by couple and can be 0. The party would represent the
social part.
My wedding was a dozen people accompanying us to city hall and
having some bubbly in the foyer afterwards. So the religious
aspect was at 0 and the social one pretty low.
I have argued in the past that people would recognize this if we
gave the three things different names.
We probably should also make sure they happen at separate
locations. The latter actually used to be the case in Germany when
I grew up, but that is not the anglo tradition.
(What Roman Catholics call) the sacrament is Holy Matrimony, the official
legal act is the marriage, and the big party is the wedding (reception).

Ask, and ye shall receive. Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
Jerry Friedman
2017-02-09 05:27:59 UTC
Permalink
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier weddings.
--
Jerry Friedman
charles
2017-02-09 08:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier weddings.
daughter 2 is considering having the "party" on a beach in Cornwall and
getting the local fish & chip van to call by.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Paul Wolff
2017-02-10 00:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Jerry Friedman
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier weddings.
daughter 2 is considering having the "party" on a beach in Cornwall and
getting the local fish & chip van to call by.
Brilliant idea. And get the Kelly's van to follow.
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2017-02-10 10:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by charles
daughter 2 is considering having the "party" on a beach in Cornwall and
getting the local fish & chip van to call by.
Brilliant idea. And get the Kelly's van to follow.
For our wedding we hired the local "spit roast" people. One man arrived
(or was it two?), set up the cooking equipment in our garage, and
prepared a meal for about 40 people. The wedding itself was held in our
lounge room. It was supposed to be outdoors, but we got heavy rain that
day and had to rearrange furniture to fit everyone in.

We had to rent a few chairs and borrow several extra tables, but there
wasn't a lot more in terms of cost. Oh, yes, and we paid a couple of
friends to provide live music.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Cheryl
2017-02-09 10:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier weddings.
There's some element of that, since it seems to me that the same people
reappear in the wedding party - if I'm a bridesmaid at one wedding, I'll
probably invite that bride to be a bridesmaid at mine, and so on. I'm
never quite sure if that's reciprocal hospitality or a matter of keeping
up with the Joneses, but it's proabably a bit of both.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-09 12:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
There's some element of that, since it seems to me that the same people
reappear in the wedding party - if I'm a bridesmaid at one wedding, I'll
probably invite that bride to be a bridesmaid at mine, and so on. I'm
never quite sure if that's reciprocal hospitality or a matter of keeping
up with the Joneses, but it's proabably a bit of both.
There are Matrons of Honor, but are there bridesmatrons?
Cheryl
2017-02-09 13:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Cheryl
There's some element of that, since it seems to me that the same people
reappear in the wedding party - if I'm a bridesmaid at one wedding, I'll
probably invite that bride to be a bridesmaid at mine, and so on. I'm
never quite sure if that's reciprocal hospitality or a matter of keeping
up with the Joneses, but it's proabably a bit of both.
There are Matrons of Honor, but are there bridesmatrons?
I don't really know. I suspect it's unlikely that a modern bride would
follow the old tradition of having only unmarried and presumably
maidenly friends as bridesmaids. I'll try to remember to ask next time
I'm talking with someone who's been married recently, or, more likely,
has children who have been married recently.
--
Cheryl
GordonD
2017-02-09 11:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting
married again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests
that the costs involved might have something to do with it. The
average UK wedding cost £14,000 - so you need to save for a long
time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what
the couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and
simple. If they want to celebrate the fact that they are married,
they can do so on any financial scale they can afford. But so many
tell me that they "can't afford to get married" when what they
appear to mean is that they can't afford to celebrate their
marriage in the style they desire. Some of them appear puzzled if
someone tells them that the party is an optional part of getting
married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier
weddings.
And possibly there's an element of oneupmanship, to outdo the weddings
they've been to. Though in that situation it's likely to be the bride's
mother who is motivated that way.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Cheryl
2017-02-09 12:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by GordonD
Post by Jerry Friedman
[marrying late]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting
married again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests
that the costs involved might have something to do with it. The
average UK wedding cost £14,000 - so you need to save for a long
time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what
the couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and
simple. If they want to celebrate the fact that they are married,
they can do so on any financial scale they can afford. But so many
tell me that they "can't afford to get married" when what they
appear to mean is that they can't afford to celebrate their
marriage in the style they desire. Some of them appear puzzled if
someone tells them that the party is an optional part of getting
married.
They may feel an obligation to entertain their friends and family as
lavishly as they (the couple) have been entertained at earlier weddings.
And possibly there's an element of oneupmanship, to outdo the weddings
they've been to. Though in that situation it's likely to be the bride's
mother who is motivated that way.
Not always

I have a friend with two married daughters. She and her husband had
quite a quiet and low-key wedding, and are, in general, not enthusiastic
about big formal events. She helped with both her daughter's weddings,
which, although far from extravagant by modern standards, were a bit
bigger and more elaborate than their parents' preferences. I don't think
she really understood the desire for formal weddings. A number of the
people in my circle all those years ago when they were getting married
for the first time had very low-key weddings, and I don't think they're
the ones driving their children's choices.
--
Cheryl
the Omrud
2017-02-09 15:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
I have a friend with two married daughters. She and her husband had
quite a quiet and low-key wedding, and are, in general, not enthusiastic
about big formal events. She helped with both her daughter's weddings,
which, although far from extravagant by modern standards, were a bit
bigger and more elaborate than their parents' preferences. I don't think
she really understood the desire for formal weddings. A number of the
people in my circle all those years ago when they were getting married
for the first time had very low-key weddings, and I don't think they're
the ones driving their children's choices.
This describes us exactly. Daughter is getting married on Good Friday -
it's not an extravagent affair by modern standards but it's far, far
more complex and organised than our low-key wedding 35 years ago. Wife
didn't have a formal wedding dress, for example. We did have about 60
guests, and we had our receiption in a private room above a restaurant,
but it only took us a few days to organise the whole thing. Daughter
has been organising for 15 months and insists that all her weekends are
booked until Easter because she's busy doing "wedding things".

Mind, we didn't enjoy the choice of venue now available. Since we would
not have contemplated a church wedding, our only option was the local
Register Office, which was in a rather anonymous block in central
Manchester. These days the Register Office has to compete with hotels
and castles, so it's moved to the rather more splendid Manchester Town Hall:

Loading Image...
--
David
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-09 15:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
This describes us exactly. Daughter is getting married on Good Friday -
it's not an extravagent affair by modern standards but it's far, far
more complex and organised than our low-key wedding 35 years ago. Wife
didn't have a formal wedding dress, for example. We did have about 60
guests, and we had our receiption in a private room above a restaurant,
but it only took us a few days to organise the whole thing. Daughter
has been organising for 15 months and insists that all her weekends are
booked until Easter because she's busy doing "wedding things".
On Good Friday -- not a church wedding, then?
the Omrud
2017-02-09 15:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by the Omrud
This describes us exactly. Daughter is getting married on Good Friday -
it's not an extravagent affair by modern standards but it's far, far
more complex and organised than our low-key wedding 35 years ago. Wife
didn't have a formal wedding dress, for example. We did have about 60
guests, and we had our receiption in a private room above a restaurant,
but it only took us a few days to organise the whole thing. Daughter
has been organising for 15 months and insists that all her weekends are
booked until Easter because she's busy doing "wedding things".
On Good Friday -- not a church wedding, then?
Certainly not. Daughter is just as a-religious as me. It's in a
country hotel.

As many of you know, I am often to be found in churches and cathedrals
(Carlisle Cathedral next month) even though I'm 100% atheist, because I
am a serious choral singer. I've mentioned Daughter's wedding to my
choral friends, many of whom are (unsurprisingly) proper Christians who
came through church choirs. They are uniformly astonished that it's
possible to get married on Good Friday. "How unusual", they say, politely.
--
David
Robert Bannister
2017-02-10 01:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cheryl
I have a friend with two married daughters. She and her husband had
quite a quiet and low-key wedding, and are, in general, not enthusiastic
about big formal events. She helped with both her daughter's weddings,
which, although far from extravagant by modern standards, were a bit
bigger and more elaborate than their parents' preferences. I don't think
she really understood the desire for formal weddings. A number of the
people in my circle all those years ago when they were getting married
for the first time had very low-key weddings, and I don't think they're
the ones driving their children's choices.
This describes us exactly. Daughter is getting married on Good Friday -
it's not an extravagent affair by modern standards but it's far, far
more complex and organised than our low-key wedding 35 years ago. Wife
didn't have a formal wedding dress, for example. We did have about 60
guests, and we had our receiption in a private room above a restaurant,
but it only took us a few days to organise the whole thing. Daughter
has been organising for 15 months and insists that all her weekends are
booked until Easter because she's busy doing "wedding things".
Mind, we didn't enjoy the choice of venue now available. Since we would
not have contemplated a church wedding, our only option was the local
Register Office, which was in a rather anonymous block in central
Manchester. These days the Register Office has to compete with hotels
http://www.boutiquehotelnews.com/media/273166/manchester_town_hall_2009_wide_angle.jpg
A veritable Victorian-gothic palace.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-02-10 10:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cheryl
I have a friend with two married daughters. She and her husband had
quite a quiet and low-key wedding, and are, in general, not enthusiastic
about big formal events. She helped with both her daughter's weddings,
which, although far from extravagant by modern standards, were a bit
bigger and more elaborate than their parents' preferences. I don't think
she really understood the desire for formal weddings. A number of the
people in my circle all those years ago when they were getting married
for the first time had very low-key weddings, and I don't think they're
the ones driving their children's choices.
This describes us exactly. Daughter is getting married on Good Friday -
it's not an extravagent affair by modern standards but it's far, far
more complex and organised than our low-key wedding 35 years ago. Wife
didn't have a formal wedding dress, for example. We did have about 60
guests, and we had our receiption in a private room above a restaurant,
but it only took us a few days to organise the whole thing. Daughter
has been organising for 15 months and insists that all her weekends are
booked until Easter because she's busy doing "wedding things".
Mind, we didn't enjoy the choice of venue now available. Since we would
not have contemplated a church wedding, our only option was the local
Register Office, which was in a rather anonymous block in central
Manchester. These days the Register Office has to compete with hotels
http://www.boutiquehotelnews.com/media/273166/manchester_town_hall_2009_wide_angle.jpg
The actual Register Office is not in Manchester Town Hall. It is in a
nearby building, Heron House, Lloyd Street.
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200067/marriages_and_civil_partnerships/1186/manchester_registration_service_-_contact_and_location_details

Manchester Town Hall has a space approved for weddings.
http://www.thetownhallmcr.co.uk/weddings
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-02-09 18:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
That couple and many others don't see "getting married" as a necessary
or useful formal registration of their "pairing-up".

For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.

By coincidence today's newspapers have reports of a case just decided by
the UK Supreme Court.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4203622/Denise-Brewster-wins-Supreme-Court-ruling-claim-pension.html

Unmarried woman wins right to claim her late long-term partner's
pension in landmark case that could affect millions of cohabiting
couples

A woman who was denied payments from her long-term partner’s pension
because they were not married has won a landmark appeal.

Her victory at the Supreme Court could improve the rights of
millions of other cohabitees across the UK.

Denise Brewster, 42, challenged a ruling that she was not
automatically entitled to a ‘survivor’s pension’ as she would have
been, were she married to her partner when he died.

Ms Brewster, a lifeguard from Coleraine, Northern Ireland, and her
partner Lenny McMullan had lived together for ten years and owned
their own home.

They had got engaged just two days before Mr McMullan died.

Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled she is entitled to
receive payments under the pension scheme.

Ms Brewster's solicitor, Gareth Mitchell of public law firm Deighton
Pierce Glynn, said the ruling could affect millions of cohabitees.

He said: ‘Denying bereaved cohabitees access to survivor pensions
causes huge distress and financial hardship.

‘Now that around one in six families in the UK are cohabiting
families, reform is long overdue.

‘The decision has significant implications for millions of
cohabitees in relation to pension benefits.

‘It also lays down the approach to be adopted when considering
complaints of discrimination on the grounds of marital status in
other areas.

‘This was a decision of the Supreme Court of the UK and it affects
the whole of the UK.’
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cheryl
2017-02-09 19:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
That couple and many others don't see "getting married" as a necessary
or useful formal registration of their "pairing-up".
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
We're ahead of you on that basis. Most if not all of these couples are
married common-law, as we call it, already, and the differences between
that and regular marriage are very minor (although they do vary by
province, so I can't speak for the situation everywhere). So their
"pairing-up" is legal and quite generally accepted. Something tells me
that most of them aren't among those who don't consider themselves
married unless they have a religious ceremony. In spite of this, they
choose not merely a formal marriage ceremony, but a formal marriage
ceremony accompanied by quite extraordinarily extravagant clothes and
parties; much more expensive and elaborate than their normal
entertainments. There's nothing on earth from stopping them from
throwing an extravagant party to celebrate their current common-law
relationship, but that's not what they do. It really puzzles me. But
then, I'd pay good money to avoid being the centre of attention at a
formal party of any kind, and would do anything to avoid having to
organize a party that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

I do think it's the party that's key, though, and not recognition of the
relationship.
--
Cheryl
Quinn C
2017-02-09 19:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
That couple and many others don't see "getting married" as a necessary
or useful formal registration of their "pairing-up".
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
We're ahead of you on that basis. Most if not all of these couples are
married common-law, as we call it, already, and the differences between
that and regular marriage are very minor (although they do vary by
province, so I can't speak for the situation everywhere).
Indeed - in Quebec, the province with the highest percentage of
unmarried couples, your access to spousal support is greatly
reduced by not being formally married.

The main reason why in Quebec, of all places, so many couples
don't formally marry is that many associate marriage strongly with
catholicism, which they now strongly reject, and they throw out
the legal act with the religious one.

Again, more arguments in favor of my "separation of concerns"
(social, religious, legal).
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
Quinn C
2017-02-09 19:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Well, this is something I've seen here, and it puzzles me. If what the
couple want is to be married, the process is quite cheap and simple. If
they want to celebrate the fact that they are married, they can do so on
any financial scale they can afford. But so many tell me that they
"can't afford to get married" when what they appear to mean is that they
can't afford to celebrate their marriage in the style they desire. Some
of them appear puzzled if someone tells them that the party is an
optional part of getting married.
That couple and many others don't see "getting married" as a necessary
or useful formal registration of their "pairing-up".
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
This is all fine, but then have the party only after many years,
when it is, in my understanding, the public announcement in your
social circles that you are serious about your relationship?

And why link the party to the legal act of marriage, then, the
announcement to the government that you are serious?

It seems to me that these are just traditions that people copy in
some fashion from others, unreflected as to their meaning.
--
Are you sure your sanity chip is fully screwed in?
-- Kryten to Rimmer (Red Dwarf)
Paul Wolff
2017-02-10 00:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
By coincidence today's newspapers have reports of a case just decided by
the UK Supreme Court.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4203622/Denise-Brews
ter-wins-Supreme-Court-ruling-claim-pension.html
Unmarried woman wins right to claim her late long-term partner's
pension in landmark case that could affect millions of cohabiting
couples
Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled she is entitled to
receive payments under the pension scheme.
My reaction to hearing the news: this could mean that many pension
arrangements are even more seriously underfunded than was thought
previously. Whose pockets are to be raided to pay these extra pension
entitlements?
--
Paul
Tony Cooper
2017-02-10 02:10:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:56:39 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
By coincidence today's newspapers have reports of a case just decided by
the UK Supreme Court.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4203622/Denise-Brews
ter-wins-Supreme-Court-ruling-claim-pension.html
Unmarried woman wins right to claim her late long-term partner's
pension in landmark case that could affect millions of cohabiting
couples
Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled she is entitled to
receive payments under the pension scheme.
My reaction to hearing the news: this could mean that many pension
arrangements are even more seriously underfunded than was thought
previously. Whose pockets are to be raided to pay these extra pension
entitlements?
I was unaware that the UK has a "Supreme Court" as we do. I Googled
to find how many justices are in the UK Supreme Court and was
surprised to find that one can book the Supreme Court facilities for
special events. I suppose the Omrud could book a room there for his
daughter's wedding.

Please do not publicize this. Trump, on hearing about this, may start
renting out the "Trump Room" in ours and appoint daughter Tiffany to
manage it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/ (See: venue hire)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2017-02-10 03:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I was unaware that the UK has a "Supreme Court" as we do.
It was only established in 2009.

A friend who had a look in on one of their cases last year wrote:

| 1. The judges aren't "up high". They're sitting at a table at
| the same height as counsel. And since counsel are standing
| and the judges are sitting, the judges are lower.
|
| 2. No robes or wigs. Business suits. (By agreement of all parties,
| the booklet says - if anyone wants it, they wear robes; but
| the guard/guide in one of the empty courtrooms told us that 99%
| of the cases are now just business attire.)
|
| 3. No UK flag, no UK coat of arms, no pictures of the Queen.
| Instead there's a new, modern Supreme Court coat of arms.
| This seems to be a very deliberate part of the message "the
| Court is not part of the government".
|
| The Court has 12 law lords but only 5 were hearing this case, which
| seems to be typical.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, ***@vex.net
"I am good at fooling myself into believing that what I wrote
is what I meant. I am also good at fooling myself into believing
that what I meant is what I should have meant." --Kent Beck
charles
2017-02-10 04:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I was unaware that the UK has a "Supreme Court" as we do.
It was only established in 2009.
| 1. The judges aren't "up high". They're sitting at a table at
| the same height as counsel. And since counsel are standing
| and the judges are sitting, the judges are lower.
|
| 2. No robes or wigs. Business suits. (By agreement of all parties,
| the booklet says - if anyone wants it, they wear robes; but
| the guard/guide in one of the empty courtrooms told us that 99%
| of the cases are now just business attire.)
|
| 3. No UK flag, no UK coat of arms, no pictures of the Queen.
| Instead there's a new, modern Supreme Court coat of arms.
| This seems to be a very deliberate part of the message "the
| Court is not part of the government".
|
| The Court has 12 law lords but only 5 were hearing this case, which
| seems to be typical.
Strictly speaking, the aren't "Law Lords" - but Justices of the Supreme
Court. The previous court was part of the House Of Lords which is where
the title "Law Lords" originated. The Courtesy Title "Lord (or Lady) X" is
used (as in Scotland) for justices who are not members of the House of
Lords.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Garrett Wollman
2017-02-10 04:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
| The Court has 12 law lords but only 5 were hearing this case, which
| seems to be typical.
Strictly speaking, the aren't "Law Lords" - but Justices of the Supreme
Court.
Except when sitting as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in
which case they are privy councilors. There are very limited
circumstances in which they do so, as many Commonwealth nations which
formerly allowed Privy Council have set up their own courts of final
appeal.
Post by charles
The previous court was part of the House Of Lords which is where the
title "Law Lords" originated. The Courtesy Title "Lord (or Lady) X"
is used (as in Scotland) for justices who are not members of the
House of Lords.
My understanding was that it was not originally so, but when the first
judge was appointed who was not already a Lord, it was decided for
reasons of comity that all the sitting justices should be have the
same form of address. IIRC there were already other circumstances
which would give non-peers the right to be called "Lord" /ex officio/.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
charles
2017-02-10 05:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by charles
Post by Mark Brader
| The Court has 12 law lords but only 5 were hearing this case, which
| seems to be typical.
Strictly speaking, the aren't "Law Lords" - but Justices of the Supreme
Court.
Except when sitting as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in
which case they are privy councilors. There are very limited
circumstances in which they do so, as many Commonwealth nations which
formerly allowed Privy Council have set up their own courts of final
appeal.
True, mainly for countries in the West Indies.
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by charles
The previous court was part of the House Of Lords which is where the
title "Law Lords" originated. The Courtesy Title "Lord (or Lady) X"
is used (as in Scotland) for justices who are not members of the
House of Lords.
My understanding was that it was not originally so, but when the first
judge was appointed who was not already a Lord, it was decided for
reasons of comity that all the sitting justices should be have the
same form of address.
I'd agree.
Post by Garrett Wollman
IIRC there were already other circumstances
which would give non-peers the right to be called "Lord" /ex officio/.
as I said, in Scotland: all High Court Judges are called "Lord/Lady x"
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-02-10 10:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
I was unaware that the UK has a "Supreme Court" as we do.
It was only established in 2009.
It is a rebranded and reorganised version of the Appellate Committee of
the House of Lords.
Post by Mark Brader
| 1. The judges aren't "up high". They're sitting at a table at
| the same height as counsel. And since counsel are standing
| and the judges are sitting, the judges are lower.
|
| 2. No robes or wigs. Business suits. (By agreement of all parties,
| the booklet says - if anyone wants it, they wear robes; but
| the guard/guide in one of the empty courtrooms told us that 99%
| of the cases are now just business attire.)
|
| 3. No UK flag, no UK coat of arms, no pictures of the Queen.
| Instead there's a new, modern Supreme Court coat of arms.
| This seems to be a very deliberate part of the message "the
| Court is not part of the government".
|
| The Court has 12 law lords but only 5 were hearing this case, which
| seems to be typical.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Snidely
2017-02-10 08:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For many purposes the law in the UK treats a cohabiting couple the same
as a married couple.
By coincidence today's newspapers have reports of a case just decided by
the UK Supreme Court.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4203622/Denise-Brews
ter-wins-Supreme-Court-ruling-claim-pension.html
Unmarried woman wins right to claim her late long-term partner's
pension in landmark case that could affect millions of cohabiting
couples
Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled she is entitled to
receive payments under the pension scheme.
My reaction to hearing the news: this could mean that many pension
arrangements are even more seriously underfunded than was thought previously.
Whose pockets are to be raided to pay these extra pension entitlements?
Those people expressing concern are at the top of list. They have a
little list of who would never ever be missed.

/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Richard Tobin
2017-02-10 11:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Unmarried woman wins right to claim her late long-term partner's
pension in landmark case that could affect millions of cohabiting
couples
Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled she is entitled to
receive payments under the pension scheme.
My reaction to hearing the news: this could mean that many pension
arrangements are even more seriously underfunded than was thought
previously. Whose pockets are to be raided to pay these extra pension
entitlements?
The ruling is not as significant as that description makes it seem.

She would have received it anyway if her partner had filled in a form
nominating her as his partner; the court ruled that that requirement
should be removed.

According to the Guardian the case "brings the Northern Ireland public
pensions scheme into line with changes already made in England, Wales
and Scotland". And certainly my pension scheme already covers partners
automatically.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-07 20:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
Average?! Maybe if you include William and Kate in the calculation ...

We did the cost of weddings not long ago and I don't recall estimates going
that high ($20,000 or more).
Robert Bannister
2017-02-08 02:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One doesn't often get to celebrate the 65th anniversary of anything
-- sometimes one hears of people married that long -- so I wonder
whether "sapphire" has traditionally been established for 65, like
silver, gold, and diamond?
Or perhaps the designation was invented in honour of the sapphire
jewelry given to the Princess Elizabeth by her father GVIR as a
wedding gift, 70 years ago -- which she wears in the official
Jubilee portrait?
(Information from the BBC World Service this morning)
Well established in the UK. Our local paper quite often carries
reports of couples married that long or longer.
Because it's highly unusual.
Not that unusual in UK, where 16% of marriages reach the 60th wedding
anniversary.
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter Moylan
2017-02-08 09:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up. I've heard of a few weddings that were completely over the
top. On the other hand, I've seen a few that were done at quite
reasonable cost.

A few months ago I went to the wedding of a couple that had been living
together for about ten years. It took them that long to save up for the
wedding, even though both of them had good jobs. It was an expensive
affair In that case, though, it was clear that the bride had had her
heart set on a fancy wedding for years, and was willing to wait until it
was affordable. I see that as a matter of priorities. Other couples
prefer to save their money to get a house, or a fancy vacation, or
something like that.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2017-02-08 13:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
A survey from a Canadian wedding Website found that couples (who
planned to spend about $22,000 on average, without the honeymoon)
expected only 13% of the cost to be covered by parents.
Post by Peter Moylan
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up. I've heard of a few weddings that were completely over the
top. On the other hand, I've seen a few that were done at quite
reasonable cost.
I'm wondering where these statistics come from. It's not like most
people report the cost of their wedding anywhere.

The site that reported the above survey came up with more than
$30,000 as the actual average cost, including the honeymoon (at
$5,500).

The most obvious source would be companies that are involved in
organizing weddings, but people who use those might already be a
skewed sample to start with, so I wonder if someone actually
managed to get a representative one.

I'd say my wedding came in at about $2,000, mostly for clothes and
the honey-weekend. The clothes were in principle reusable as
evening wardrobe, but it never actually happened.
--
Bill Gates working as a waiter:
- Waiter, there's a fly in my soup
- Try again, maybe it won't be there this time
Janet
2017-02-08 17:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
A survey from a Canadian wedding Website found that couples (who
planned to spend about $22,000 on average, without the honeymoon)
expected only 13% of the cost to be covered by parents.
Post by Peter Moylan
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up. I've heard of a few weddings that were completely over the
top. On the other hand, I've seen a few that were done at quite
reasonable cost.
I'm wondering where these statistics come from. It's not like most
people report the cost of their wedding anywhere.
The figures come from wedding insurance companies

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/15/choosing-wedding-
insurance-2013

Janet.
Tony Cooper
2017-02-08 17:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
A survey from a Canadian wedding Website found that couples (who
planned to spend about $22,000 on average, without the honeymoon)
expected only 13% of the cost to be covered by parents.
Post by Peter Moylan
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up. I've heard of a few weddings that were completely over the
top. On the other hand, I've seen a few that were done at quite
reasonable cost.
I'm wondering where these statistics come from. It's not like most
people report the cost of their wedding anywhere.
The figures come from wedding insurance companies
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/15/choosing-wedding-insurance-2013
Janet.
If that's the source, I would personally reject the figure
out-of-hand.

The only people that would purchase wedding insurance are people who
are going to spend an amount significant enough to warrant coverage.
Any figures are automatically skewed to the high end.

The couple who are going to have a small wedding and modest reception
would not be included in figures from that source.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Robert Bannister
2017-02-09 01:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by charles
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
A survey from a Canadian wedding Website found that couples (who
planned to spend about $22,000 on average, without the honeymoon)
expected only 13% of the cost to be covered by parents.
Post by Peter Moylan
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up. I've heard of a few weddings that were completely over the
top. On the other hand, I've seen a few that were done at quite
reasonable cost.
I'm wondering where these statistics come from. It's not like most
people report the cost of their wedding anywhere.
The figures come from wedding insurance companies
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/feb/15/choosing-wedding-
insurance-2013
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Garrett Wollman
2017-02-09 04:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Tony Cooper
2017-02-09 04:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning. The venue is often rented
months in advance with a large deposit paid. If the venue goes bust
before the wedding, the deposit is lost.

Insurance may cover that, but I'd check the fine print.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-02-09 05:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning. The venue is often rented
months in advance with a large deposit paid. If the venue goes bust
before the wedding, the deposit is lost.
That's what you get for booking a Trump hotel.

Still hasn't explained how he lost a billion dollars (more or less) running
casinos in Atlantic City.
Post by Tony Cooper
Insurance may cover that, but I'd check the fine print.
Quinn C
2017-02-09 19:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.

In any case, my "information" on the subject is mostly from TV
shows, and therefore skewed to the "human drama" side.
--
Are you sure your sanity chip is fully screwed in?
-- Kryten to Rimmer (Red Dwarf)
Charles Bishop
2017-02-10 05:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.

Would ins cover the cost?

Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.

Would ins cover the cost?
Post by Quinn C
In any case, my "information" on the subject is mostly from TV
shows, and therefore skewed to the "human drama" side.
--
charles
Tony Cooper
2017-02-10 06:08:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:41:09 -0800, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
It's not like there's just one type of wedding insurance. There are
many options, and the cost goes up with every option added.

This a pretty good summary:

https://www.theknot.com/content/wedding-insurance-101

If I was going to purchase it, the first thing I'd read is the list of
exclusions.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-02-10 15:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:41:09 -0800, Charles Bishop
[wedding insurance]
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Charles Bishop
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
It's not like there's just one type of wedding insurance. There are
many options, and the cost goes up with every option added.
https://www.theknot.com/content/wedding-insurance-101
If I was going to purchase it, the first thing I'd read is the list of
exclusions.
Are those the outs of the ins?
--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2017-02-10 07:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Bishop
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Is "ins" a word meaning "insurance" in your type of English, then?
Is it pronounced like "ince", or what?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Oh what a tangled web we weave,
***@vex.net | a literate geekiness to achieve." --Steve Summit
Charles Bishop
2017-02-10 16:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Charles Bishop
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Is "ins" a word meaning "insurance" in your type of English, then?
Is it pronounced like "ince", or what?
Dunno, it's an abbreviation used only because I was lazy, but I've used
it and similar ones before, in taking notes and in communication, It's
pronounced (in my head) as "in" with an "s" on it. If reading allowed, I
would use the entire word on reading the shortened form. Also, I used
"ins" because it was the subject and the meaning would be obvious to all
but the most oblivious.
Cheryl
2017-02-10 10:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
I suppose it all depends on the terms of the policy. People sometimes
find that their policy doesn't cover what they thought it did.
--
Cheryl
Janet
2017-02-10 15:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
I suppose it all depends on the terms of the policy. People sometimes
find that their policy doesn't cover what they thought it did.
The same is true of health, car, pet, travel and home insurance
policies.

Not reading policy terms and conditions is like buying a pair of shoes
without knowing what size they are.

Janet
Peter Moylan
2017-02-11 00:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Cheryl
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
I suppose it all depends on the terms of the policy. People sometimes
find that their policy doesn't cover what they thought it did.
The same is true of health, car, pet, travel and home insurance
policies.
Not reading policy terms and conditions is like buying a pair of shoes
without knowing what size they are.
Whereas reading insurance policy terms and conditions is like requesting
a certain shoe size, being assured that it is indeed the right size, and
then discovering after you get home that the shoes have no soles or heels.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Janet
2017-02-10 15:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)

Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
In any case, my "information" on the subject is mostly from TV
shows, and therefore skewed to the "human drama" side.
Charles Bishop
2017-02-10 16:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)
I suppose the ins company would have thought of the last scenario so I
suppose my first supposition was wrong. Also, it's unlikely the food
would be returnable for a refund, the drinks might be.
--
charles
Cheryl
2017-02-10 16:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)
I suppose the ins company would have thought of the last scenario so I
suppose my first supposition was wrong. Also, it's unlikely the food
would be returnable for a refund, the drinks might be.
I haven't been involved in arranging food for a big wedding, but I have
for smaller events, and the contracts involved specify exactly when and
under what conditions you can cancel the food and expect to get your
money back. It's usually days before the event starts, and there may be
an additional cancellation fee, depending on the business. You'd be
right out of luck if you cancelled on the day for any reason. Unless, of
course, you had extra insurance and had carefully checked when you
bought it to see if it covered a the groom being hospitalized on the day
of the wedding.
--
Cheryl
Tony Cooper
2017-02-10 17:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)
I suppose the ins company would have thought of the last scenario so I
suppose my first supposition was wrong. Also, it's unlikely the food
would be returnable for a refund, the drinks might be.
I haven't been involved in arranging food for a big wedding, but I have
for smaller events, and the contracts involved specify exactly when and
under what conditions you can cancel the food and expect to get your
money back. It's usually days before the event starts, and there may be
an additional cancellation fee, depending on the business. You'd be
right out of luck if you cancelled on the day for any reason. Unless, of
course, you had extra insurance and had carefully checked when you
bought it to see if it covered a the groom being hospitalized on the day
of the wedding.
If the couple has insurance that covers the cost of catering if the
wedding is cancelled, the catering company would still be paid. The
insurance company would either pay the caterer or reimburse the couple
for what they had paid the caterer. There would probably be a
deductible involved.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2017-02-11 00:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Cheryl
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)
I suppose the ins company would have thought of the last scenario so I
suppose my first supposition was wrong. Also, it's unlikely the food
would be returnable for a refund, the drinks might be.
I haven't been involved in arranging food for a big wedding, but I have
for smaller events, and the contracts involved specify exactly when and
under what conditions you can cancel the food and expect to get your
money back. It's usually days before the event starts, and there may be
an additional cancellation fee, depending on the business. You'd be
right out of luck if you cancelled on the day for any reason. Unless, of
course, you had extra insurance and had carefully checked when you
bought it to see if it covered a the groom being hospitalized on the day
of the wedding.
If the couple has insurance that covers the cost of catering if the
wedding is cancelled, the catering company would still be paid. The
insurance company would either pay the caterer or reimburse the couple
for what they had paid the caterer. There would probably be a
deductible involved.
Many home owner's policies cover general events like this. I know that
20+ years ago we had to cancel a rental contract on some equipment
because of a winter storm and our insurance covered all of that (not
sure why, but there was no deductible on that claim).
--
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
Tony Cooper
2017-02-11 01:38:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:13:12 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Many home owner's policies cover general events like this. I know that
20+ years ago we had to cancel a rental contract on some equipment
because of a winter storm and our insurance covered all of that (not
sure why, but there was no deductible on that claim).
Who was the carrier? It certainly wasn't the one I use. Mine has two
clauses:

1. We don't cover that.

2. We cover this, but the deductible is higher than what you'd be
out.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-02-10 17:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Janet
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Suppose that the groom is in a car accident and is taken to the
hospital, and unable to attend.
Would ins cover the cost?
Wedding cancellation is a basic policy cover
Post by Charles Bishop
Further suppose that while the groom is in hospital, the guests make
merry with the food and drink at the reception.
Would ins cover the cost?
Depends on the terms of the policy. Like home and travel insurance,
there are different levels of wedding insurance cover (at different
premiums)
I suppose the ins company would have thought of the last scenario so I
suppose my first supposition was wrong. Also, it's unlikely the food
would be returnable for a refund, the drinks might be.
I haven't been involved in arranging food for a big wedding, but I have
for smaller events, and the contracts involved specify exactly when and
under what conditions you can cancel the food and expect to get your
money back. It's usually days before the event starts, and there may be
an additional cancellation fee, depending on the business. You'd be
right out of luck if you cancelled on the day for any reason. Unless, of
course, you had extra insurance and had carefully checked when you
bought it to see if it covered a the groom being hospitalized on the day
of the wedding.
I have a vague memory of hearing or reading about an occurrence like
this one:
https://www.my-weddinginsurance.co.uk/blog/news/Woman-continues-with-wedding-reception-after-being-jilted-801515567/

Woman continues with wedding reception ‘after being jilted’
Posted on 2 January 2013 by Marketing marketing | 0 Responses

A woman who saw her wedding cancelled at the last minute decided to
go ahead and use her reception as an impromptu new year's party
instead.

Angela Burrow, 52, from Chandler's Ford was due to tie the knot
recently and had invited about 40 guests to share her happy moment
with her new husband. But when their plans fell through, many will
have expected her to call off the celebration.

However, Ms Burrow decided to go ahead with the reception that had
cost her in the region of £5,000. As a result, all the guests turned
up to Tylney Hall in Hook, which was decorated in typical wedding
style.

Ms Burrow admitted she did not want the money she had spent to go to
waste so she chose to go ahead with the party. She chose a 'new
year, new beginnings' theme for the bash and family and friends
joined her to celebrate.
....

That is on the website named www.my-weddinginsurance.co.uk which is "a
trading name of The Equine and Livestock Insurance Company Limited".
<smile>


"Life is too short and you have to live each day as if it's going to
be your last. I'm meant to be getting married today, but I want it to be
a celebration of new year and new beginnings. Why not celebrate?" she
told the Daily Echo.

The reception included a seven-course meal at tables that featured
orchids and blue bows, just as they would have done for a wedding. Ms
Burrow is a former major in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing
Corps and may have built up a good group of friends through this.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Snidely
2017-02-10 08:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
I got all the way through my wedding without ever hearing about this.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
The most common disaster that seems to derail wedding plans (except
catching the groom-to-be bonking one of the bridesmaids) seems to be
the hall or venue closing without warning.
We skipped the alcohol, and had the reception in the Hall of the
church.
Post by Quinn C
I would have expected cold feet as the most common reason, but
would doubt that the insurance would pay in that case.
Sometimes the pre-nuptial agreement takes care of that. Dunno if
breach of contract is still considered applicable these days.
Post by Quinn C
In any case, my "information" on the subject is mostly from TV
shows, and therefore skewed to the "human drama" side.
My information is mostly out of date, although I think my elder
daughter spent more renting the rather basic hall of the Yacht Club
than her parents spent on the whole list of their wedding details. But
ED's party food came from Costco, IIRC.

/dps
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
Robert Bannister
2017-02-10 02:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Robert Bannister
The page won't open, so I'll have to ask: wedding insurance? You can
insure against getting married?
No. You can insure against some untoward event or natural disaster
that prevents your wedding from taking place, leaving you stuck with
nonrefundable hall rental charges, catering bills, travel costs, etc.
Thanks for the explanation. My remark was, of course, facetious, but my
real guess was a bit wide of the mark too.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Mark Brader
2017-02-08 18:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Robert Bannister
I was thinking $15,000 here, but that nice Mr Google tells me the
average Australian wedding now costs $36,200. Phew! You wouldn't want to
have four daughters.
An average doesn't tell the whole story, because the extremes drive the
average up...
Indeed. The median is usually the statistic you want (unless of course
you're trying to make a rhetorical point, as for political or marketing
reasons).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "You can write a small letter to Grandma
***@vex.net | in the filename." -- Forbes Burkowski
Charles Bishop
2017-02-10 05:38:05 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by charles
Post by Janet
(ONS, 2012)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Or do Brits in general have life expectancies like those of Georgians
in the long-ago Dannon Yogurt commercials?
According to the Office of National Statistics
"The number of people living in the UK aged 100 increased by 73% in
the decade to 2012, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Out
of the 13,350 centenarians living in the UK in 2012, 660 were aged 105
years and older. More than half a million people aged 90 and over were
living in the UK in 2012.
But at the same time, I assume marriage age and divorce rate have both
gone up, too. I remember that in Germany, the age at first marriage has
risen above 30 even for women.
Discussing this with younger daughter who is planning on getting married
again (husband 1 walked out), her conclusion suggests that the costs
involved might have something to do with it. The average UK wedding cost
£14,000 - so you need to save for a long time.
There's a logic flaw there, somewhere.
--
charles
Sam Plusnet
2017-02-07 21:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
Asking Mr & Mrs Berry may be more fruitful than looking for an answer here.
--
Sam Plusnet
Paul Wolff
2017-02-07 23:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
And that's news because it's so unusual. Did they have a sapphire anniversary
party three years earlier?
Asking Mr & Mrs Berry may be more fruitful
and I have to ask - how were they on their multiplication tables?
Post by Sam Plusnet
than looking for an answer here.
--
Paul
Jerry Friedman
2017-02-09 22:03:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 1:30:10 AM UTC-7, LFS wrote:
...
Post by LFS
Chuck Berry and his wife celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary not
long ago.
I guess she forgave him for the video-camera-in-the-ladies'-room
incident.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...