Brooklyn Becham's wedding

Apparently it was the bride's parents who spent $3.4 million on the wedding. Wonder what the Beckhams gave as a present to the bride and groom.

It’s unnecessary for anyone to be this rich, end of story.

Vintagejazz

Apparently it cost 3 million pounds.

AIBU to n think that is a crazy amount to spend on a wedding, no matter how rich you are?

No you are not, I too think it was ostentatious in the extreme, tasteless no class

I think any amount that runs into thousands for normal people is ostentatious, so I would class this the same, considering how much the family is worth.
Lots of people go way overboard, so they're no different.

merlotgran

I read that Brooklyn is an aspiring chef!

So that’s why Gordon Ramsay was invited. ?

I wonder if Old Ramsay will teach him "chef's language"!

Actually considering the amount of money that must have been spent I must admit to be totally underwhelmed-although the brides veil was stunning I thought the dress unimpressive & the pull on sleeves/gloves!!!! The young bridesmaid dresses were not to put to finer point on it simply hideous ohh & Brooklyn looked like he could have done with a haircut. Now that's before we start on the guests -some far too old to be showing so much flesh! As someone has already said money can't buy taste!

It's not as if they burnt the money. Alot of people had wages paid. And probably a few businesses benefitted by this. So not as bad as it looks?

Coastpath thank you for posting the facts about David Beckham's charitable giving.

Just out of interest, I wonder how much of their own income those people who are upset by his extravagant wedding gift to his son, and by the cost of the wedding to Mr. Peltz, give to charity?

Like others, I was reminded of how Paul & Linda McCartney brought up their children - yes, including sending them to a state school. All have made successes of their lives. What struck me about this wedding (apart from the contrast to how the people of the UK are now struggling with soaring inflation and cost of living rises) is how vacuous their children are turning out to be, so far. Brooklyn has, apparently, tried to be a photographer (most of the photos were out of focus - not deliberately) and a chef (couldn't even make a bacon sandwich). But he can continue to be part of Brand Beckham so he'll be fine financially - although I can't see it having a great effect on his sense of having a worthwhile life. Personally, I think it's really sad.

poshpaws

Coastpath thank you for posting the facts about David Beckham's charitable giving.

Just out of interest, I wonder how much of their own income those people who are upset by his extravagant wedding gift to his son, and by the cost of the wedding to Mr. Peltz, give to charity?

£100 a month. How about you?

My daughter got married in February this year. It cost £700 and I bought her outfit for £400. It was a lovely day and everyone thoroughly enjoyed themselves. All done in an earth friendly, animal friendly manner. I wonder if that wedding was more or less fun?

The thing that struck me was that for an incredibly expensive wedding most people looked so cheap. It certainly didn’t look like a high-end event judging by most of the outfits.

poshpaws

Coastpath thank you for posting the facts about David Beckham's charitable giving.

Just out of interest, I wonder how much of their own income those people who are upset by his extravagant wedding gift to his son, and by the cost of the wedding to Mr. Peltz, give to charity?

I donate to three charities every month, plus make regular donations to two others.
Why?

it's an awful waste of money even thought both sides are minted

But the money wasn't wasted - it was spent
There's a difference
Designers, dressmakers, caterers, jewellers, florists, lower growers, hairdressers, photographers, wedding planners, etc all benefited.

The money filtered down to be recirculated

I wouldn't be extravagant but each to their own.

lower growers ??
flower growers

I agree with volver too.
It’s nothing to do with anyone apart from the families.
It’s their money, Victoria and David have earned their
money, what they do with it is up to them.
And they pay their taxes in Britain.
12.7 million in 2017

It's all relative.

We paid for our daughter’s wedding, and no, I’m not saying how much it cost because that’s our business, but we also gave quite generous amounts of money to both of our sons when they married. It’s normal even today for the bride’s parents to foot the bill, my parents did, we did, and apparently the bride’s parents in this case did too. As far as I’m concerned, I thought it was ostentatious in the extreme, but as Callistemon says, it offered work to many people.

Didn't it used to be thought very vulgar to flaunt your wealth or even to tell people what you had spent on things.Nothing puts me off people more than having everything price tagged ,We paid for our daughters wedding (s) and its nobody elses business what we spent .To behonest I'm not in the least interested in what anyone else spent on their family weddings ,its not a competition

Sick of hearing about it and anything to do with them.

I'm not a fan of big weddings - but their money to spend as they wish.
Plenty of other people who spend a lot of money, relative to their income, on weddings.

Not getting the ' they are so young' comments - 23 and 27 is hardly teenagers.
My husband and I were 22 and 26 when we married 36 years ago
My parents were 20 and 23 and married for nearly 60 years.

It's very young by today's norms though. I think people matured earlier a generation or so ago. Most people left school before they were eighteen and went straight to work. By the time they were 23 they had been supporting themselves and mixing with other adults for about 6 years. Even those who went to University seemed to be more independent than today's students.

Things have changed a lot. People stay in full time education much longer, settle into permanent jobs much later and stay in the family home until an older age.

People in their early to mid 20s are still considered to be very young nowadays.

Kate and William and Harry and Meghan are still thought of as 'young' parents and 'young' members of the Royal family even though they're all 40 or pushing 40. At that age the Queen was considered middle aged.

I wouldn't speculate as to whether the marriage will go the distance or not, who knows it may well d, I don't think they are too young it depends on their level of maturity. I would merely reiterate that if the Beckhams had let their children have a normal and private childhood any failures wouldn't be highlighted in the way that they have been. Someone said up thread "they do their best to keep their children out of the spotlight" do they hell! it seems not a day goes by when something about Harper isn't uploaded, private stuff like her reading to herself, little cards and missives she sends to her parents all out there in the public domain. Leave the poor kid alone!

There are loads of highly paid actors who keep their private lives just that private especially when their children are involved, blurred out faces if they should be photographed. For example Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz to name just one high profile couple, had a child a few years ago, is that child photographed, do we even know her name? No! because they like many others in their position they have far more sense than to let that child be exposed to the media and all that goes with that.

Their children are just as normal naughty as the next kids at school though. And supportive dad. I'm saying no more.

I really don't think 27 is young to get married, 23 maybe but people have different expectations and maybe they are religious? maybe they want to start a family early on? who knows.