Q. I have just received a wedding invitation to which
is attached a note that reads, 'Wedding list. . . After thinking about whether to have a wedding gift list, we decided not to. If you would like to give a gift, then a contribution towards our house fund would be greatly appreciated.' I think this is a great idea; bricks and mortar in which to raise a family being much more important than any amount of household junk, which can be purchased as and when. A cheque they shall certainly hare, with a decent bottle of champagne by way of a gift. Others I have spoken to, however, seem to think this kind of thing a bit 'off'. What do you think? The couple are idealistic public-sector workers and do not have much money, as they cheerfully admit.
H.S., Cambridge
A. Most couples manying in Britain today are at an age to have already assembled their batterie de cuisine and so on. No doubt they too would secretly prefer a contribution towards the most important wedding present of all — accommodation. Yet logical though this couple's request may be, it does slightly strike the wrong note. The donor envisages the counting-up procedure and the too bald spelling-out of the precise monetary worth their contribution indicates they have put on the relationship. It would be better for the couple to offer an alternative present for the discreet and/or impoverished. For example, 'any white bed linen, antique or modem' to allow something of indeterminate cost to be presented. Meanwhile, they should invite those who do wish to contribute to the 'house fund' to make their cheques payable to the building society in question. In this way, donors get extra satisfaction from knowing their gift has definitely gone to bricks and mortar rather than being frittered away on grocery bills.
Previous page
