Invite some to just dancing and drinks after the ceremony and dinner??

mrsstadler

I am wondering if I could get away with inviting some of our guests for after dinner dancing and drinks?  I'm thinking of people like my staff and friends I would like to celebrate with but we just can't afford to do a big dinner for everyone since my fiancee has a big family that takes up most of our budget.

I don't want to do it if it will be rude or cheap but I will have to completely leave out a lot of people if we can't do it that way.

This is my (ahem...) third marriage but my first wedding and we are trying to get this together by August 9th this year and we just started last week.

Mel

ei34

It's rude to invite guests to part but not all of your wedding.  Just leave them out completely if you can't afford them.

misshart00

mrsstadler said:

I am wondering if I could get away with inviting some of our guests for after dinner dancing and drinks?  I'm thinking of people like my staff and friends I would like to celebrate with but we just can't afford to do a big dinner for everyone since my fiancee has a big family that takes up most of our budget.

I don't want to do it if it will be rude or cheap but I will have to completely leave out a lot of people if we can't do it that way.

This is my (ahem...) third marriage but my first wedding and we are trying to get this together by August 9th this year and we just started last week.

Mel

This is a tiered reception and very rude. Just invite the ones who you can invite to the whole thing.

Inkdancer

This essentially says to your guests, "you're good enough to party with me, but not good enough to be served food." Even if you don't mean it that way, that's how it comes across.

Please don't do this to your guests. Either invite them to the whole thing or not at all.

JaxInBlue

Agree.  It's not appropriate to tier your guest list and invite people selectively to one part over another. 

Also, think about the logistics.  You've have to know pretty confidently that dinner would be wrapped up by a certain time to tell people when they could come.  If you are running behind, people could arrive while dinner was still going on (could also happen if they arrive early).  Or if you overestimate, people will arrive to dancing that's already begun.  On top of that, you would still need chairs for these individuals, so that could put down their coat, purse, drink, etc.  That probably means not only extra chairs, but tables, linens and centerpieces too.

Better just to skip the invite all together.  Everyone has to stop inviting people at some point, and adults will (should?) understand that all guest lists have a cut-off.

kmmssg

Agree with all of the others.  It would be a rude thing to do to those guests.  I think a lot of brides worry about not being able to include everyone - you don't want to hurt an feelings, but you aren't made of money either.

In the end you need to invite all of your guests from start to finish.  People really do understand that weddings are expensive and that not everyone can be invited.  For those who don't, well...they need to learn the lesson.

Just don't go there.

climbingsingle

That's very rude. Please don't do it. 

STARMOON44

This is, apparently, more acceptable in England- I won't presume to speak for etiquette there.

But in the US it's extremely rude.

AddieCake

Hell no. As PPs said, a tiered reception is very rude. 

mbross3

Please don't do this. You may have the best of intentions (there's nothing wrong with wanting to celebrate with friends, etc), however, think about how you would even phrase that type of an invite. People are generally familiar with the elements of a wedding (ceremony, some type of food, dancing/socializing). Inevitably, people that you invite to "just dance" are going to know/learn that you're hosting a ceremony and dinner for one group of people- and that they aren't included in that. That is rude and potentially hurtful and can come across as gift-grabby since many people associate weddings with gift-giving occasions. 

As another note, PP have talked about the logistics of this. What if people arrive early (I always get to weddings 15-20 mins early because I hate when people show up late for ceremonies!) and they come in and everyone else who was invited to dinner is still eating or enjoying cake? Do you tell them to please wait outside for another 10 minutes, but then feel free to join? This is just a logistical nightmare. Do not do this, please!

lyndausvi

Not in my social world.

JCbride2015

This would be very hurtful to those invited only for the dancing part.  Those handful of people will show up to a party that's already going on, everyone has seen your ceremony and eaten dinner, and these people will basically feel like afterthoughts.

SlothGoals

mrsstadler said:

I am wondering if I could get away with inviting some of our guests for after dinner dancing and drinks?  I'm thinking of people like my staff and friends I would like to celebrate with but we just can't afford to do a big dinner for everyone since my fiancee has a big family that takes up most of our budget.

I don't want to do it if it will be rude or cheap but I will have to completely leave out a lot of people if we can't do it that way.

This is my (ahem...) third marriage but my first wedding and we are trying to get this together by August 9th this year and we just started last week.

Mel

I would just like to point out that if you've been married two times already you've had 2 weddings. Please don't insult JOP weddings by insinuating that they aren't "real" weddings. 

AddieCake

kristbot said:

 Please don't insult JOP weddings by insinuating that they aren't "real" weddings. 

Good point. It might be your first reception, but it's not your first wedding, OP.

happywiggle

No, just no. Think about how those people you would be inviting to just dancing would feel--left out and/or they're not good enough to witness the marriage.

OnionBreath

If I were the recipient of a such an invitation, I would realize that I was not your friend.

 I would not come and I would hold it against you.

 This would be friendship-ending for me.

KatWAG

Can you imagine how crappy you would feel if someone did this to you? "Hey, I dont actually like you enough to  feed you, but come dancing and bring a gift!"

And what happens if people arrive to dance but dinner is still going on? Do the extra B-class friends wait in the hall?

Jen4948

You invite them to all or nothing.  What you are proposing is tiered hospitality, which is very rude.

If you can't afford to feed everyone you want to invite, then you invite only those whom you can afford to feed.  But you do not ask anyone to come later to cut your costs.

PrettyGirlLost

mrsstadler said:

I am wondering if I could get away with inviting some of our guests for after dinner dancing and drinks?  I'm thinking of people like my staff and friends I would like to celebrate with but we just can't afford to do a big dinner for everyone since my fiancee has a big family that takes up most of our budget.

I don't want to do it if it will be rude or cheap but I will have to completely leave out a lot of people if we can't do it that way.

This is my (ahem...) third marriage but my first wedding and we are trying to get this together by August 9th this year and we just started last week.

Mel

Nope, that is a tiered reception and people will consider it rude.  Whomever is invited to your wedding must be invited for the entire duration- ceremony and reception.

I'm confused as to what you mean by the bolded statement, because in order to be legally married you must have some sort of wedding ceremony.  A ceremony at the JOP is still a wedding.

JellyBean52513

PPs have said it all. By planning a wedding in only several months, you have to accept the sacrifices that come with less time to save up. Invite only those you can afford to invite--to the ENTIRE event--or wait a little longer until you've saved up enough to invite everyone you want to. 

If I received a "dancing and drinks" invite, I would feel like the couple was trying to get the most use out of their bar package and I'm just another body in the room to party with. I'd be extremely insulted.

mollyringwald15

Also agree with PPs. In addition to everything else it would appear very gift grabby.

"Come to the last hour of my celebration because you weren't special enough to attend the entire thing... but please  bring a gift since I was thoughtful enought to include you!"

If I don't get invited to a wedding my feelings are not hurt. If I got invited to the last hour or two, I would have no interest in continuing a friendship.

RebeccaB88

No, this isn't proper and I wouldn't do it.  If you really want to invite them, change your plans to a non-mealtime event or just get together with them at a later date.  

phira

The fact that you opened your post by asking if you could "get away with" a tiered reception shows that you kind of already know this is a terrible idea.

I also want to emphasize that a LOT of people (especially in the US) are really aware of the economic issues that folks are facing, and are also aware of a change in how weddings are held and hosted. It's more common now for a couple to pay for and host their own wedding, instead of the wedding being paid for by one family that's been saving up for the event for a while.

I get that you're trying to include as many people as you can to show them that they're important to you, but the reality is that most people get that you can't afford to invite everyone. So skip the tiered reception, and maybe take your staff out to dinner a few weeks later.

lyndausvi

shrekspeare said:

I'm glad that this thread exists. I have only attended 'tiered receptions'. I have never, or had anyone else tell me that it was considered rude. My parents had this kind of wedding, as did my grandparents. I don't know if it's more common in my family as the ceremony took place in LDS temples, which I do not have the proper certificate to enter, so we've always just attended the reception part. I would have never, ever, guessed it was rude. Thank you so much for bringing this up. I need to go re-evaluate my wedding. Oops.

How does that work?

I know the ceremony does not included non-LDS members.  What happens after the ceremony?  Is there a reception with just the LDS members?  Then another reception that includes non-members?  Or after the ceremony is there just one receptions for both members and non-members?

As much as I dislike tiered receptions I think I would give a pass to a  LDS wedding because of their rules.  However, tiering people for something other than that I think is really rude.

Hope that makes sense.

delujm0

shrekspeare said:

I'm glad that this thread exists. I have only attended 'tiered receptions'. I have never, or had anyone else tell me that it was considered rude. My parents had this kind of wedding, as did my grandparents. I don't know if it's more common in my family as the ceremony took place in LDS temples, which I do not have the proper certificate to enter, so we've always just attended the reception part. I would have never, ever, guessed it was rude. Thank you so much for bringing this up. I need to go re-evaluate my wedding. Oops.

There is a gray area for LDS events, because people who are not in that church usually cannot enter the temple.  So in this case, it is totally acceptable to invite people only to the reception if they are disallowed from entering the ceremony venue.

 

However, when i say "only the reception" i mean the ENTIRE reception.  Not just the drinks and dancing part.

 

And when i say "disallowed" i mean under either law or the religious rules governing the venue.   I don't mean "if you want to invite 100 people but the ceremony venue you like the best only holds 50, it's totally ok to only invite 50 to the ceremony and then 100 to the reception."

Inkdancer

shrekspeare said:

I'm glad that this thread exists. I have only attended 'tiered receptions'. I have never, or had anyone else tell me that it was considered rude. My parents had this kind of wedding, as did my grandparents. I don't know if it's more common in my family as the ceremony took place in LDS temples, which I do not have the proper certificate to enter, so we've always just attended the reception part. I would have never, ever, guessed it was rude. Thank you so much for bringing this up. I need to go re-evaluate my wedding. Oops.

If you can't invite guests into the temple because they are not LDS, that is okay. However, guests should then be invited to the entire reception.

If you were invited to the whole reception even though you couldn't go to the temple, that is a-okay. If you were only invited for part of the reception (dancing or cake or whatever) then that wasn't polite.

lyndausvi

shrekspeare said:

The people who have the certificates are allowed to go into the temple to view the ceremony, everyone else is invited to the reception, wherever it may be. I don't know if other religions do this. I would actually be surprised if they didn't. I was always under the assumption that Catholics did it as well? But I've also been to weddings that are not LDS that have done this as well and I have never given a second thought to it.

*** STUCK IN BOX

Nope, non-Catholics can attend weddings or any mass for that matter.  Non-Catholics can't take communion.

The way you described is fine due to the rules of the LDS.   Where it becomes an issue is when people are invited to a dinner and dancing and others just the dancing party.  You should not be tiering people like that.  

delujm0

shrekspeare said:

The people who have the certificates are allowed to go into the temple to view the ceremony, everyone else is invited to the reception, wherever it may be. I don't know if other religions do this. I would actually be surprised if they didn't. I was always under the assumption that Catholics did it as well? But I've also been to weddings that are not LDS that have done this as well and I have never given a second thought to it.

Catholic churches are public...anyone can enter them at any time.  They don't have to be Catholic.  The only religion i know of with this kind of rule is LDS - though i believe some mosques may also be exclusive to their religious sect.

Weesh

JellyBean52513 said:

PPs have said it all. By planning a wedding in only several months, you have to accept the sacrifices that come with less time to save up. Invite only those you can afford to invite--to the ENTIRE event--or wait a little longer until you've saved up enough to invite everyone you want to. 

If I received a "dancing and drinks" invite, I would feel like the couple was trying to get the most use out of their bar package and I'm just another body in the room to party with. I'd be extremely insulted.

Exactly.  There's nothing wrong with getting married in a short amount of time, but figure out the budget you have and work with that versus trying to A & B list your reception.  Either push back your date to accommodate everyone with a meal and the entire reception, or plan something smaller during a non-meal time to accommodate all of your guests.

HisGirlFriday13

delujm0 said:

shrekspeare said:

I'm glad that this thread exists. I have only attended 'tiered receptions'. I have never, or had anyone else tell me that it was considered rude. My parents had this kind of wedding, as did my grandparents. I don't know if it's more common in my family as the ceremony took place in LDS temples, which I do not have the proper certificate to enter, so we've always just attended the reception part. I would have never, ever, guessed it was rude. Thank you so much for bringing this up. I need to go re-evaluate my wedding. Oops.

There is a gray area for LDS events, because people who are not in that church usually cannot enter the temple.  So in this case, it is totally acceptable to invite people only to the reception if they are disallowed from entering the ceremony venue.

 

However, when i say "only the reception" i mean the ENTIRE reception.  Not just the drinks and dancing part.

 

And when i say "disallowed" i mean under either law or the religious rules governing the venue.   I don't mean "if you want to invite 100 people but the ceremony venue you like the best only holds 50, it's totally ok to only invite 50 to the ceremony and then 100 to the reception."

To the bold -- THIS. @GrrrArgh recently had a Mormon wedding in the Temple, so she could maybe answer this better, (as could @Teddy917).

If there are legitimate religious reasons for not allowing EVERYONE to witness the ceremony, fine, but then EVERYONE who is invited to the reception needs to be invited to ALL of the reception, not just parts of it. 

In that instance, you're tiering the ceremony (much like a private ceremony/large reception), not tiering the reception. As long as all guests at the reception are hosted equally, you're fine. It's the inequality of reception hosting that's not OK.

ktjanesmom

What if you had a party somewhere other than your reception cite?  Like an after party at a bar/club somewhere.   I assume you are going to be told this is also rude, but maybe not.