Wedding Etiquette Forum

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

2»

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

  • 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.


    This is ok provided that it is a casual event - so like if you have friends who aren't invited to the reception, and they ask you about your plans, it's ok to say "the ceremony and reception are family-only, but we'll probably be at XYZ Bar afterwards if you want to come out."  But it would be kind of questionable to send formal invitations for a hosted after-party to people who weren't invited to the original party. 

  • Where do people come up with these ideas?
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • MGPMGP member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited January 2014
    Agree with all previous comments that this is very rude and inappropriate. Additionally think about the professional implications this could have for you. If I was your boss not only would I be very offended but would seriously think twice about the way you treat customers or other coworkers. If you make your boss feel like a second class citizen what do you do to others? If I was someone who worked for you I may feel pressured to attend and give a gift because it is "the boss" and that is a very uncomfortable position to put someone in. 

    This is just a bad idea all around. Honestly these people probably don't want to celebrate with you. Just because they have engaged in polite office talk about your wedding doesn't mean they are dying to come see you in your dress - after your "first string" eats dinner.  If I sacrificed a Saturday night to do this and was treated this way I would be extremely pissed off and either fire you or resign, or at the very least have our working relationship permanently and irreparably damaged.
  • I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    image
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.

  • I agree - it would have been better to just do them at the reception. It also put an awkward spotlight on us, because my older sisters don't have a very healthy/close relationship with my Dad. So when they came out of the temple with their church family, most of the guests had never seen us before. I felt like everybody was staring us down with a "Who the heck are these people and why are they in ____'s temple pictures?!"

     

     

    image
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    Joining the rant wagon. This has happened to me as well! When my FI's cousin got married, we drove our asses all the way up to Oregon, then were told we could wait outside while the couple got married. The bridezilla insisted that the entire wedding party show up to the temple and wait outside so they could get the pictures they wanted there. So almost all of the WP had to sit outside for an hour and a half while the couple got married. I don't know why I'm surprised when I look at this in hindsight. This is the same beezy who made my FI tuck his pump tube into his shirt and made everyone redo pictures, then wouldn't let her crippled sister sit in her wheelchair in the pictures because she thought it would be tacky. 

    Also, have I said how happy I am this thread exists? 
    Then how are the part of the wedding party if they couldn't be at the wedding?
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    Joining the rant wagon. This has happened to me as well! When my FI's cousin got married, we drove our asses all the way up to Oregon, then were told we could wait outside while the couple got married. The bridezilla insisted that the entire wedding party show up to the temple and wait outside so they could get the pictures they wanted there. So almost all of the WP had to sit outside for an hour and a half while the couple got married. I don't know why I'm surprised when I look at this in hindsight. This is the same beezy who made my FI tuck his pump tube into his shirt and made everyone redo pictures, then wouldn't let her crippled sister sit in her wheelchair in the pictures because she thought it would be tacky. 

    Also, have I said how happy I am this thread exists? 
    Then how are the part of the wedding party if they couldn't be at the wedding?

    If the members of the WP are non-LDS then they are not allowed inside the temple. Or the couple chose to get married in private so everyone had to wait outside.

  • 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.
    Still rude.  It's fine to hang out and celebrate with them at another time, but inviting people to an after party that aren't invited to the party is a no no.  It's the same thing as a tiered event.  

    Everyone has guest list limitations.  You make cuts where you have to, and sometimes it sucks.  But you don't offer a consolation prize to the people who didn't make the cut.  

    The option is always available to change the event to accommodate more guests.  If they are that important, you go with a day event, a non-meal event, etc.  If they aren't important enough to forgo the evening dinner reception over, you cut them.  
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
    But once you tuck in the pump tube and make your disabled sister hide her wheelchair-- they make such adorable props! ;)
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

  • @JCBride2014 Oh my gooooooodddddddd
    Anniversary
    now with ~* INCREASED SASSINESS *~
    image
  • OP, it wasn't clear to me whether you meant you want to invite these additional people to your reception venue after the meal is served or whether you intend an after-party after your reception is over at an altogether different location? The former wouldn't really go over well, I think it would make everyone involved feel awkward. But the latter, I think in order to decide what's best you need to consider your crowd. Good friends and co-workers may very well be thrilled to meet up with you at a bar or a club after your reception is over. I think most people can appreciate the expense of a wedding and see the difference between the wedding itself and a night out drinking with friends that got married earlier in the day. I've run bars a long time now and have watched many an after-party go down. It's not that out of the norm for people who clearly weren't at the wedding to show up and finish out the night with the die-hards. You just really need to consider the crowd you're thinking about inviting. If they wouldn't normally meet you at a bar or a club late night, you may want to reconsider. 
  • sarahuflsarahufl member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2014
    TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
    I was a BM for an LDS friend once. I am Catholic. They got married in Atlanta and had a reception in Tallahassee. All of us non-LDS folks wore matching dresses and just came to the reception- we didn't even go to Atlanta at all. It was a bit odd, for sure. But the dress was pretty and not expensive and she was one of my oldest friends so I was fine with it.
    image
  • It took me, like, three reads of the OP to realize that this was a tiered reception and not an after-party. 
  • This is, apparently, more acceptable in England - I won't presume to speak for etiquette there. But in the US it's extremely rude.

    No, tiered receptions are still considered very rude in the UK, but more people are trying to "get away" with it. I think it is like the honeymoon registries in North America. If a British bride on here tries to say it is a "cultural difference", it most certainly is not! Unless she comes from the "rude people" culture!
  • This is, apparently, more acceptable in England - I won't presume to speak for etiquette there. But in the US it's extremely rude.

    No, tiered receptions are still considered very rude in the UK, but more people are trying to "get away" with it. I think it is like the honeymoon registries in North America. If a British bride on here tries to say it is a "cultural difference", it most certainly is not! Unless she comes from the "rude people" culture!

    So the Ceremony, "Breakfast" then evening reception all with different guests isn't actually a correct thing in the UK? It is as rude as it appears? What a surprise.

    After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!

  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
    But once you tuck in the pump tube and make your disabled sister hide her wheelchair-- they make such adorable props! ;)
    woah, what is this in reference to...did someone actually say something like this???
  • acove2006 said:
    So the Ceremony, "Breakfast" then evening reception all with different guests isn't actually a correct thing in the UK? It is as rude as it appears? What a surprise.
    Unless you're royalty, apparently, because they can get away with that stuff. Oh, Kate Middleton, I had higher hopes for you!
    ~*~*~*~*~

  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
    But once you tuck in the pump tube and make your disabled sister hide her wheelchair-- they make such adorable props! ;)
    woah, what is this in reference to...did someone actually say something like this???
    Yes, poor @shrekspeare experienced this.  I'm also pretty sure somewhere on this thread, shrekspeare said the non-LDS members of the WP were required to wait in the car during the 1.5 hour ceremony.  I'm not positive whether this was the same bride though.

    "I have nightmares about my wedding turning out like this. I think bad weddings run in my family. Another cousin who got married up on Oregon had a total Bridezilla for a wife. She wouldn't let her crippled, wheelchair bound bridesmaid sister into the pictures with the rest of the wedding party because she thought the pictures would be ruined. When she was finally talked into letting her sister in, Bridezilla wouldn't let her sister be in a wheelchair and made her dad go buy a nice, tall chair instead. Shortly afterward, she noticed my Fi's diabetes pump tube was sticking out of his shirt. It's a very thin, clear tube that connects your skin to the pump that sits in your pocket. She threw a huge tantrum over it and made him take out his pump and subjected the wedding party to another two hours of pictures. That was an adventure."

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

  • Just to point out how tiered weddings can become awkward... I went to one once where everyone was invited to the cerimoney but apparently the" B" invitations said something like "please join us after the cerimoney at 6 for cake and dancing", and the "A" invitations said something like "please join at 5 after the ceremony for dinner and dancing." I was part of the A group, but when we got there for dinner and were taking our seats a girl came up to our table non of us knew and said, "I can't find my name anywhere, can I just sit here with you guys." To which of course we all said "Um.. yeah... sure..." We asked a server about her name card, looked around for her, had the waiter bring an extra chair and place setting, and squeezed her into our table which really was filled to capacity. Through talking to her we figured out that she was a tire B with out ever realizing it herself. She laughed about how confused she was because she had lost her invitation soon after receiving it, didn't remeber the time or place of the reception, but thankfully overheard some of the other guests as they left the church saying they were walking over to the reception right now, and so she just followed them. She also didn't have a pre-selected dinner choice and again just said, "Oh, I guess I forgot to send it in! I don't even think I looked carefully enough at the invite!" IT was definitely awkward because everyone else at the table knew what was up, but we didn't know what to say. What do you say "You weren't suppose to come to this, leave and come back later"?

    That's just an example of what can go wrong with that plan. It seemed to work out fine in the end but I'm sure the bride and groom were charged for an extra dinner they had not planned for
    image
  • TilaT25 said:

    I have a little rant. I have three older half sisters who are LDS. They were all married in the temple. Because myself, my little sister and my Dad (also my sisters Dad) are not LDS, we couldn't attend the ceremony. Fine, I understand that being married in the temple was important to them. The horrible part was each of them made us wait outside in the parking lot to take family photos in front of the temple after the ceremony was done. We couldn't even wait in the lobby. We sat in our nice clothes in the car/wandering around for several hours until they were ready so we could be included in the pictures. Really rubbed me the wrong way, and I was only 8-14 for each wedding. Just felt really fake. "We really want you to be there, but since you are unclean, could you just wait in the car?"

    They had a reception afterwards that was open to non-LDS, but I think my immediate family were the only ones who were not LDS and were not at the ceremony.

    They should have taken the family portraits at the reception rather then make you all wait in the car while the ceremony was going on.  That was rude on their part.  

    But I do follow a running blog where the couple got married in the temple with no one else in attendance except the officiant and themselves (at least that is the feeling I got from what she described) and then all of her family and friends were waiting outside of the temple to take pictures and congratulate them as they came out.  

    Now if it had been that way then I would have been fine waiting, but having just a few people wait around to take family pictures outside of the temple I see as rude because those pictures could easily be taken at the reception and then no one would have to wait.
    Yes, I get that...but I guess I think that the wedding party are the nearest and dearest that you want next to  you as you get married.  Seems kind of pointless if they aren't actually allowed in while your getting married. 
    But once you tuck in the pump tube and make your disabled sister hide her wheelchair-- they make such adorable props! ;)
    woah, what is this in reference to...did someone actually say something like this???
    Yes, poor @shrekspeare experienced this.  I'm also pretty sure somewhere on this thread, shrekspeare said the non-LDS members of the WP were required to wait in the car during the 1.5 hour ceremony.  I'm not positive whether this was the same bride though.

    "I have nightmares about my wedding turning out like this. I think bad weddings run in my family. Another cousin who got married up on Oregon had a total Bridezilla for a wife. She wouldn't let her crippled, wheelchair bound bridesmaid sister into the pictures with the rest of the wedding party because she thought the pictures would be ruined. When she was finally talked into letting her sister in, Bridezilla wouldn't let her sister be in a wheelchair and made her dad go buy a nice, tall chair instead. Shortly afterward, she noticed my Fi's diabetes pump tube was sticking out of his shirt. It's a very thin, clear tube that connects your skin to the pump that sits in your pocket. She threw a huge tantrum over it and made him take out his pump and subjected the wedding party to another two hours of pictures. That was an adventure."

    this actually makes me sick.  Family or not, I would not speak to this person again, unless they had a serious coming to Jesus moment and earnestly apologized for their disgusting behavior 
  • acove2006 said:
    This is, apparently, more acceptable in England - I won't presume to speak for etiquette there. But in the US it's extremely rude.

    No, tiered receptions are still considered very rude in the UK, but more people are trying to "get away" with it. I think it is like the honeymoon registries in North America. If a British bride on here tries to say it is a "cultural difference", it most certainly is not! Unless she comes from the "rude people" culture!

    So the Ceremony, "Breakfast" then evening reception all with different guests isn't actually a correct thing in the UK? It is as rude as it appears? What a surprise.
    Yes, it is considered very rude to invite a portion of the guests to only some of the event in the UK.

    As for the woman who wouldn't let her disabled sister in the wedding, I am just in shock! What is wrong with people!?!?
  • lyndausvi 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.

    My niece had an LDS wedding. I didn't attend, but from what I was told, only LDS folks were allowed in the temple.  So, non LDS guests basically waited outside, and the couple had another quick ceremony (complete with a wardrobe change) after the LDS ceremony.  And then all guests were treated at the same reception.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards