Ceremony @ 11a. Reception @ 5p? or lunch?

Knottie78892240

I scored an 11am ceremony at the church I wanted. Hurray!

But 11am is a bit early in the morning.

I can't decide whether I should have the reception (at a hotel 5 miles away) from 1p-4p, or the traditional 5p-11p.

There seem to be so many Pros and Cons to having a morning/afternoon reception. Pros: Significantly less money, less tiring, less annoying for the guests. Cons: Less elegant, potentially less time for photos (though this is going to be in Nov and it may be raining), less traditional.

Any thoughts on how to make this decision?

Viczaesar

Knottie78892240 said:

I scored an 11am ceremony at the church I wanted. Hurray!

But 11am is a bit early in the morning.

I can't decide whether I should have the reception (at a hotel 5 miles away) from 1p-4p, or the traditional 5p-11p.

There seem to be so many Pros and Cons to having a morning/afternoon reception. Pros: Significantly less money, less tiring, less annoying for the guests. Cons: Less elegant, potentially less time for photos (though this is going to be in Nov and it may be raining), less traditional.

Any thoughts on how to make this decision?

Neither.  Gaps are extremely rude, so unless your ceremony is 2 hours long 1-4 pm starts too late, and 5-11 pm starts way way way too late.  Your guests need to be able to go straight from your ceremony to your reception and be hosted immediately.

wrigleyville

Brunch wedding receptions can be elegant and beautiful, and you said it yourself - it's less annoying for the guests. 

Plus, you could save money, so it's a win-win for everyone.

Think mimosas, sparkling wine, light beers, and lots of sunshine and flowers:

I think afternoon wedding receptions are really pretty, and I love the variety that brunch menus provide.

mikenberger

Knottie78892240 said:

I scored an 11am ceremony at the church I wanted. Hurray!

But 11am is a bit early in the morning.

I can't decide whether I should have the reception (at a hotel 5 miles away) from 1p-4p, or the traditional 5p-11p.

There seem to be so many Pros and Cons to having a morning/afternoon reception. Pros: Significantly less money, less tiring, less annoying for the guests. Cons: Less elegant, potentially less time for photos (though this is going to be in Nov and it may be raining), less traditional.

Any thoughts on how to make this decision?

You make the decision for the best interest of the GUESTS because that's what the reception is for: Your guests. So having the reception immediately following the ceremony is the way to go and you can totally rock an amazing brunch or lunch reception for all the reasons you posted!  

AddieCake

We had a 10:30 ceremony followed by a lunch reception and got a lot of compliments. Please don't have a gap. It's so inconvenient for your guests.

Maggie0829

Your reception should start immediately after your ceremony ends.  So if your ceremony ends at noon then your reception should begin at noon.

MyNameIsNot

Your reception needs to be immediately after your ceremony. Unless this is a particularly long ceremony, that means even 1:00 is too late. 

It sounds like your reception should be starting at about noon. That's fine for lunch or for brunch, your choice. If you want to have an evening reception, you'll need to have an evening ceremony. 

allispain

Honestly, if I was told there was a ceremony at 11 and the reception wouldn't be until 5 - I probably wouldn't go to the wedding at all. Or I would go to only the ceremony, and then let the couple know I wouldn't be able to attend the reception.

southernbelle0915

Unhosted gaps are rude. So what you can do would be something like this:

11-11:30 - ceremony
11:30-12:30 - cocktail hour for guests (mimosas, bloody Marys and light snacks)
11:30-12:30 - pictures for WP and family
12:30 - serve lunch
1:30/2 - toasts, first dance (if doing), cake cutting
3/4 - end reception.

lovegood90

As soon as you booked your ceremony for 11am, you already made the decision to nix an evening reception have your reception at around noon. You can't have any unhosted gaps- the flow should go ceremony, immediately followed by cocktail hour (one hour only), then the reception.

If you want an evening reception, you should find another venue to have your ceremony later in the day (3pm or 4pm ideally, depending how long your ceremony is). If you don't want to do that, then you can always spread by word of mouth that you'll be celebrating at a bar or something later in the night after your lunch reception, if you want to do something with your guests at nighttime.

If you insist on keeping the approx. 5 hour gap, be prepared that not everyone will want to attend your ceremony and reception and may choose one. Yes it would be rude of them, but not everyone wants to spend an entire day and night at someone's wedding, especially when they're not being properly hosted. 12+ hours (half of those hours unhosted) is a LOT to ask of people. I don't think I'd do that for anyone.

katiekessler123

For the record, I think the 1pm reception may work without a gap in between, depending on your ceremony length.  Our ceremony was at 5pm and the reception at 7pm.  The ceremony was fairly lengthy bc it was in a Catholic church, and our reception was not on site.  By the time people drove to the reception venue, it was just about 7pm. 

flantastic

katiekessler123 said:

For the record, I think the 1pm reception may work without a gap in between, depending on your ceremony length.  Our ceremony was at 5pm and the reception at 7pm.  The ceremony was fairly lengthy bc it was in a Catholic church, and our reception was not on site.  By the time people drove to the reception venue, it was just about 7pm. 

I understand that, being Catholic myself, and most places where you have to "score" an 11 AM time slot are popular Catholic churches. The basilica on my alma mater's campus has 9 AM, 11 AM, 1 PM, and 3 PM time slots on Saturdays. Last summer I went to a 9 AM wedding with a 5 PM reception. Hell to the no and never again.

However, even though not all guests may show up until 1, the reception venue needs to be prepared to accommodate them with beverages and snacks whenever the first person may reasonably show up... so if the Mass is going to end at 12:15 or 12:20 (my wedding Mass was 57 minutes, so you can't count on that), then anyone who leaves and drives the 5 miles directly and arrives at the reception venue at 12:30 needs to be hosted appropriately, even if the majority won't be there for another 15-20 minutes.

katiekessler123

Yeah, I think that's something that would need to be discussed with the reception venue.  But, I can tell you that I pretty much knew exactly when people would get to our venue, just based on the length our priest told us, and how much travel time we knew people needed.  We were able to plan accordingly, as I think the OP should also do.

lyndausvi

Is this a Catholic wedding?    If so the gap will be an hour or less.

My suggestion is if it is a Catholic wedding to have a lunch cocktail hour starts at 12:30.   Lunch start at 1:30.

My sister had a 10:30am Catholic wedding.   Cocktail hour was from 12-1.  Lunch at 1pm.   Full amazing meal, open bar and a packed dance floor.   Reception ended at 5pm. 

It is still one of the best weddings we went to.   Even had an after-party after the reception.

No one wants to go to a 11am wedding and then a 5pm reception.

levioosa

Absolutely do not have an 11 am ceremony with a 5 pm reception.  That is incredibly rude and inconsiderate to your guests.  PPs have given you great suggestions on the timeline. Brunch/lunch receptions can be just as lovely and fun as evening receptions.  Added bonus: no one will think you are rude for making them sit around for five plus hours. 

CMGragain

There is nothing "traditional" about an evening dinner reception.  Those are r3elatively recent.  The traditional wedding breakfast is held immediately after the wedding service, and is usually a brunch.

bananasplit472001

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

levioosa

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

wrigleyville

I really wanted a brunch reception, but it would have meant getting up at 7:00 for hair and makeup. I probably could have done it, but H is a vampire and hates sunlight, early mornings, and eating breakfast.

Anyway, I've been to a few brunch receptions, and they're much more fun than people think. Plus, it's nice to have Saturday night free, and there's always the option of heading out to a bar or club with people afterward. Our reception ended at 10:00, so our WP and a few relatives went bowling with us.

bananasplit472001

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

levioosa

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

Maggie0829

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

Driving time between ceremony and reception location is not a gap.  BUT, holding off for an hour, when it will only take guests like 10-15 minutes to get to your reception location is a gap and is rude.  And sorry, but I don't know many guests who are going to hang around your ceremony location for the hell of it.  Once your ceremony is over with the guests are going to want to head right to the reception to get their drink and eating on.  So you have to make sure that all is ready to go when your first guest arrives.

bananasplit472001

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.

flantastic

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

She actually said 5 miles, which is more like 15 minutes in a city, but that actually makes your advice make less sense. If the drive were only 5 minutes, a 1 hour gap would be more absurd.

You can factor in travel time, but trying to factor in dawdling or "we might run over on our planned ceremony" time just makes it unfair to those who don't feel the need to waste time between portions of the event. If people want to take an hour from the end of the ceremony to get to the venue 15 minutes away, then they've missed a good portion of cocktail hour. Their decision. You don't need to parent the dawdlers.

Maggie0829

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.

Okay, you are being just a tad bit dramatic.

bananasplit472001

flantastic said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

She actually said 5 miles, which is more like 15 minutes in a city, but that actually makes your advice make less sense. If the drive were only 5 minutes, a 1 hour gap would be more absurd.

You can factor in travel time, but trying to factor in dawdling or "we might run over on our planned ceremony" time just makes it unfair to those who don't feel the need to waste time between portions of the event. If people want to take an hour from the end of the ceremony to get to the venue 15 minutes away, then they've missed a good portion of cocktail hour. Their decision. You don't need to parent the dawdlers.

My advice was just to let the original poster know that they need to allow time for guests to get to the venue so the advice of starting your cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends is useless.   Maybe half an hour would work better in a city for her but 15 mins is cutting it close.

flantastic

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.

Right, she'll barely be able to make it before it's over.

If you're so worried about grandma's time, you need to just be sure that you're not wasting her or anyone else's time by having an efficient family portrait strategy after the ceremony.

flantastic

bananasplit472001 said:

flantastic said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

She actually said 5 miles, which is more like 15 minutes in a city, but that actually makes your advice make less sense. If the drive were only 5 minutes, a 1 hour gap would be more absurd.

You can factor in travel time, but trying to factor in dawdling or "we might run over on our planned ceremony" time just makes it unfair to those who don't feel the need to waste time between portions of the event. If people want to take an hour from the end of the ceremony to get to the venue 15 minutes away, then they've missed a good portion of cocktail hour. Their decision. You don't need to parent the dawdlers.

My advice was just to let the original poster know that they need to allow time for guests to get to the venue so the advice of starting your cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends is useless.   Maybe half an hour would work better in a city for her but 15 mins is cutting it close.

My venue was supposed to start stuff at X time, but they had the common sense to also make it clear that the doors would be open and food available 15 minutes before the start time in case anyone arrived early. Ask the professionals about a good timeline to prevent any gap for any guest. This is not that difficult.

bananasplit472001

Maggie0829 said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.

Okay, you are being just a tad bit dramatic.

Only to show the absurdity of immediately starting a reception when people haven't even had time to get their butts out of the seats of the church.  It is rude to have an un-hosted gap but it is also rude to not allow your guests enough time to get to the cocktail hour.

bananasplit472001

flantastic said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

levioosa said:

bananasplit472001 said:

I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose. 

It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 

As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 

I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.

Right, she'll barely be able to make it before it's over.

If you're so worried about grandma's time, you need to just be sure that you're not wasting her or anyone else's time by having an efficient family portrait strategy after the ceremony.

Thank you but i already have that figured out.  I will only waste about 5 minutes of grandma's time directly before the ceremony.  No pictures will be taken after.  

MyNameIsNot

bananasplit472001 said: levioosa said: bananasplit472001 said: levioosa said: bananasplit472001 said: I think having a brunch reception is really nice and not enough people do it.  My sister did it for her wedding just last year and it worked out really well.  People enjoyed that they could have both breakfasts foods as well as the traditional beef and chicken and other dinner-type foods.  I do not agree that if you ceremony ends at 12 your reception should start at 12.  You should definitely start it at 1pm because sometimes the ceremony goes over the time and then you still have to exit the church let everyone drive down and park and you have killed an hour right there.  There goes your cocktail hour that you painstakingly planned and paid for.  Guests at weddings will stand around and talk to relatives they have not seen in awhile so I certainly do not want to be rushed to start a reception and rush everyone.It is not rude to have a 1 hour gap just so guests can make it to the reception and be able to enjoy it from start to finish if they so choose.  It is rude to have any gaps, whether 1 hour, or 5.  Guests much be hosted the entire time.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a cocktail hour for 60-90 min (max), but the guests should never be wandering around unhosted.  This the same reasoning as putting a fake start time on the invite.  It's rude regardless of what "might" happen.  Plus, why stay at the church when you know that there is a cocktail hour with food waiting for you?  You can converse with relatives just fine there. 

This is bad advice, OP.  Gaps of any sort are rude. 
As the OP stated the reception venue is 5 minutes away.  Giving enough time for your guests to get over to the cocktail hour so that they can enjoy themselves is a must and is not rude.  How silly would it be to start a cocktail hour as soon as the ceremony ends and by the time all the guests get there there is only 5 minutes left of service before dinner reception starts?

There's a big difference between giving guests 15 minutes to get to the venue, and leaving an hour gap where people are wandering around unhosted. 
I am suggesting that guests are given time to get there.  Thanks but I do know the difference.  But a cocktail hour starting time as soon as the ceremony ends is  unreasonable.  15 minutes is definitely not enough time for all guests to exit the church, get in their cars, drive to venue and park.  Which is why I suggested a 1 hr time difference.  If that does not please the etiquette snobs then maybe start with a 30 minute delay so it gives grandma enough time to actually get to her grandchild's reception before it is over.  I would even go as far as sending all the guest away from the church with little snacks packs of cookies and milk so that they can be properly "hosted" in their car ride to the venue.
WHERE THE BOXES SHOULD BE

The hosting should start when the first guest gets to the reception venue, not the last. If it takes 15 minutes for the first guest to get there, that's when cocktail hour needs to begin. Waiting around for guests that want to linger after the ceremony is ridiculous. Waiting for an hour to makes sure everyone gets there is just rude.

Also, calling people snobs because they point out the flaws in your logic is unnecessary and further underlines your flaws. People will respect you and your position more if you can make a point without resorting to name calling or personal attacks. (Both in real life and on the internet.)