Asking for Input

Rhaethe

So here's the skinny: 

My first wedding, it was a fairly big to-do.  Not extravagant, as the bulk of the budget went into the receptions (there were three different ones) and honeymoon, but it had a good number of bells and whistles.  Now, this go round I'd like simple, elegant, and small.

On his side, his first wedding was a quickie jeans and JP affair with no one else involved.  This go round, he says he wants small and simple, but as we talk about invitations the number of folks he feels "really need to be there" expands.

He is the type of guy that is unabashedly romantic at heart, though he claims not to be.  So i suspect that he now has the opportunity to actually have a "proper wedding", that is what he's sliding to.

The plan thus far is to have a destination wedding in CO.  I would like to invite 2 attendants on each side, and parents on both side ... and then lease a vacation home.  We would officiate our own ceremony, and then start our life-adventure with family and closest friends vacationing in Estes Park.  He and I have cohab'd for nigh on 10 years now, so the man and I don't really require a honeymoon, per se`.  The sheer bulk of the cost for us would be footing the entire house rental.  But, the more he tacks on extra people that "need to be there", the higher the cost becomes as I am trying to find lodging for them.

Now, I know that we should (and we will) be having a good conversation about it, and will need to come to compromises ... which I have no problem with.  But what sorts of things have you ladies out there brought up as points toward "small = better" other than finances?  I don't want to use the finances card with impunity.

Or are there actual advantages to having something larger and more traditional that I am not thinking of?

handfast4me

Sounds like a plan!  I went to Estes Park for a Celtic festival a few years ago.  So pretty! 

DH and I just went to a beach, with no one else but our attendant.  It was a planned elopement, if you will.  The advantage was that we were able to say what we wanted during our ceremony, which we would never have done if we were in front of folks. 

I think that some might think that this sort of thing excludes people who are close to you, but truthfully, I didn't care. I wanted it to be very private, and romantic, and once you start worrying about guest lists, then you have to make sure people are comfortable, and that, in my mind, then leads to things being about them (the guests)  instead of about the marriage ceremony  and the couple.  Just my .02. 

Jells2dot0

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_second-weddings_asking-for-input?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:35Discussion:3461f81b-25ec-4d8e-977e-eb89ca6de062Post:3d86aefa-b5df-4c2b-9435-4788fbc8ecaf">Re: Asking for Input</a>:
[QUOTE]Sounds like a plan!  I went to Estes Park for a Celtic festival a few years ago.  So pretty!  DH and I just went to a beach, with no one else but our attendant.  It was a planned elopement, if you will.  The advantage was that we were able to say what we wanted during our ceremony, which we would never have done if we were in front of folks.  I think that some might think that this sort of thing excludes people who are close to you, but truthfully, I didn't care. I wanted it to be very private, and romantic, and once you start worrying about guest lists, then you have to make sure people are comfortable, and that, in my mind, then leads to things being about  them (the guests)  instead of about the marriage ceremony  and the couple.   Just my .02. 
Posted by handfast4me[/QUOTE]

Totally agree with handfast. While finances weren't a concern for us, we wanted something that was more about us- more private, more intimate, more personal. The second you get others involved, it removes some of the intimacy and personal touches because you have to cater to everyone else. We really wanted something that was about us and not about anyone else. You said your FI is a romantic, so I think that he'd be all about having a super romantic ceremony where he can do something personal for you and also have a really special and personal ceremony that focuses on your relationship.

Sue-n-Kevin

My first wedding, it was a fairly big to-do.  Not extravagant, as the bulk of the budget went into the receptions (there were three different ones) and honeymoon, but it had a good number of bells and whistles.  Now, this go round I'd like simple, elegant, and small.

On his side, his first wedding was a quickie jeans and JP affair with no one else involved.  This go round, he says he wants small and simple, but as we talk about invitations the number of folks he feels "really need to be there" expands.

It sounds as though your prior weddings were on the far end of either spectrum, one very small and laid back, the other a full blown extravaganza.

It sounds like at this time you want small, intimate and away; he is starting to want something a bit larger.

When I got married in August 2011 it was my first marriage, my husband's 3rd. I grew up thinking my wedding would be a certain way, but then when I didn't marry in my 20's, had a couple of kids along the way, what I wanted changed a lot. I wanted elegant, but small. My husband honestly didn't care because both of his prior weddings were when he was a lonely Airman overseas, LOL. We had elegant but small, 73 people in an historic village chapel and reception in a building there.

There are no right or wrong answers, and everyone here has an opinion of what worked for them, because that's what they had or are planning. Sit with your fiance, both of you close your eyes and envision and talk about how you see your wedding. In the end it might be bigger than you want, but smaller than what he wants. 

Good luck.