Ceremony with just immediate family...reception?

pit

My fiance and I are thinking of having a ceremony with just immediate family.  The problem is we want to have a picnic reception inviting our entire family - aunts, uncles, cousins and friends (about 50 people).  I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by not inviting them to the ceremony, but we really want to keep the ceremony more intimate.  Everyone will have to travel to either the ceremony or reception as no one else lives in our home state.What do you think? Am I being paranoid?  How can we handle this without allienating our family and friends?  Any thought or ideas would be deeply appreciated?

hollieheidi

Initially we wanted a small immediate family ceremony (5-10 guests) and then invite everyone else to the reception.  However, when people found out we were getting married you could just watch their faces drop when FI would say, "we're having a family only ceremony and then a big party reception after.."  You could just see the disappointment on their faces....with that said we decided just to invite everyone to the ceremony (it's outside so it won't cost anything extra to have them there for the ceremony too).While we agreed to change our minds, its YOUR wedding.  Don't feel pressured to invite everyone if you don't want to...Mom, Dad, and Aunt Mary had their own wedding, if this is what YOU want then you do what YOU and your FI want to do.  This wasn't a "dealbreaker" for us, but if it is for you...stick to your originial plan.

Catwoman708

It's perfectly acceptable according to ettiquette to have a private ceremony, and then have a larger reception. As long as everyone is invited to the reception. But many people are disappointed to not be invited to the ceremony. So I guess it depends on WHY you want a family only ceremony when you obviously care enough about the rest of the family to want to celebrate with them. If you're doing it to save money, the reception is where most of your money is spent, not the ceremony. You don't have to have a large wedding party, decorations and such at the church, and many churches are free. If you need to save money, keep it casual, invite guests to attend the ceremony at the courthouse, and/or meet up with you for the barbecue reception afterward.

handfast4me

Even though others may want to come, keep your ceremony the way you want.  DH and I got married on the beach, just the two of us.  It was MUCH better than my mid-sized wedding years before (to a different man, of course) because we were able to say things to one another, and arrange our vows and ceremony in a way that we wouldn't have if we'd had any guests.  Several people asked us why we were doing it this way, and we just always replied "because we want a private, intimate ceremony."  So many bow to the pressure of the wedding INDUSTRY and do things that they don't want to do.  We decided not to cave to the pressure.  Remember, the ceremony is what will be uniting you two, everything else is secondary, including the party afterwards, etc. 

ExpatPumpkin

Not what you want to hear, but I think you should invite them all to the ceremony. 50 people is not a lot of people. We had 60 guests at our ceremony (destination wedding) and it was perfectly intimate. Honestly, you won't even notice the people in the pews because you'll be so focused on getting married. Please don't get so wrapped up in this vision you have for your wedding that you start your marriage off on the wrong foot with your family. If you were trying to pare your crowd down from 300, I'd understand. But 50? That's already intimate. I don't think it's worth the grief and hurt feelings you're going to have with the excluded relatives to make your ceremony that small when 50 is already small and intimate.

hmae_a

That is the same paranoia I am going through right now. My fiance and I want to have a small beach ceremony with only 15 guests followed by a large reception a few months later. But I'm worried about hurting others feelings by not inviting them. But here is my thought - its YOUR wedding! Why would you ever do anything other then exactly what you want to do on YOUR day!? My finace constantly tells me that - its our day - we are going to do it like we want to. I would just make sure to communicate with your friends and family and let them know that why you are doing a small ceremony. Heres my plan - I am going to be open and honest with my family and friends from day one and tell them that they do mean a lot to me and its nothing personal. But my finace and I are doing this our way and if they love and care for us as they should - it shouldnt be a problem.Let us know how it goes!  

duckie1905

There is nothing wrong etiquette-wise with this. But, I really hate it when couples do this and will usually decline to attend the reception. The ceremony is the important part of the day and I don't see the logic in having a reception to thank guests for attending the ceremony you didn't invite them to. While I totally respect the couple that wants to keep it small I don't like being told that while I'm not important enough to witness them actually getting married I'm important enough to eat dinner with them and buy them a gift.

ExpatPumpkin

[i]Everyone will have to travel to either the ceremony or reception as no one else lives in our home state.[/i] If you absolutely insist that you want to exclude people, have your ceremony on a Wednesday and the reception on Saturday... But I still think you should invite everyone to both events and have them on the same day. I think it's really crummy to make people travel and then only attend half of the event

trix1223

I would not travel to a wedding where I wasn't invited to the ceremony.  If you're asking people to travel a distance, I find it rude that you wouldn't include them by inviting them to the ceremony as well.

coltsgirl

we are having a small ceremony - about 30 people, and alarge reception immediately following - about 170 people. We are inviting closest friends and family only to the ceremony. Part of the reason is that the chapel is so small - it only holds about 50 people. We only wanted the people closest to us to share in that moment - honestly, most of the people invited to the reception only are probably glad they dont have to sit through the ceremony and they still get to party. BUT, you know your people better tthan any of us do, so you just have to do what you think is right . . .

handfast4me

I still think you should do what you want--no matter what others on this board think or have written.  I truly find it amazing that it's OK for women to have big, extravagent weddings, but when a woman wants to have a small intimate ceremony, it's like she's mentally ill or something. I don't get it.  It's one of my pet peeves.  If you don't bow to peer pressure and the pressure of the wedding industry, it's like you're defective. You are not wrong in your wishes.  Do what you want, and try not to let the industry dictate what you should do.  Look at offbeatbride.com and other sites that are not industry driven, and you'll find a wider variety of what's OK. 

trix1223

Handfast:  I don't mind anyone having a small intimate ceremony if that's what they want.  By all means-do just what you did, which sounds terribly romantic and personal.Just don't ask me to pay for plane tickets to some "destination", and pay for hotel rooms, plus attire and presumably a gift, and then tell me that I can't attend the wedding, but only the party.For me, the wedding IS the important part.  The party is to me far less important to be at.  So if I spent all the $$ and time only to be told that I didn't make the cut to see the ceremony, I'd be annoyed.Have the small, intimate ceremony and then the reception for the people that were actually at the wedding.I know others feel completely differently, and easily skip the ceremony and I guess that's fine.  But for me, nothing but nothing beats watching a bride walk down the aisle, and then watching a couple say their wedding vows to each other.

ExpatPumpkin

Ditto Trix. And again, 50 is not a lot of people. It's not 300. I just don't think it's worth it to have 15-20 people there and hurt the rest of the family's feelings... Just have all 50 - it's still very small and intimate. Or just get married alone and exclude everyone. That's fine too... I just don't see how excluding 30-35 people is worth it... It's going to hurt feelings, and for what valid reason? Just seems selfish...

Leah&Christian09

I think you really need to start running this by some of the people in your family and get a read on how they feel about it. While this isn't an etiquette faux pas, it really does set up for some people to get their feelings hurt, especially with such a small group. Like others, I wouldn't travel to a wedding if I wasn't invited to the actual wedding. Your family may feel the same. Also, you're talking about aunts and uncles. I'm not sure about your family, but in my area those people are close family. Second cousins probably wouldn't mind, but my aunts and uncles would have been really hurt to hear that they weren't close enough to be invited to my wedding. 50 People is still really intimate for a ceremony. That's only a few rows of guests in a church.

mbcdefg

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a private ceremony. But as a wedding guest, I'd personally be bummed if I couldn't witness the actual wedding ... I think the reception would just feel like a regular party and not a wedding reception to me. Plus, like Expat said, it's only 50 guests. How many people constitute "immediate family"? I think it's a better idea for a private ceremony if it'd only be about 5-10 guests, but once the immediate family list climbs above 10 I just think it makes more sense to invite everyone to the whole shebang.Your call. I don't think you're being paranoid but I also don't see the need to exclude people from the ceremony. Why do you want to do this? Maybe your reasoning will make a difference in the answers you get.

pit

Wow!  Thank you all for your honest opinions.  Everyone made good points on both sides and gave us food for thought.  Although we have not made our final decision, I did run it by my parents and they voiced some of the same concerns as you.  I kind of expected that.  By throwing it out there for your thoughts (not friends or family), I do better understand how excluding some would impact their feelings and opinions of us.I am a very shy person and don't like to be the center of attention, but I guess I just have to realize no matter what - the bride and groom are.Thanks again!

ExpatPumpkin

Pit - Nice to see that you're taking our opinions into consideration and being a good sport About being the center of attention, I understand that, but I promise you that everyone will fade away during the ceremony... I was so focused on my husband and the priest I wouldn't have noticed a thousand people in the pews... Good luck

handfast4me

That is EXACTLY my point. My DH is an extreme introvert, so having a lot of folks at the ceremony would never have been an option, even if we would have had a large reception.  And my DD had a ceremony at the JOP a few months ago, and an at home reception.  No one was upset that they didn't witness the wedding, they just wanted to celebrate the starting of their married life  (lives? ARGH! LOL!) together.  I'm super sensitive about it because I've been attacked for not wanting a big wedding, and others calling a wedding that they had, which didn't have anyone else involved "not a real wedding" and then trying to justify a do-over.  It makes me crazy, because it's saying that what I did wasn't, in some way, valid.  So, that's my history.  :-)

trix1223

Pit-good for you to take into consideration the advice you're being given.I just want to chime in on what pp said:  my DD is a crier:  she sobbed all the way down the aisle when she was a BM in her brother and SIL's wedding.  She broke down and cried 3 times at her shower.  She sobbed (she told us) when her DH proposed to her.  Day of her wedding?  She was so focused on her then FI at the end of the aisle, that she just beamed the whole time.  She didn't shed a single tear during her own ceremony.She was also worried about being the "center of attention".  She had NO IDEA what was going on in the audience because she and her DH were so completely focused on each other.  I think everyone could have gotten up and walked out and they wouldn't have realized it until the end!

handfast4me

And I have to respectfully disagree about the "fading away" part.  I've done it both ways.  I had a mid-sized wedding years ago with my first husband. I was acutely aware that everyone was there. And I was a professional musician at the time, so I was used to being on stage.  During my wedding 18 mos ago, it was so much more intimate, romantic, much more emotional and meaningful that I always suggest it to others.