I think it's not a problem...but after reading some posts I am not too sure...

Aileta

Grabows14 said:

scribe95 said:

So are these people at the second reception invited to the wedding? Why aren't any of them coming?

 I don't have an etiquette problem with your plan but overall I don't get this new trend of having seperate parties for families. Isn't the whole point of a wedding is the merging of two families? It seems like lately if anyone has to travel the answer is to have another reception. .

I don't get it either. I mean, not everyone is going to be able to make it to a wedding. If there are some people that you absolutely MUST have attend, make sure you plan your wedding on a date/time/location that they can make it to. This trend of having multiple "receptions" so everyone and their mother gets to see you in your dress and celebrate is downright ridiculous.

 

@Aileta your friend did not have special circumstances. They are both adults and made a choice. They could have waited to have their dream wedding but instead they chose a courthouse wedding. If the benefits of being married were so important then they need to accept that they don't get a traditional wedding but celebrate that they are married and the type of wedding they did get. They need to own their choices. Now, throwing a big party to celebrate is perfectly fine. But skip the fake re-do ceremony.

No one has the right to a traditional, frou-frou wedding.

Unless you know, per their religion their marriage needs to be blessed in a church or whichever house of god before God...

Yes, her family is very religious.  both families  are. and to say that they dont have a right  to have their wedding with family...obviously ppl who say that don't understand military.   you have to do stuff when you can.   military and war is no joke when you defuse road side bombs for a living. when they got back they had a lovely cathedral wedding. ..not every one can have their cake and eat it too....i think that is a bit rude to say those kinds of things.

ashleyep

Erikan73 said:

I have to go against one thing that most PP said and I'm sure I'll slammed for it but here it is anyways. I went to an event like OP. Bride & Groom got married in her home state which is also where groom was stationed with the Navy & later they had a "celebration of their marriage" reception. It was clear by the wording on the invitation that they had gotten married previously. This party was for his family back in his home state that couldn't attend (basically everyone because the Bride & Groom decided to get married by JOP before he shipped off which was less a week after they decided when to do it.). Anyways, he wore his dress blues & she wore her dress again. His brother (who wasn't at wedding) gave a toast. But besides that they didn't do any of the other traditional stuff (first dance, cake etc.) I have to say I really enjoyed seeing her in her dress even though they were previously married. One of my favorite things about weddings is seeing the bride in her dress.

But it was just a reception, right? There was no aisle that they walked down, no vows, no ceremony, correct? There's nothing wrong with that and while some might side eye wearing a bit white dress, there's really nothing wrong with that either.

NYCBruin

Aileta said:

Grabows14 said:

scribe95 said:

So are these people at the second reception invited to the wedding? Why aren't any of them coming?

 I don't have an etiquette problem with your plan but overall I don't get this new trend of having seperate parties for families. Isn't the whole point of a wedding is the merging of two families? It seems like lately if anyone has to travel the answer is to have another reception. .

I don't get it either. I mean, not everyone is going to be able to make it to a wedding. If there are some people that you absolutely MUST have attend, make sure you plan your wedding on a date/time/location that they can make it to. This trend of having multiple "receptions" so everyone and their mother gets to see you in your dress and celebrate is downright ridiculous.

 

@Aileta your friend did not have special circumstances. They are both adults and made a choice. They could have waited to have their dream wedding but instead they chose a courthouse wedding. If the benefits of being married were so important then they need to accept that they don't get a traditional wedding but celebrate that they are married and the type of wedding they did get. They need to own their choices. Now, throwing a big party to celebrate is perfectly fine. But skip the fake re-do ceremony.

No one has the right to a traditional, frou-frou wedding.

Unless you know, per their religion their marriage needs to be blessed in a church or whichever house of god before God...

Yes, her family is very religious.  both families  are. and to say that they dont have a right  to have their wedding with family...obviously ppl who say that don't understand military.   you have to do stuff when you can.   military and war is no joke when you defuse road side bombs for a living. when they got back they had a lovely cathedral wedding. ..not every one can have their cake and eat it too....i think that is a bit rude to say those kinds of things.

If religion were THAT important to them, they would have had a small wedding AT THEIR CHURCH instead of a JOP.  I don't know any parishes who won't work with a couple to complete all the pre-marriage requirements as quickly as possible to allow for a couple to be married (in the eyes of God, which also counts under the law--shocking, they don't have to be separate!) before one spouse is deployed.

I think it's a bit rude for someone to say to the government "I'm married, give me benefits" and then also say to the church "I'm not married, let me plan a huge wedding."  You're either married or you're not, so you're either lying to the church or lying to your country.  I'm not sure which is more dishonorable. 

msheklian

Not at all, if some of the important people in your life can't get to a location, then have another reception with them. If you want to wear the dress again, you should! Wedding dresses are so expensive if you have a legitimate reason to wear it again, go for it. Maybe do your hair differently or different jewelry that reflects the part of your life that is at the second reception so it's not a complete re-do. 

erinbethp

I say do whatever makes you (and your family/friends) happy. We are having a different sort of wedding because we are both from different countries and have our own reasons for doing so. It may not make everyone happy, but it's what we want to do and so that is what we are doing.

Go nuts and have a great time!

RobAmyS

I didn't know people considered this weird.  It's the only way to do things in the Netherlands.  Otherwise you couldn't have a ceremony with your family and friends present.

WildMagelet

RobAmyS said:

I didn't know people considered this weird.  It's the only way to do things in the Netherlands.  Otherwise you couldn't have a ceremony with your family and friends present.

It's not frowned upon to have two separate ceremonies if your government/religion requires them.  They're viewed as superficial and AWish in places like the U.S. where religious ceremonies can be performed at the same time as the legal wedding. We frequently get "brides" on here who are legally married for whatever reason, lie to their guest about being legally married, and then pretend to get married all over again because they don't view their actual legal wedding as "good enough."

What the OP described however is fine.  A party is a party.  It's fine to throw one for any reason whatsoever.    

OP, you'll find the dress issue is fairly split among users on this forum.  Some people love seeing them, some see them as AWish.  It's consider inappropriate for you to wear a dress/gown that is out of place for the formality of the event (which many "traditional" wedding gowns are) but it's really a victimless crime.

k1b9sp1

KittyKaty20

k1b9sp1 said:

It's really nobody's business whether or not a couple is legally married and then still have a full-on wedding, white dress, attendants, vows, cake and everything. 

If you get invited to a wedding for a couple that you know are already married, and they're not calling in a vow-renewal/celebration/declaration/etc, but a wedding, and that bothers you - don't attend.  Simple.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but I have a shiny new bat...so: Obviously, as guests we may certainly decline to attend any event that bothers us for any reason.

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

Re: the first bolded section: LEGALLY MARRIED=LEGALLY WED.

Shoot, I scuffed my bat...

 

k1b9sp1

manateehugger

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?  

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys.

When a non-virgin bride wears a white gown - is that dishonest and impolite?  I just really think people are being hypocritical by picking and choosing what to get all worked up about, or getting worked up at all.

Ummm are you telling every couple who is a happily married by a JOP ceremony they didn't have a wedding? Who are you to judge? That's incredibly offense.

Second, you are advocating lying to people who love you and spend time and money on you. How is that ever justifiable?

NYCBruin

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?  

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys.

When a non-virgin bride wears a white gown - is that dishonest and impolite?  I just really think people are being hypocritical by picking and choosing what to get all worked up about, or getting worked up at all.

1.  What an awfully rude thing to say that couples who get married at a magistrates office haven't had a wedding.  A wedding is when a couple weds.

2.  Brush up on your history, white gowns have nothing to do with a brides virginity.  They only became a "thing" after Queen Victoria wore one to her wedding.  Prior to that, brides simply wore the "nicest" clothes they owned.  The white dress is really more of a status symbol.  It signals that you are wealthy enough to buy a dress for just one occasion (since white gets dirty quickly).

3.  I go to weddings to see a couple get married.  If they aren't actually getting married, I think it's pretty fair to get worked up about the fact that I spent a lot of time and money to attend an event that didn't actually happen.  

OliveOilsMom

NYCBruin said:

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?  

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys.

When a non-virgin bride wears a white gown - is that dishonest and impolite?  I just really think people are being hypocritical by picking and choosing what to get all worked up about, or getting worked up at all.

1.  What an awfully rude thing to say that couples who get married at a magistrates office haven't had a wedding.  A wedding is when a couple weds.

2.  Brush up on your history, white gowns have nothing to do with a brides virginity.  They only became a "thing" after Queen Victoria wore one to her wedding.  Prior to that, brides simply wore the "nicest" clothes they owned.  The white dress is really more of a status symbol.  It signals that you are wealthy enough to buy a dress for just one occasion (since white gets dirty quickly).

3.  I go to weddings to see a couple get married.  If they aren't actually getting married, I think it's pretty fair to get worked up about the fact that I spent a lot of time and money to attend an event that didn't actually happen.  

And to add onto NYBruin's post: It's an insult to all same sex couples who are fighting for their rights to "just sign the paperwork".  How do you think anyone in a same sex relationship would feel if they knew that one partner's Cousin Sally just signed the paperwork a few weeks ago, but still wants to have the big "wedding".

Jen4948

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?   Because if the paperwork was signed earlier, that was the wedding-not the PPD.  And pretending that the PPD is the wedding IS dishonest and impolite when there was an earlier ceremony.

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys. Yes, it is.  A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office IS a "wedding."  You come on.

k1b9sp1

NYCBruin

k1b9sp1 said:

Jen4948 said:

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?   Because if the paperwork was signed earlier, that was the wedding-not the PPD.  And pretending that the PPD is the wedding IS dishonest and impolite when there was an earlier ceremony.

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys. Yes, it is.  A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office IS a "wedding."  You come on.

Geez louise - it's crystal clear who the majority is around here.  Point taken. 
I should have been more clear - and I suppose it's just semantics - but, here goes anyway. 

If a couple secretly marries in front of a magistrate with NO OTHER WITNESSES/GUESTS, but they want to have a formal ceremony and reception on another date, then the PPD is their wedding, not the "paperwork." 

And to be perfectly clear - there's nothing wrong with any way a couple decides to get married - whether in a huge production wedding or heading to the courthouse to sign the dotted line.  If that's what you want and you're happy, it's all good. 

If a couple marries in front of a magistrate and announces the fact to everyone, receives gifts, celebrates, yadda yadda, and then wants to have a PPD as if nothing happened, I suppose can see where some could see that as "impolite."

But, no matter if/when/what a couple decides to announce, not announce, celebrate big, keep it low-key, religious, civil or whatever - it's THEIR business and you can feel how you want to feel about it, good or bad. You go to weddings to support your loved ones, not to watch them magically become married when the officiant says "I know pronounce you..." because they still have to sign the paperwork to make it legal.  Do you stick around to make sure your eyes see the pen move across the certificate?  Probably not.

You guys are pretty ruthless and judgmental.  I realize people come here to get others' points of view, but holy moly.  Chill out with the torches and pitchforks.

1.  Marital status is not a "private" thing.  It's very public.  There are records of these things, so you can't really play the "mind your own business card."

2.  Even if it were something truly "private", when you invite someone to attend an event, that event becomes the guests' business.  Sure, some people will attend any party, but others (myself included) don't want to travel, spend money on a new dress, buy a gift, etc. for a party unless I'm super close to the couple.  You owe it to your guests to be honest about the event they are actually attending, so they can RSVP accordingly. 

Jells2dot0

Huh! I didn't realize my elopement, with just the two of us and with most people not knowing it did not occur until afterwards, was not a wedding. My pic in my siggy certainly gives the appearance of a wedding, and I most certainly had some semblance of a "ceremony" with the civil celebrant. Silly me

k1b9sp1

Jells2dot0

I'm sorry that I just happened to see it a day late. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you have to understand that what you said was slightly offensive, even if you didn't mean for it to be. I feel that what I had was a wedding, so I'm entitled to my opinion as well, especially since I had the type of ceremony you were referring to in your post, rather than something more traditional. 

k1b9sp1

Vivandiere8

I understand why many are saying "don't where the dress again" because they don't want it to hint of a PPD, but at the same time I think a ton of your guests who had to miss the original reception would love to see you in it. Because the reality would be making your guests happy and not about you trying to have two wedding days I wouldn't have a problem with wearing the dress again, but if it were me I would also bring a dress to change into after everyone got a chance to see it.

NYCMercedes

k1b9sp1 said:

It's not meant to be offensive.  An elopement isn't a wedding.  It's an elopement.  If you're happy with that, cool.  If you still want to have a wedding after the elopement, cool.  

Now I'm offended, too. You're seem quite ignorant of what a wedding is: it is when two people get married.

Jells2dot0

NYCMercedes said:

k1b9sp1 said:

It's not meant to be offensive.  An elopement isn't a wedding.  It's an elopement.  If you're happy with that, cool.  If you still want to have a wedding after the elopement, cool.  

Now I'm offended, too. You're seem quite ignorant of what a wedding is: it is when two people get married.

Agree! I see a wedding as a ceremony where two people exchange vows, commit themselves to one another, and legally become married. Whether you have 200 guests in a church or two guests on a beach or just two people saying their vow in front of a judge in city hall, it's a wedding. An elopement is just having a secret wedding. I still had a ceremony with a dress, a bouquet, a celebrant who legally married us, and a vow exchange. I hired a photographer to capture the day and we had a planned private dinner shortly after the ceremony. It was absolutely a wedding and I will absolutely not be repeating that ceremony at any given point. It was the best wedding I could have ever imagined regardless of the number of people that witnessed it!

NYCBruin

k1b9sp1 said:

It's not meant to be offensive.  An elopement isn't a wedding.  It's an elopement.  If you're happy with that, cool.  If you still want to have a wedding after the elopement, cool.  

What the fuck?  An elopement is most definitely a wedding.  It's a private wedding.  

A wedding is when two people wed.  It doesn't matter what they are wearing, how many people are present, whether there is a big fancy party afterwards or if the bride has forced her friends into hideous matching dresses (complete with matching hair and jewelry).  The only thing that makes a wedding a wedding is the getting married part.

AddieCake

Any time 2 people are wedded in marriage, it's a wedding, regardless of how many are in attendance. 

mimiphin

k1b9sp1 said:

Geez louise - it's crystal clear who the majority is around here.  Point taken. 
I should have been more clear - and I suppose it's just semantics - but, here goes anyway. 

If a couple secretly marries in front of a magistrate with NO OTHER WITNESSES/GUESTS, but they want to have a formal ceremony and reception on another date, then the PPD is their wedding, not the "paperwork."  This has already been talked about. Wedding=Elopement=JOP=Paperwork

And to be perfectly clear - there's nothing wrong with any way a couple decides to get married - whether in a huge production wedding or heading to the courthouse to sign the dotted line.  If that's what you want and you're happy, it's all good.  That is all fine and dandy but I get offended about is when people have a wedding after they have already wed. PPD's involve lying to your guests and saying that the first time around wasn't good enough.

If a couple marries in front of a magistrate and announces the fact to everyone, receives gifts, celebrates, yadda yadda, and then wants to have a PPD as if nothing happened, I suppose can see where some could see that as "impolite."

But, no matter if/when/what a couple decides to announce, not announce, celebrate big, keep it low-key, religious, civil or whatever - it's THEIR business and you can feel how you want to feel about it, good or bad. You go to weddings to support your loved ones, not to watch them magically become married Ummm. That's kind of the point of a wedding! when the officiant says "I know pronounce you..." because they still have to sign the paperwork to make it legal.  Do you stick around to make sure your eyes see the pen move across the certificate?  Probably not. Yes I do!! At least in Canada after the couple is pronounced Husband and Wife they go and sign the marriage license with the officiant, MOH and BM on a table in front of everyone.  "I now introduce to you the new Mr. and Mrs (Lastname)." We cheer, clap, and they are now married and exit the wedding.

You guys are pretty ruthless and judgmental.  I realize people come here to get others' points of view, but holy moly.  Chill out with the torches and pitchforks.

Viczaesar

k1b9sp1 said:

Jen4948 said:

k1b9sp1 said:

KittyKaty20 said:

Often, those couples who insist on having their PPD DO NOT tell their guests that they were actually married earlier. That's dishonest, and impolite.

I guess I just don't see what is dishonest or impolite.  I mean, I get what you're saying, but if the PPD is the only celebration with guests, who cares if the guests know when the paperwork was/is signed?   Because if the paperwork was signed earlier, that was the wedding-not the PPD.  And pretending that the PPD is the wedding IS dishonest and impolite when there was an earlier ceremony.

A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office is not the same as a wedding.  Come on, guys. Yes, it is.  A private legal marriage ceremony at the magistrate's office IS a "wedding."  You come on.

Geez louise - it's crystal clear who the majority is around here.  Point taken. 
I should have been more clear - and I suppose it's just semantics - but, here goes anyway. 

If a couple secretly marries in front of a magistrate with NO OTHER WITNESSES/GUESTS, but they want to have a formal ceremony and reception on another date, then the PPD is their wedding, not the "paperwork." 

And to be perfectly clear - there's nothing wrong with any way a couple decides to get married - whether in a huge production wedding or heading to the courthouse to sign the dotted line.  If that's what you want and you're happy, it's all good. 

If a couple marries in front of a magistrate and announces the fact to everyone, receives gifts, celebrates, yadda yadda, and then wants to have a PPD as if nothing happened, I suppose can see where some could see that as "impolite."

But, no matter if/when/what a couple decides to announce, not announce, celebrate big, keep it low-key, religious, civil or whatever - it's THEIR business and you can feel how you want to feel about it, good or bad. You go to weddings to support your loved ones, not to watch them magically become married when the officiant says "I know pronounce you..." because they still have to sign the paperwork to make it legal.  Do you stick around to make sure your eyes see the pen move across the certificate?  Probably not.

You guys are pretty ruthless and judgmental.  I realize people come here to get others' points of view, but holy moly.  Chill out with the torches and pitchforks.

Bullshit. 

Viczaesar

k1b9sp1 said:

Jells2dot0 said:

Huh! I didn't realize my elopement, with just the two of us and with most people not knowing it did not occur until afterwards, was not a wedding. My pic in my siggy certainly gives the appearance of a wedding, and I most certainly had some semblance of a "ceremony" with the civil celebrant. Silly me

Why does no one understand what I'm saying?  This is maddening. 

Whatever size or style your ceremony/wedding/celebration was - good for you. This argument is a self-licking ice cream cone.  I regret posting in this thread.

We understand what you're saying, you're just wrong, and being offensive to boot. 

k1b9sp1

manateehugger

k1b9sp1 said:

From dictionary.com:

e·lope·ment

[ih-lohp-muhnt] 

noun

1. an act or instance of running off secretly, as to be married.

wed·ding

[wed-ing] 

noun

1. the act or ceremony of marrying; marriage; nuptials.

2. the anniversary of a marriage, or its celebration: They invited guests to their silver wedding.


Nobody said a JOP ceremony doesn't make you married, but an elopement is NOT a wedding.   And if you invite guests to your ceremony, you didn't elope - that was your wedding.  Now do you see the distinction?

You're telling every bride who was married by JOP or eloped, they didn't have a wedding. What is wrong with you? You're being incredibly offensive and small-minded. Guests do not make the difference of whether something is a wedding or not. 

A wedding is a marriage ceremony! Does that mean if every time I invite people over to my house, put on a white dress, and walk down an aisle of chairs to my FI, I get to have a wedding every time we have a house party? No, of course not.