Personal Opinions Requested

MrsRadke

I know that asking for opinions can be deangerous on here, but really, I want to know what you would choose.

I was checking out the invites board and a debate erupted over inviting people to the reception that were not invited to the ceremony. As in, I can only seat 100 people at the ceremony, but we have 175 guests on our list. Many knotties are against this because of etiquette, which I don't completely disagree with, however, this question came to mind:

If a friend or cousin were faced with the decision to either invite me to the reception only or not invite me to the wedding at all, what would I tell her?

A) I would rather be invited to the reception than not at all.

of

Please take me off the list.

Personally, I would rather get the invite to the reception than not get invited at all.

itzMS

B.

The ceremony is the important part. I almost always decline "reception only" invitations. It offends me that the couple doesn't deem me "close enough" to witness their vows, but I'm close enough to come to the reception and send a gift!

The reception is the "thank you" to guests for witnessing the ceremony...sooo...,

KeptInStitches

Take me off the list. If I'm not important enough to see the ceremony, I'm not important enough to come eat, drink, and dance - oh, and bring you a gift.

[Deleted User]

Take me off the list

tmclawchick

KeptInStitches said:

Take me off the list. If I'm not important enough to see the ceremony, I'm not important enough to come eat, drink, and dance - oh, and bring you a gift.

This.

climbingsingle

Eh. I choose A. I wouldn't be offended and I'd still like to join the party.

Maggie0829

alisonmarie658 said:

Ditto PP. I would understand the very very very intimate wedding thing -- parents and siblings only -- and then have whomever at the reception, but it still irks me to some extent. If you want me to celebrate with you (and presumably bring a gift) why didn't you invite me to the whole she-bang?

This.  The entire point of having the reception is to thank your guests for coming and witnessing the ceremony.  If I am only invited to the reception them what the hell are you thanking me for?

PrettyGirlLost

Ditto all points above, save climbingbrideny. The ceremony is the most important part of the wedding, and the function of the reception is to thank your guests who attended your ceremony.

mimiphin

In theory I like A

but I have had A happen and I hated it! I still went to the reception but we (there was a group of about 5 of us who all had A happen to) side eyed -with very catty eyes- the whole night.

So I am for B, to me the ceremony is the most important part

HisGirlFriday13

KeptInStitches said:

Take me off the list. If I'm not important enough to see the ceremony, I'm not important enough to come eat, drink, and dance - oh, and bring you a gift.

This. Times a million. If I'm not good enough to see you actually get married, I'm not interested in coming to your reception and giving you a gift. Sorry, to me, it's gift-grabby.

Also, while I understand family-only ceremonies for any number of reasons, I side-eye a private ceremony and a bigger reception. If you didn't want to invite everyone to your wedding, fine, but don't then invite them to the reception. 

So I would solidly say, "Then don't invite me at all." I'd send a nice card, but no gift.

CLI242009

I am actually kind of surprised by all this. A good surprised though. People that I am mostly around (work, public, etc.) they would rather be invited to the reception & NOT the ceremony. 

I have had some friends of mine, who are the more party have a good time then the sentimental type, that have told me "I don't care about all the lovey dovey crap. Just let me get to the food and alcohol" 

So I'm happily surprised that others are like minded. I'm the sentimental type. I'd rather see the beautiful ceremony & the couple declare their love, then see everyone get plastered and shake their booties on the dance floor. (I know this doesn't happy at every wedding, but the majority I've been/heard about are like this in my life experience.) 

erinlin25

if the ceremony was totally private (like under 10 close family members) I would not side eye the reception only invite.  If I was invited to only the reception & find out 100 others got to actually see you get married I would maybe still come to enjoy your hospitality (would not travel far to do so) but I'd be on the fence about whether or not you got a gift... To me, you are saying 100 people are important enough to see you get married, but I am only important enough to bring you a present. 

APDSS22

I'd rather be off the list.  Actually, I'd rather someone cared enough about me and my husband that they accommodated for us at their wedding and reception, but if they can't do that I like to at least pretend to myself that they just didn't have enough room to invite us since we weren't family/they eloped.

QueerFemme

Yep. I'm on the "don't bother inviting me" list. And if you have 175 on your guest list, find a proper venue to host all of those people for the ceremony. Or, have the ceremony at the reception venue. It's absolutely rude to invite an extra 75 people to the reception that you couldn't bother to find an appropriate venue to include in the ceremony. 

It's ranking your guests, and that's shitty.

manateehugger

Don't bother inviting me. This isn't a private ceremony (which personally irk me anyway) - not inviting less than half your guests to the ceremony is just rude.  

doeydo

B.

CommitmentCat

I'd rather not be invited. B.

You're not actually inviting me to a wedding. You're inviting me to a party, where there's a VIP section. I hate that feeling of being in different groups. I really wouldn't want to be at the reception having the conversation, "How was the ceremony?" "Oh it was beautiful..weren't you invited? Oh, it must've only been for close friends and family then." NO, that's just horrible.

MrsRadke

I am the "food and booze and dance party, yeah!" person. I would never skip a party! (Unless I was sick or out of town) I guess I am in the minority.

I guess it is just as common for people to skip the ceremony and only show up to the reception here. I would estimate that about 2/3 of the reception goers show up at the ceremony when they (the reception and ceremony) are at different locations. So I figured people wouldn't be that offended since many don't even go. (BTW, I find it rude when people DONT go to the ceremony.)

 

katieg520

Personally, I wouldn't care. I don't spend too much time judging people or wondering why they did something. I am more of a "go with the flow" type person.

PolarBearFitz

MrsRadke said:

I am the "food and booze and dance party, yeah!" person. I would never skip a party! (Unless I was sick or out of town) I guess I am in the minority.

I guess it is just as common for people to skip the ceremony and only show up to the reception here. I would estimate that about 2/3 of the reception goers show up at the ceremony when they (the reception and ceremony) are at different locations. So I figured people wouldn't be that offended since many don't even go. (BTW, I find it rude when people DONT go to the ceremony.)

 

People really skip the ceremony and just go to the reception? I can understand if someone had a scheduling conflict and still wanted to be there but couldn't make the ceremony. Definitely do not understand if invitees just decide to go to the reception. That seems odd. I wouldn't think that they were terrible just be sad that they missed the important part...you know those life long vows.

MrsRadke

Around here, most church weddings happen at 1-3 pm in the afternoon (Satruday evening mass/services are usually at 5) so there is almost always a gap. Ceremony at 2 and reception starts at 5 or 6. (I know some people hate this and think its rude, but it's what people have to do to get married in a church around here. Also a reason I am not getting married in a church.)

Many people don't want to get a babysitter for the whole day, feel like it "wastes the whole day" or just don't like being dressed up for that long and don't go to the ceremony.

Maggie0829

Around here, most church weddings happen at 1-3 pm in the afternoon (Satruday evening mass/services are usually at 5) so there is almost always a gap. Ceremony at 2 and reception starts at 5 or 6. (I know some people hate this and think its rude, but it's what people have to do to get married in a church around here. Also a reason I am not getting married in a church.)

Many people don't want to get a babysitter for the whole day, feel like it "wastes the whole day" or just don't like being dressed up for that long and don't go to the ceremony.

So basically you have couples being rude to their guests by having a gap so the guests are rude right back by skipping the ceremony.  Awesome!

Edit:  And no it is not what people HAVE to do it is what the CHOOSE to do.  Couples could certainly have a reception immediately following the reception but having an evening reception seems to be more important then their guests comfort. Again, awesome!

Jstump2

A lot of venues we looked at told us to expect a good chunk of the guest list not to show up to the ceremony. I was surprised to say the least, as I would never not show up to the ceremony and then go to the reception.

southernbelle0915

Your cousin sucks at planning, OP. She obviously prioritized venue (the chapel) above people. I always side-eye that. 

Anyway, I guess it depends on how close you are and how badly you want to celebrate her wedding.

Personally, if I got second-stringed like this, I'd ask her what they're serving and if they had open bar. If I liked what I heard, I'd tell her to invite me. If not, I'd tell her to not bother. Seriously - if she put venue over people and then pretty much side-lined you, F that. At that point, I'd be going to for the food, bar and dancing.

MrsRadke

southernbelle0915 said:

Your cousin sucks at planning, OP. She obviously prioritized venue (the chapel) above people. I always side-eye that. 

Anyway, I guess it depends on how close you are and how badly you want to celebrate her wedding.

Personally, if I got second-stringed like this, I'd ask her what they're serving and if they had open bar. If I liked what I heard, I'd tell her to invite me. If not, I'd tell her to not bother. Seriously - if she put venue over people and then pretty much side-lined you, F that. At that point, I'd be going to for the food, bar and dancing.

I don't have a cousin (or friend) nor am I planning to do this. I was just wondering how people felt. It was a hypothetical, which I thought was clear, but appartently you have to attack my hypothetical cousin's wedding.

thisismynickname2

CLI242009 said: I am actually kind of surprised by all this. A good surprised though. People that I am mostly around (work, public, etc.) they would rather be invited to the reception & NOT the ceremony. 
I have had some friends of mine, who are the more party have a good time then the sentimental type, that have told me "I don't care about all the lovey dovey crap. Just let me get to the food and alcohol" 
So I'm happily surprised that others are like minded. I'm the sentimental type. I'd rather see the beautiful ceremony & the couple declare their love, then see everyone get plastered and shake their booties on the dance floor. (I know this doesn't happy at every wedding, but the majority I've been/heard about are like this in my life experience.) 




To the bolded, when I hear that from people, I'm saddened.  I interpret it as, "You don't care about me getting married but want me to buy your food, drink and entertainment?"  

ETA: spacing, the quote box malfunctioned. 

southernbelle0915

MrsRadke said:

southernbelle0915 said:

Your cousin sucks at planning, OP. She obviously prioritized venue (the chapel) above people. I always side-eye that. 

Anyway, I guess it depends on how close you are and how badly you want to celebrate her wedding.

Personally, if I got second-stringed like this, I'd ask her what they're serving and if they had open bar. If I liked what I heard, I'd tell her to invite me. If not, I'd tell her to not bother. Seriously - if she put venue over people and then pretty much side-lined you, F that. At that point, I'd be going to for the food, bar and dancing.

I don't have a cousin (or friend) nor am I planning to do this. I was just wondering how people felt. It was a hypothetical, which I thought was clear, but appartently you have to attack my hypothetical cousin's wedding.

Whoa. I apologize for misunderstanding that this was hypothetical. 

It doesn't change the way I'd respond, though. Whether the situation is hypothetical or real, what I said is exactly how I'd look at it.

selenathegreat

I don't mind the private or immediate families only ceremonies myself, but other than that I'd probably bow out rather than just go to a reception...especially if I had to travel!

photokitty

Take me off the list. I want to see the wedding. I'd rather see the wedding and have them not have a reception (which is still rude) than get invited tot he reception and not the ceremony. The wedding is the event, it is what I want to witness, I'm not just there for cake or free booze!

I realize (and know) some people are just there for the free party. I am horrified when people say they are skipping (skipping =/= unable to attend) the ceremony and only going to the reception. The only time I can understand this is if it is a large gap, they the B&G are already being inconsiderate and it might not be feasible for the guests to deal with the unhosted gap.

I am not at all upset if someone says I'm going to the ceremony and skipping the reception.

HisGirlFriday13

MrsRadke said:

Around here, most church weddings happen at 1-3 pm in the afternoon (Satruday evening mass/services are usually at 5) so there is almost always a gap. Ceremony at 2 and reception starts at 5 or 6. (I know some people hate this and think its rude, but it's what people have to do to get married in a church around here. Also a reason I am not getting married in a church.)

Many people don't want to get a babysitter for the whole day, feel like it "wastes the whole day" or just don't like being dressed up for that long and don't go to the ceremony.

There is only "almost always" a gap because people are rude and don't plan well. My ceremony started at 3, my cocktail hour started at 4.30. There was no gap. You can do it, but it requires advance thought, effort, and planning. 

APDSS22

HisGirlFriday13 said:

MrsRadke said:

Around here, most church weddings happen at 1-3 pm in the afternoon (Satruday evening mass/services are usually at 5) so there is almost always a gap. Ceremony at 2 and reception starts at 5 or 6. (I know some people hate this and think its rude, but it's what people have to do to get married in a church around here. Also a reason I am not getting married in a church.)

Many people don't want to get a babysitter for the whole day, feel like it "wastes the whole day" or just don't like being dressed up for that long and don't go to the ceremony.

There is only "almost always" a gap because people are rude and don't plan well. My ceremony started at 3, my cocktail hour started at 4.30. There was no gap. You can do it, but it requires advance thought, effort, and planning. 

I'm with HisGirlFriday13, my ceremony was at 1:30 and ended at 2:30, the cocktail hour started as soon as people got themselves to the reception venue (found a place that let me have the room from 10 am to midnight because I didn't want a gap.)  There's always a way to avoid a rude gap, people just choose to have them because their vision is more important than their guests.