Wedding Etiquette Forum

Private Ceremony/Reception Later

2»

Re: Private Ceremony/Reception Later

  • adk19 said:
    pinkcow13 said:
    lilacck28 said:

    Except that having one reception following the ceremony and then another, hosted party later for a larger crowd wouldn't actually really save any money. . . this couple is still going to have to pay to feed and provide drinks for the 50+ guests at the celebration of marriage party, on top of paying for everyone's dinner following the ceremony.

    This is why these types of events- small "intimate" ceremony followed by a huge reception afterwards with more people who weren't invited to the wedding- don't make any sense to me.  They don't save the couple any money and they don't keep the couple from being the center of attention.
    BOXES?

    Except that's not what OP said is happening. OP said:
     1. Couple will get married at courthouse with 4 or so other people in attendance. 
    2. People who attended the ceremony as well as other friends and family will be hosted with open bar and dinner at a celebration/ reception at 7 (I'm assuming "7" means 7pm the same day the couple gets married?) 

    There is no extra dinner. 

    If a couple wants to do an intimate ceremony and a bigger reception/ celebration, I don't see a problem. Clearly saving money isn't the reason they are doing this, since they wouldn't be saving much. And though nothing in the OP suggests that the reason the couple is choosing an intimate ceremony is because they don't want to be the center of attention, since you brought it up:  I believe there have been tons of people with social anxiety or who have friends/ family with social anxiety who have argued that being the "center of attention" at a ceremony (all eyes on you all the time) is different/ more debilitating than a reception/ celebration (eyes may frequently be on you, but there are other people around having conversations, and it is easier to slip away.)

    All of that being said, I love the ceremony portion of weddings, and would miss not seeing it. But if it is truly a tiny number of people invited to the ceremony, as a guest invited to the reception, I would not be offended, and I further do not think this is a  breach of etiquette. If it is, it's a small one. 
    Um, the "reception later" part of her OP. . . that's the extra dinner.  PP"s mentioned that immediatley following the ceremony, the couple in question needs to host their guests to some sort of meal.  So if this bride does that, then she is hosting people related to her wedding twice- once following the ceremony and then again at 7pm for an even larger number of people- and therefore she's NOT having a tiered event in order to avoid the cost of feeding people dinner, as Scribe was implying in her post. . .which is what I was responding too.


    lilacck28 explained it well. All of us who are attending the Courthouse (I believe there will be 6 of us), will afterwards head to the location where the party will be held. I personally don't have a problem with this. Even if I were only invited to the party, as long as the couple was being honest (which they are), I would be totally cool with it.




    So is the courthouse wedding happening late enough that a 7pm reception is immediately afterwards without a gap?  This is what made me think there would be a meal IMMEDIATELY after the ceremony for the 6 people in attendance, then a Party later with everybody.
    Good question.

    This type of thing might be technically Ok as per etiquette, but I'm just not a fan.  It just seems awkward and gift grabby to me.

    If I got that invitation I'd be thinking, "Hmmm, if I wasn't invited to the wedding, why am I being invited to the marriage celebration?  I would have liked to see them actually get married.  That's the important part, the reception is just a glorified party. . . for the guests who attended the actual ceremony.  Should I bring a gift to this party or not?  It's not really a reception. . . "

    Then, at the celebration party, "Oh hey, Couple!  Congrats on your marriage. . . that I didn't actually witness."

    I get that no one HAS TO invite anyone or everyone to their ceremony.  But I don't understand why you'd then want to celebrate your marriage with a bunch of people that actually weren't there to witness it.  I had a bunch of people that I didn't invite to my wedding for budget and venue limitations; I didn't throw a celebration party later to include them.

    I just don't get it.
    I feel that there will definitely be a gap. The courthouse in NY closes at 4:30. So, the latest we would be leaving is 4:30. The party will be on Long Island, so we'll need time to get out there. I personally don't know why they're choosing to do it this way, and why they wouldn't just bring in an officiant. I did suggest that, but this is what they want. 

    I personally don't mind, even though I am going to the ceremony and will have that gap. H and I will probably take pictures of them (we volunteered), and won't notice the gap. I did tell her to expect that given the nature of the event, and the fact that there will be such short notice (plus, it's July when most people take vacation), there may be a high number of declinations.
                                 Anniversary
    imageimageimage


     

  • pinkcow13 said:
    adk19 said:
    pinkcow13 said:
    lilacck28 said:

    Except that having one reception following the ceremony and then another, hosted party later for a larger crowd wouldn't actually really save any money. . . this couple is still going to have to pay to feed and provide drinks for the 50+ guests at the celebration of marriage party, on top of paying for everyone's dinner following the ceremony.

    This is why these types of events- small "intimate" ceremony followed by a huge reception afterwards with more people who weren't invited to the wedding- don't make any sense to me.  They don't save the couple any money and they don't keep the couple from being the center of attention.
    BOXES?

    Except that's not what OP said is happening. OP said:
     1. Couple will get married at courthouse with 4 or so other people in attendance. 
    2. People who attended the ceremony as well as other friends and family will be hosted with open bar and dinner at a celebration/ reception at 7 (I'm assuming "7" means 7pm the same day the couple gets married?) 

    There is no extra dinner. 

    If a couple wants to do an intimate ceremony and a bigger reception/ celebration, I don't see a problem. Clearly saving money isn't the reason they are doing this, since they wouldn't be saving much. And though nothing in the OP suggests that the reason the couple is choosing an intimate ceremony is because they don't want to be the center of attention, since you brought it up:  I believe there have been tons of people with social anxiety or who have friends/ family with social anxiety who have argued that being the "center of attention" at a ceremony (all eyes on you all the time) is different/ more debilitating than a reception/ celebration (eyes may frequently be on you, but there are other people around having conversations, and it is easier to slip away.)

    All of that being said, I love the ceremony portion of weddings, and would miss not seeing it. But if it is truly a tiny number of people invited to the ceremony, as a guest invited to the reception, I would not be offended, and I further do not think this is a  breach of etiquette. If it is, it's a small one. 
    Um, the "reception later" part of her OP. . . that's the extra dinner.  PP"s mentioned that immediatley following the ceremony, the couple in question needs to host their guests to some sort of meal.  So if this bride does that, then she is hosting people related to her wedding twice- once following the ceremony and then again at 7pm for an even larger number of people- and therefore she's NOT having a tiered event in order to avoid the cost of feeding people dinner, as Scribe was implying in her post. . .which is what I was responding too.


    lilacck28 explained it well. All of us who are attending the Courthouse (I believe there will be 6 of us), will afterwards head to the location where the party will be held. I personally don't have a problem with this. Even if I were only invited to the party, as long as the couple was being honest (which they are), I would be totally cool with it.




    So is the courthouse wedding happening late enough that a 7pm reception is immediately afterwards without a gap?  This is what made me think there would be a meal IMMEDIATELY after the ceremony for the 6 people in attendance, then a Party later with everybody.
    Good question.

    This type of thing might be technically Ok as per etiquette, but I'm just not a fan.  It just seems awkward and gift grabby to me.

    If I got that invitation I'd be thinking, "Hmmm, if I wasn't invited to the wedding, why am I being invited to the marriage celebration?  I would have liked to see them actually get married.  That's the important part, the reception is just a glorified party. . . for the guests who attended the actual ceremony.  Should I bring a gift to this party or not?  It's not really a reception. . . "

    Then, at the celebration party, "Oh hey, Couple!  Congrats on your marriage. . . that I didn't actually witness."

    I get that no one HAS TO invite anyone or everyone to their ceremony.  But I don't understand why you'd then want to celebrate your marriage with a bunch of people that actually weren't there to witness it.  I had a bunch of people that I didn't invite to my wedding for budget and venue limitations; I didn't throw a celebration party later to include them.

    I just don't get it.
    I feel that there will definitely be a gap. The courthouse in NY closes at 4:30. So, the latest we would be leaving is 4:30. The party will be on Long Island, so we'll need time to get out there. I personally don't know why they're choosing to do it this way, and why they wouldn't just bring in an officiant. I did suggest that, but this is what they want. 

    I personally don't mind, even though I am going to the ceremony and will have that gap. H and I will probably take pictures of them (we volunteered), and won't notice the gap. I did tell her to expect that given the nature of the event, and the fact that there will be such short notice (plus, it's July when most people take vacation), there may be a high number of declinations.

    Goodness! LI in July. If it's on a Friday it'll take people HOURS to get out there from the city.

  • scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    To celebrate an event you weren't invited to. . . that you likely will feel obligated to bring a gift to.  Which seems gift grabby.  I dunno, just not a fan.

    But I guess, devil's advocate here, I guess it's no different to being invited to a party to celebrate the birth of a child?  Not like you witnessed the birth, right?  Or like a graduation party. . . most ppl don't see you walk.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."



  • scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    To celebrate an event you weren't invited to. . . that you likely will feel obligated to bring a gift to.  Which seems gift grabby.  I dunno, just not a fan.

    But I guess, devil's advocate here, I guess it's no different to being invited to a party to celebrate the birth of a child?  Not like you witnessed the birth, right?  Or like a graduation party. . . most ppl don't see you walk.

    Eh, I'm of the same opinion that I'm still not a fan. And IMHO it's not the same as the birth or walking in graduation because traditionally the wedding always has two parts- ceremony then receiving people at the reception.

    It's only recently that people want it both ways- the "special privacy" of the ceremony but then all the attention and gifts at the reception. That's how it comes off to me, regardless of the couple's intent.

    Formerly martha1818

    image



  • scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    To celebrate an event you weren't invited to. . . that you likely will feel obligated to bring a gift to.  Which seems gift grabby.  I dunno, just not a fan.

    But I guess, devil's advocate here, I guess it's no different to being invited to a party to celebrate the birth of a child?  Not like you witnessed the birth, right?  Or like a graduation party. . . most ppl don't see you walk.

    Eh, I'm of the same opinion that I'm still not a fan. And IMHO it's not the same as the birth or walking in graduation because traditionally the wedding always has two parts- ceremony then receiving people at the reception.

    It's only recently that people want it both ways- the "special privacy" of the ceremony but then all the attention and gifts at the reception. That's how it comes off to me, regardless of the couple's intent.

    That's how it comes off to me too, and it just doesn't make sense.  If someone really doesn't want to be the center of attention at the ceremony, why wouldn't that someone not want to be the center of attention at the reception too?
  • scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    Yup, that's how I feel about these. I'm always down to party. And they are being honest, so if I were just an invited guest to the party I would most likely go. They are being very transparent with everyone about their plans which to me is fine.

    PrettyGirlLost. I'm sure some people will be disappointed and won't go. Especially given the distance, it would essentially be attending a party where they will feel obligated to bring a gift to.
    flbride2015 Crap I did NOT think of the traffic going into LI.....
                                 Anniversary
    imageimageimage


     


  • scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    To celebrate an event you weren't invited to. . . that you likely will feel obligated to bring a gift to.  Which seems gift grabby.  I dunno, just not a fan.

    But I guess, devil's advocate here, I guess it's no different to being invited to a party to celebrate the birth of a child?  Not like you witnessed the birth, right?  Or like a graduation party. . . most ppl don't see you walk.

    Eh, I'm of the same opinion that I'm still not a fan. And IMHO it's not the same as the birth or walking in graduation because traditionally the wedding always has two parts- ceremony then receiving people at the reception.

    It's only recently that people want it both ways- the "special privacy" of the ceremony but then all the attention and gifts at the reception. That's how it comes off to me, regardless of the couple's intent.

    Honestly, I find this far less annoying than the private ceremony with immediately family at a small church or private location. Or a destination wedding with an AHR. I'm pretty salty about not getting to see a full blown event with flowers, WP, bridal gown, etc.

    The courthouse is a standard place to get married - it is cost effective and not tied to a "vision." At the same time, the courthouse probably frowns on inviting 50 people to watch you get married as the courtroom probably doesn't allow for it. 

    I would be sad I didn't get to see the ceremony, but I wouldn't find it as gift grabby as an AHR with a slide show of all the gorgeous photos. I would just think they wanted a simple courthouse ceremony and it does not allow for a mass entourage in tow. I'd totally let this slide...and I'm pretty fast with my side eye :smirk:
    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • Jen4948 said:

    scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    To celebrate an event you weren't invited to. . . that you likely will feel obligated to bring a gift to.  Which seems gift grabby.  I dunno, just not a fan.

    But I guess, devil's advocate here, I guess it's no different to being invited to a party to celebrate the birth of a child?  Not like you witnessed the birth, right?  Or like a graduation party. . . most ppl don't see you walk.

    Eh, I'm of the same opinion that I'm still not a fan. And IMHO it's not the same as the birth or walking in graduation because traditionally the wedding always has two parts- ceremony then receiving people at the reception.

    It's only recently that people want it both ways- the "special privacy" of the ceremony but then all the attention and gifts at the reception. That's how it comes off to me, regardless of the couple's intent.

    That's how it comes off to me too, and it just doesn't make sense.  If someone really doesn't want to be the center of attention at the ceremony, why wouldn't that someone not want to be the center of attention at the reception too?
    Based on the people I know who are like this (but I don't know anyone that did this), it's one thing to attend a big party but it's another one to be showcased and the center of attention where no one is talking.   My aunt had a tiny wedding and was my mom's MOH.   She nearly passed out at the altar just being NEXT to the bride.   But she hosts tons of events at her house and has no problem mingling with guests.  When she got married, I was 7 and one of four guests although she also had only those guests at the reception too.   
  • I think it depends on how the couple "stages" the party. The one I attended was super casual. I didn't bring a gift, because it wasn't really put out there as a gift-giving event. I saw a few gifts in the corner, but that's about it. 

    Plus, I really don't mind the whole idea anyway, as long as the couple is forthcoming and tells everyone it's a celebration of marriage and doesn't make it PPD-esque. 
  • pinkcow13 said:
    scribe95 said:
    Would I prefer to see the wedding? Sure. But it's not required if for whatever reason they truly prefer it to be only a few people. Basically they are inviting you to a fun party. I'm never offended by that.
    Yup, that's how I feel about these. I'm always down to party. And they are being honest, so if I were just an invited guest to the party I would most likely go. They are being very transparent with everyone about their plans which to me is fine.

    PrettyGirlLost. I'm sure some people will be disappointed and won't go. Especially given the distance, it would essentially be attending a party where they will feel obligated to bring a gift to.
    flbride2015 Crap I did NOT think of the traffic going into LI.....

    Lol. Good old Hamptons traffic!
  • CMGragainCMGragain member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    edited June 2015
    OK, I am confused.  Here is my take on it:

    1.  Courthouse ceremony with a few people then big wedding reception later on the same day = wedding reception.  Gaps are rude to your ceremony guests.  Schedule the reception as closely to the ceremony time as possible.

    The pleasure of your company is requested
    at the wedding reception of
    Bride's Full Name
    and
    Groom's Full Name
    (etc.)

    2. Small courthouse wedding followed by dinner at a restaurant for those guests = wedding and reception.  Party later, or on a different day = party to celebrate the marriage.  Use the wording I gave in an earlier post.

    PS.  You can DIY invitations with a kit from Michaels or Hobby Lobby.  Vistaprint has rush delivery and they are very budget friendly.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • Yes, there will definitely be a gap, I spoke with them last night. Again though, I don't mind. They want to go to City Hall at 9 AM, and afterwards I guess maybe we can all eat, or I can hit up the gym, and get all fancied up for the party later that evening. I would not do it that way if it were me (obviously I didn't at my wedding last month lol), but I'm cool with this. 
                                 Anniversary
    imageimageimage


     

  • pinkcow13 said:
    Yes, there will definitely be a gap, I spoke with them last night. Again though, I don't mind. They want to go to City Hall at 9 AM, and afterwards I guess maybe we can all eat, or I can hit up the gym, and get all fancied up for the party later that evening. I would not do it that way if it were me (obviously I didn't at my wedding last month lol), but I'm cool with this. 
    Technically though, this couple should be hosting you all directly after their ceremony.  That would be their reception.  Their ceremony is falling right in the middle of brunch, so they should take you all out for that- who doesn't love brunch?!-  regardless of them having a "celebration of marriage" party later in the day.

    Since this is the E board, I'm just going to state for anyone else who is lurking, that logistically, this plan isn't really that great and it's against etiquette in some respects as well- not hosting ceremony guests immediately following the ceremony, large gap for those who attended the ceremony.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


  • pinkcow13 said:
    Yes, there will definitely be a gap, I spoke with them last night. Again though, I don't mind. They want to go to City Hall at 9 AM, and afterwards I guess maybe we can all eat, or I can hit up the gym, and get all fancied up for the party later that evening. I would not do it that way if it were me (obviously I didn't at my wedding last month lol), but I'm cool with this. 
    Technically though, this couple should be hosting you all directly after their ceremony.  That would be their reception.  Their ceremony is falling right in the middle of brunch, so they should take you all out for that- who doesn't love brunch?!-  regardless of them having a "celebration of marriage" party later in the day.

    Since this is the E board, I'm just going to state for anyone else who is lurking, that logistically, this plan isn't really that great and it's against etiquette in some respects as well- not hosting ceremony guests immediately following the ceremony, large gap for those who attended the ceremony.
    Hell, even taking the six of you out to McDonald's for an Egg McMuffin counts as hosting you after their ceremony.  THEN you can all go your separate ways until the party that night.
  • SP29SP29 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    While I see no issue with a private ceremony and then celebration of marriage later, I agree that the B&G need to host those guests who did attend the ceremony. And brunch is awesome.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards