Destination Etiquette- Bridal Party

bananasplit472001

twitterbird said:

A friend of mine did a cruise wedding and it was a lot of fun. There were 10 of us there including the bride and groom. She really wanted a DW and they loved cruising. They didn't force anyone to go and have a very limited guest list. There were tradeoffs as with any DW. The bride's mother and stepfather were there but her father and the groom's parents weren't able to attend. We did a 8 day out of Fort Lauderdale and the ceremony was in St. Thomas at a resort there. After the wedding there was a short reception at the resort with cake and an open bar. Later that night the couple paid for dinner at the steakhouse on board the ship as a thank you.

I think when a DW gets to the point where the brides father and neither of the grooms parents would be able to attend it should be scrapped!  In my opinion the parents have a right to show up.  I the bride and groom wanted a destination wedding they should have eloped instead of intentionally excluding important family members (I assume they were important).  My FI parents could not afford the small immediate family island wedding I had wanted.  So instead we are having it in NJ.

short+sassy

bananasplit472001 said:

twitterbird said:

A friend of mine did a cruise wedding and it was a lot of fun. There were 10 of us there including the bride and groom. She really wanted a DW and they loved cruising. They didn't force anyone to go and have a very limited guest list. There were tradeoffs as with any DW. The bride's mother and stepfather were there but her father and the groom's parents weren't able to attend. We did a 8 day out of Fort Lauderdale and the ceremony was in St. Thomas at a resort there. After the wedding there was a short reception at the resort with cake and an open bar. Later that night the couple paid for dinner at the steakhouse on board the ship as a thank you.

I think when a DW gets to the point where the brides father and neither of the grooms parents would be able to attend it should be scrapped!  In my opinion the parents have a right to show up.  I the bride and groom wanted a destination wedding they should have eloped instead of intentionally excluding important family members (I assume they were important).  My FI parents could not afford the small immediate family island wedding I had wanted.  So instead we are having it in NJ.

While this would certainly have been my attitude for my own wedding, if a couple choses to have a DW that a VIP/parent cannot attend, that is their prerogative.  As long as the couple does not put pressure on anyone to attend their DW.

I had a former coworker whose son had a DW in Costa Rica.  When he initially told her this, she told him she may not be able to attend if he did this, due to financial and vacation time reasons.  He said he understood if she ended up not being able to go, but it was what he and her FDIL really wanted.

She did end up working things out so she could go, but I was glad she had not felt pressured at all, other than her own pressure of understandably wanting to be at her son's wedding. 

princessleia22

 

 bananasplit472001 said:

twitterbird said:

A friend of mine did a cruise wedding and it was a lot of fun. There were 10 of us there including the bride and groom. She really wanted a DW and they loved cruising. They didn't force anyone to go and have a very limited guest list. There were tradeoffs as with any DW. The bride's mother and stepfather were there but her father and the groom's parents weren't able to attend. We did a 8 day out of Fort Lauderdale and the ceremony was in St. Thomas at a resort there. After the wedding there was a short reception at the resort with cake and an open bar. Later that night the couple paid for dinner at the steakhouse on board the ship as a thank you.

I think when a DW gets to the point where the brides father and neither of the grooms parents would be able to attend it should be scrapped!  In my opinion the parents have a right to show up.  I the bride and groom wanted a destination wedding they should have eloped instead of intentionally excluding important family members (I assume they were important).  My FI parents could not afford the small immediate family island wedding I had wanted.  So instead we are having it in NJ.

Having our immediate family at our wedding was a priority for us, and we had backup plans in case any one of them weren't able to do the DW. Our family is spread across 7 states in each corner of the US, so most people would have to travel regardless of where the wedding as.  But, we looked into alternate options if needed to ensure they could attend. The cruise wedding was our ideal plan, but we had an alternate DW plan, plus had selected ideal venues in my home state and where we live now... so we had plan A, B, C, and D all lined up if needed to accommodate our VIP's. 

But, that may not be the case for everyone.  Some people may not be as close to their family.  Having parents there may not be top priority for everyone. That's up to them to determine their own priorities.

CMGragain

twitterbird said:

A friend of mine did a cruise wedding and it was a lot of fun. There were 10 of us there including the bride and groom. She really wanted a DW and they loved cruising. They didn't force anyone to go and have a very limited guest list. There were tradeoffs as with any DW. The bride's mother and stepfather were there but her father and the groom's parents weren't able to attend. We did a 8 day out of Fort Lauderdale and the ceremony was in St. Thomas at a resort there. After the wedding there was a short reception at the resort with cake and an open bar. Later that night the couple paid for dinner at the steakhouse on board the ship as a thank you.

This was not a ship wedding.  It was a destination wedding at the resort in St. Thomas.  Guests had the choice to travel to St. Thomas for the wedding, or to go on the cruise ship.  This is quite different from a ceremony which is held on a ship at sea, where the guests have no choice but to book the cruise!

justsie

I'm of the opinion that if there is an entry fee to the wedding you should cover it for the guests. I mean, if I was getting married in a state park that required an entry fee for anyone entering the park I would feel that etiquette would state I need to cover that expense (since guests shouldn't have to open their wallets at a wedding). This to me would be different from the cost it would take them to physically get to the location. In my mind, this would be the same thing. That doesn't mean you have to do it that way OP, it just means you aren't considering the guests in your decisions that are affecting them. 

LtPowers

charcoalandblush said:

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there isn't one. I'm not stupid. I just don't agree with you. 

I truly do not see a difference between, say, a DW in Hawaii (where I live, airfare is $800 minimum per person, but can be more like $1000-1500 if your dates/times aren't flexible - I went last year, so I know) Even with the cheapest accommodations while you're there, plus restaurant meals, airport shuttles, cabs/rental cars, etc., it can be extremely expensive. I truly do not see a difference between a cruise costing $3000 and a DW that, practically speaking, costs $3000 to attend.

I never said that I liked the idea of cruise weddings OR destination weddings. To be honest, I'm not a fan of either. Which is why I'm not having one. What I said was, assuming the VIPs are all on board with the cruise idea before any plans are made, I really don't see it being any more rude than a DW. I think DWs are very exclusionary to begin with, I don't see cruises being any different. 

I've seen these exact words on these boards dozens of times: a wedding invitation is not a summons. If you're not a VIP and you don't have $3000 for the cruise, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to this wedding. Same goes for a $3000 trip to Hawaii for a DW. If you can't afford a flight to Hawaii, in your words, you have "no choice other than to simply not attend the wedding at all." Right now, I can't afford a trip to Hawaii. I can't afford a cruise, either. If a friend called and told me she was engaged and was getting married next year in Hawaii, I would have to decline. That is life.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You are absolutely correct that destination weddings offer many of the same drawbacks as cruise ship weddings. It can be inconsiderate to ask all or most of your guests to travel for thousands of miles to attend your wedding. But one has the right to select a wedding location that is meaningful to one, as long as one understands that it may place it out of reach of some or most guests.

The problem with a cruise wedding is that one is no longer simply asking guests to be at a faraway location at a specific time, but dictating an entire itinerary to guests coming to the wedding. To use your Hawaiian example, imagine if the couple required the guests to arrive on a specific day, stay at a specific hotel, go with them on a bunch of island tours, and leave on a specific day. It is the limiting of guests' options, and the request for several days of a guest's time, that is the major etiquette breach.

amelisha

LtPowers said:

charcoalandblush said:

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, there isn't one. I'm not stupid. I just don't agree with you. 

I truly do not see a difference between, say, a DW in Hawaii (where I live, airfare is $800 minimum per person, but can be more like $1000-1500 if your dates/times aren't flexible - I went last year, so I know) Even with the cheapest accommodations while you're there, plus restaurant meals, airport shuttles, cabs/rental cars, etc., it can be extremely expensive. I truly do not see a difference between a cruise costing $3000 and a DW that, practically speaking, costs $3000 to attend.

I never said that I liked the idea of cruise weddings OR destination weddings. To be honest, I'm not a fan of either. Which is why I'm not having one. What I said was, assuming the VIPs are all on board with the cruise idea before any plans are made, I really don't see it being any more rude than a DW. I think DWs are very exclusionary to begin with, I don't see cruises being any different. 

I've seen these exact words on these boards dozens of times: a wedding invitation is not a summons. If you're not a VIP and you don't have $3000 for the cruise, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to this wedding. Same goes for a $3000 trip to Hawaii for a DW. If you can't afford a flight to Hawaii, in your words, you have "no choice other than to simply not attend the wedding at all." Right now, I can't afford a trip to Hawaii. I can't afford a cruise, either. If a friend called and told me she was engaged and was getting married next year in Hawaii, I would have to decline. That is life.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You are absolutely correct that destination weddings offer many of the same drawbacks as cruise ship weddings. It can be inconsiderate to ask all or most of your guests to travel for thousands of miles to attend your wedding. But one has the right to select a wedding location that is meaningful to one, as long as one understands that it may place it out of reach of some or most guests.

The problem with a cruise wedding is that one is no longer simply asking guests to be at a faraway location at a specific time, but dictating an entire itinerary to guests coming to the wedding. To use your Hawaiian example, imagine if the couple required the guests to arrive on a specific day, stay at a specific hotel, go with them on a bunch of island tours, and leave on a specific day. It is the limiting of guests' options, and the request for several days of a guest's time, that is the major etiquette breach.

This is my opinion too. I am having a DW and struggled with whether or not we should, but ultimately our guests have lots of choice in their travel plans and our parents were really enthusiastic, so we decided to do it. My parents are staying for a week at a midrange property and making a big vacation of it; FI and I are just going for 4 days and staying at a higher-end hotel, some of our friends got amazing three-day package deals at economy hotels for cheeeeaaap, and all of them are taking different flights depending on budget and schedule. They'll all be there at 3PM on Saturday but they were able to make their own choices other than that for flights, accommodation, meals, activities, etc. They aren't stuck with us for the duration at a set price. Yes, travel is costing them money but they have a lot more flexibility than they would if we were cruising.

princessleia22

Also, just to clarify... there is this whole discussion going on about whether cruise wedding is etiquette approved or not.  It seems to be the general consensus that an at-port wedding is okay, but at-sea wedding is not.  But, OP never said she was planning at-sea wedding. IF she is planning at at-port wedding, then most the discussion is moot and it follows the same standards as any other DW, where she is NOT responsible for guest travel expenses to the wedding. The guests can choose to cruise or to just attend wedding without cruise. Any contributions may be appreciated by guests, but is not required. If she is considering at-sea ceremony, then the general consensus seems to say that she should rethink that plan or pay for guests cruise fare.

Most cruise lines don't even offer at-sea ceremonies (it depends on where their ships are registered). The only cruise lines that offer legal at-sea weddings are: Princess, Celebrity, Cunard, Pullmantur, Royal Caribbean and Azamara.  All other cruise lines only allow weddings at port or "symbolic" at-sea ceremonies (must be legally married prior to cruise). Of course a "symbolic" ceremony would be a PPD and is not etiquette approved anyway (unless it is a vow renewal). In the 3+ years that I've been looking into cruise weddings, I've seen very few people actually choose at-sea option. Most choose embarkation, so they can have non-sailing guests attend, or choose to have a wedding at a port, so they can have the beachy destination wedding. That doesn't mean people don't choose at-sea weddings, but they are the least common choice.

CMGragain

princessleia22 said:

Also, just to clarify... there is this whole discussion going on about whether cruise wedding is etiquette approved or not.  It seems to be the general consensus that an at-port wedding is okay, but at-sea wedding is not.  But, OP never said she was planning at-sea wedding. IF she is planning at at-port wedding, then most the discussion is moot and it follows the same standards as any other DW, where she is NOT responsible for guest travel expenses to the wedding. The guests can choose to cruise or to just attend wedding without cruise. Any contributions may be appreciated by guests, but is not required. If she is considering at-sea ceremony, then the general consensus seems to say that she should rethink that plan or pay for guests cruise fare.

Most cruise lines don't even offer at-sea ceremonies (it depends on where their ships are registered). The only cruise lines that offer legal at-sea weddings are: Princess, Celebrity, Cunard, Pullmantur, Royal Caribbean and Azamara.  All other cruise lines only allow weddings at port or "symbolic" at-sea ceremonies (must be legally married prior to cruise). Of course a "symbolic" ceremony would be a PPD and is not etiquette approved anyway (unless it is a vow renewal). In the 3+ years that I've been looking into cruise weddings, I've seen very few people actually choose at-sea option. Most choose embarkation, so they can have non-sailing guests attend, or choose to have a wedding at a port, so they can have the beachy destination wedding. That doesn't mean people don't choose at-sea weddings, but they are the least common choice.

As I posted earlier, cruise lines are only interested in $$$$ !  They don't care about etiquette.  I am assuming that, since the OP has not responded to any of the posts, she must have been considering an at sea ceremony.

Dreamergirl8812

Don't some cruises offer a free wedding if they can get their guests to book ($$$$$) a certain amount of rooms?
Yuck.

My wedding wasn't destination but we wanted our VIPs to stay at the on-site B&B with us for 2 nights. So we paid for it. We paid for the RD (obviously) as well as all the beer/wine and the accommodations.

mlg78

CMGr, you're well aware that many people don't check back in after making a post.  Don't make that assumption.  And since you're a frequent cruiser I'm sure you're also aware that many cruises don't cost $3,000+/person. My husband and I did a lovely 5 nighter that cost us less than $750 for the two of us combined in December.

I'm sorry but I still don't see the difference between requiring someone to fly to a destination wedding vs. cruising.  If you call cruising rude, so are ALL destination weddings that are an expense to a wedding guests.  You can't differentiate.  The only difference is if there's no expense at all for the guest.

LtPowers

mlg78 said:

If you call cruising rude, so are ALL destination weddings that are an expense to a wedding guests.  You can't differentiate.  The only difference is if there's no expense at all for the guest.

Except it's not just the expense that makes on-cruise weddings inconsiderate.

Powers  &8^]

CMGragain

If you are getting married in a venue that charges admission, then you must pay that admission charge for your guests.  You do not pay transportation costs, but you do pay admission costs.  This would include admission to a park, an historic house, a museum, etc.
The cruise is an admission cost, not a transportation cost, for a wedding at sea.