Family Drama!

PrettyGirlLost

aurianna said:

I think of the hosting extras for a DW kind of like I think of wedding gifts.

There should be no requirement/expectation to give a wedding gift... but I know unless I were in dire straits, I would always give one, cuz it just feels tacky not to give one, even if it's not really.

Same vein...
It is not required to pay for extra events for guests at a DW. No hosts should feel obligated.... but come on. Do it. People have to spend a ton of money and time and possibly vacation to come to your wedding; way more than they would if you had an at-home wedding. Give them a little something extra.

At the same time, other guests, like FOB/MOB or FOG/MOG or a grandparent, can take it upon themselves to arrange a pre wedding meet and greet, or open house, or dinner, or whatever.  It might be nice for the Bride and Groom to host and pay for it, but if they didn't think of it, or it's not in their budget, and everyone is going to get their panties in a twist over not having a pre-reception, then someone else can step up and host something.

I understand the points you are all making, but I don't really agree.  I mean, what's the difference between having a DW in Mexico and having wedding in an area that is essentially OOT and a DW for the vast majority of your guest list?  I've been to several weddings in the past 2 years that were OOT for 90% or more of the guest list, and none of those weddings had a pre reception organized or hosted by the bride and groom. . . should they have?

It wasn't that difficult to make arrangements with our family and friends to all meet up and go out to dinner on our own the night before those weddings.

MrsMack10612

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

PrettyGirlLost

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

If 85%-95% of the guest list is traveling, and mostly via flights due to distance, I'd say that's a DW as well, regardless of whether or not the Bride and Groom ever have to leave their city.

AddieCake

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

lyndausvi

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

If 85%-95% of the guest list is traveling, and mostly via flights due to distance, I'd say that's a DW as well, regardless of whether or not the Bride and Groom ever have to leave their city.

I agree with this. 

We could have had our wedding in the islands where we lived.  However, 85% of our guests would have had to travel.  It really would not have been a DW since we lived there, but kind-of was for our guests.

We choose a destination in NJ.  Neither of us or our families were from there (well, my dad grew up about an hour away, but none of his relatives are living anymore).  Everyone still traveled, but not has far (most drove 3-5 hours).  

We hosted 40-50 people for dinner at the rental on Thursday night.  There was a golf outing on Friday (guests paid their own way).   Every guest was invited to the welcome open house Friday night.  About 100-110 of the 147 came.

PrettyGirlLost

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

lyndausvi

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I think so.    But I tend to see hosting differently than others.

Maggie0829

lyndausvi said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I think so.    But I tend to see hosting differently than others.

I also agree.

We only had about 10 people that came in from OOT for our wedding.  Eight of those people were friends of my parents so my parents planned a day of golf and a nice dinner for them.  I was busy with last minute wedding stuff but they all gathered at my house prior to dinner so I had a chance to say hi and hang out with them for a bit.

The other 2 were Shawn's GM and they came in the day before the wedding so they were invited to the RD and then Shawn hung out with them the rest of the night.

For my sisters wedding her family was all OOT so they were all invited to the RD so that she could spend more time with them.

I certainly don't think that you need to go wild and crazy when it comes to hosting extra things for OOT people.  I just think you need to make a bit more effort to see them for more then the 5-10 minutes at the reception.  Because even if your wedding is local to many people, you most likely see those people a lot more (or could see those people a lot more) then those who have to come in from OOT.

MyNameIsNot

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

Maggie0829

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

But they aren't making people travel in either situation.  The guest is making that decision.  But the couple about to be married should take into account those guests who made the extra long (and possibly expensive) trip to their wedding location and should take a moment to maybe spend a bit of extra time with those guests who they most likely do not see as often as those that live locally.  It could be something as simple as a happy hour at a bar or a dinner at their favorite pizza joint.

PrettyGirlLost

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

Again, I went to 4 weddings in the past 2 years in which the majority of the guest list had to fly to the couple's city and spend 1-2 nights in a hotel. . . I'm talking 85%-95% of the total guest list.  So how is that any different than your bolded statement? 

Whether a couple lives in BFE and marries in BFE, or whether they live in BFE and choose to marry in Cancun, that couple isn't forcing anyone to come to their wedding.  Guests can always decline right?  And if the majority of the guests don't live in BFE and choose to travel to attend the wedding, that's the same thing as the guests living outside of Cancun and choosing to travel to attend that wedding.

So I feel like people on this board should be consistent with the hosting advice; If a couple is having a DW and everyone feels they are obligated to host guests to some sort of pre reception, then I think the same advice should be applied to couples where the vast majority of their guest list is OOT.

And again, I don't personally think it's neccessary to have a pre reception event in either situation.  Would it be a nice gesture?  Probably.

MyNameIsNot

Maggie0829 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

But they aren't making people travel in either situation.  The guest is making that decision.  But the couple about to be married should take into account those guests who made the extra long (and possibly expensive) trip to their wedding location and should take a moment to maybe spend a bit of extra time with those guests who they most likely do not see as often as those that live locally.  It could be something as simple as a happy hour at a bar or a dinner at their favorite pizza joint.

No, no one is "making" anyone travel. But when the couple affirmatively decides that attending their wedding will involve travel, that's where I think the extra obligation comes in. I don't think it's right to hold a couple to a higher standard of hosting over something that isn't their decision.

There are plenty of couples who live far away from family and friends who do not have the means to host an extra event (even a simple pizza thing). I don't think it's ok to say that if you can't afford to do this extra event, than you just shouldn't invite anyone from very far away. I do think it's fine to tell people that you shouldn't choose a destination wedding if you aren't willing to go the extra mile. 

PrettyGirlLost

MyNameIsNot said:

Maggie0829 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

But they aren't making people travel in either situation.  The guest is making that decision.  But the couple about to be married should take into account those guests who made the extra long (and possibly expensive) trip to their wedding location and should take a moment to maybe spend a bit of extra time with those guests who they most likely do not see as often as those that live locally.  It could be something as simple as a happy hour at a bar or a dinner at their favorite pizza joint.


No, no one is "making" anyone travel. But when the couple affirmatively decides that attending their wedding will involve travel, that's where I think the extra obligation comes in. I don't think it's right to hold a couple to a higher standard of hosting over something that isn't their decision.

There are plenty of couples who live far away from family and friends who do not have the means to host an extra event (even a simple pizza thing). I don't think it's ok to say that if you can't afford to do this extra event, than you just shouldn't invite anyone from very far away. I do think it's fine to tell people that you shouldn't choose a destination wedding if you aren't willing to go the extra mile. 

So we are splitting hairs over whether or not 100/100 ppl have to travel vs. 198/100 or 190/100 or 185/100?

Plus, no one is suggesting anyone *has* to host a pre reception or they can't have a DW or they can't have a wedding bc they live in BFE.

banana468

IMO, we're talking about when people make a choice to turn their wedding into an event that requires travel for most/all.   When you do that, you don't HAVE to host extra events but it's nice to do so when your guests are going to have to incur extra expenses.   

In some instances it's NBD but I can see why the father in this situation is wanting to host a larger dinner.

huskypuppy14

I agree with everyone else. The thing I have a problem with in the OP is the fact that the father is only hosting his daughter's side, and not his FSIL family too. I find that rude. It seems like OP and her FI would be more likely to attend, if everyone is invited. Obviously, he can host who he wants, but he shouldn't be upset if OP and her FI decide to spend time with the FI family who they don't see as often.

My parents hosted a day after BBQ (for my sister and will do the same next week for my other sister) that anyone who attended the wedding was invited to. My in laws did something similar for our wedding, but my wedding was the day before father's day, so not too many people attended. 

MyNameIsNot

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

But they aren't making people travel in either situation.  The guest is making that decision.  But the couple about to be married should take into account those guests who made the extra long (and possibly expensive) trip to their wedding location and should take a moment to maybe spend a bit of extra time with those guests who they most likely do not see as often as those that live locally.  It could be something as simple as a happy hour at a bar or a dinner at their favorite pizza joint.

No, no one is "making" anyone travel. But when the couple affirmatively decides that attending their wedding will involve travel, that's where I think the extra obligation comes in. I don't think it's right to hold a couple to a higher standard of hosting over something that isn't their decision.

There are plenty of couples who live far away from family and friends who do not have the means to host an extra event (even a simple pizza thing). I don't think it's ok to say that if you can't afford to do this extra event, than you just shouldn't invite anyone from very far away. I do think it's fine to tell people that you shouldn't choose a destination wedding if you aren't willing to go the extra mile. 

So we are splitting hairs over whether or not 100/100 ppl have to travel vs. 198/100 or 190/100 or 185/100? Plus, no one is suggesting anyone *has* to host a pre reception or they can't have a DW or they can't have a wedding bc they live in BFE.

No, we aren't splitting hairs at all.

But there's a huge difference between a situation where a couple chooses to have a DW and where a couple just happens to live away from family. 

SP29

OP- I think it's perfectly fine for your dad to host this dinner, just as it's perfectly fine for you to decline to attend. I do get how it puts you in an awkward place, as noted, this dinner is for your side of the family, not FIs or your friends. I agree that the best action may be to make an appearance and then go do your own thing.

As for the rest- this is getting confusing!

In either the US or CAN, one can spend more time traveling within one's own country than the time it would take to get to Mexico (or other exotic location). Travel is very subjective.

I have been to a couple weddings where I have had to travel, and stay in a hotel. I will agree that I have to travel, I expect more than cake and punch, even though by etiquette standards, that is enough. But, I would never expect any extra events from the bride and groom. Receiving an invitation I know what I'm being invited to- a ceremony and reception. I would never expect any other parties, even if I was asked to travel to Mexico. That would be my decision- either yes, I'm turning your wedding into a vacation (which if I wanted to do, would be just fine by me if I only saw the couple at the wedding), or, I'm going to say "sorry, I'm not taking a week vacation just to see you get married".

DH and I moved away from our hometown (a 3.5 hour plane flight away from home). We had our wedding in our hometown. In which case, required a flight for us and most of our friends. Thus the people who came from OOT were the people we saw most, and the local guests were ones we rarely saw. Should we have invited them all to the RD or had a brunch? I don't think so. However, the number of OOT guests did dictate the type of reception we had. I did consider a lunch or cocktail reception, but then thought as an OOT guest, I would most appreciate a fuller event with dinner.

I had friends who lived in Edmonton get married in Calgary (where the bride was from). Most of the bride's family didn't live in Calgary, none of the groom's family did, and most of their friends didn't either. It involved a 3 hour drive and hotel stay. DW?

Another pair of friends DH met in undergrad in Alberta had their wedding on Vancouver Island, where they were both from (though no longer lived there). This made it local for their family, but most of their friends traveled from AB. I probably interacted with them for that general 5mins, but still had a great time and a great vacation exploring the area with DH.

While I think the B&G should consider the type of even they are hosting for their reception regarding guests and travel, I still don't think even if they planned a true DW in some exotic place that they need to host extra events to make it "worth it" to their guests- if it's not worth it to me as a guest to go, then I won't.

PrettyGirlLost

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Maggie0829 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

MrsMack10612 said:

I see the point about traveling, regardless of whether it's someplace "exotic" or within the States.  I guess for me a DW means everyone is traveling, including the couple.

AddieCake said:

For me, DW means everyone, including the couple, is traveling.

ETA:  I'm just quoting the most recent responses, but this question is directed to everyone participating in this thread.

So if many people here are saying that an extra effort should be made to host guests at a DW, and if 80 or 90 people out of a 100 person wedding have to fly to the wedding or drive 4+ hours to it, and have to book hotels, but the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere, should this couple be held to your same standard of extra hosting as a couple having a "DW"?

I'd say yes.

I would say no. In the case of the DW where the couple selects the location and everyone has to travel, they are choosing to have their wedding in a place that will require everyone to travel and will require everyone to spend money. The choice to have a DW comes with certain realities, including (IMHO) a heightened obligation to up the hosting.

In the case where the couple just happens to live far away from their guests, the couple isn't making that choice. I'd still be annoyed to travel to Topeka for cake and punch, but because the couple didn't choose to make everyone travel, I don't think the "obligation" is quite the same. 

But they aren't making people travel in either situation.  The guest is making that decision.  But the couple about to be married should take into account those guests who made the extra long (and possibly expensive) trip to their wedding location and should take a moment to maybe spend a bit of extra time with those guests who they most likely do not see as often as those that live locally.  It could be something as simple as a happy hour at a bar or a dinner at their favorite pizza joint.

No, no one is "making" anyone travel. But when the couple affirmatively decides that attending their wedding will involve travel, that's where I think the extra obligation comes in. I don't think it's right to hold a couple to a higher standard of hosting over something that isn't their decision.

There are plenty of couples who live far away from family and friends who do not have the means to host an extra event (even a simple pizza thing). I don't think it's ok to say that if you can't afford to do this extra event, than you just shouldn't invite anyone from very far away. I do think it's fine to tell people that you shouldn't choose a destination wedding if you aren't willing to go the extra mile. 

So we are splitting hairs over whether or not 100/100 ppl have to travel vs. 198/100 or 190/100 or 185/100? Plus, no one is suggesting anyone *has* to host a pre reception or they can't have a DW or they can't have a wedding bc they live in BFE.

No, we aren't splitting hairs at all.

But there's a huge difference between a situation where a couple chooses to have a DW and where a couple just happens to live away from family. 

No, there *isn't* a huge difference when the majority of the guestlist is OOT.  It's pretty much the same thing. . . except the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere else.  But everyone else has to.

MyNameIsNot

PrettyGirlLost said:

No, there *isn't* a huge difference when the majority of the guestlist is OOT.  It's pretty much the same thing. . . except the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere else.  But everyone else has to.

I'm deleting all these boxes and probably fucked them up.

The difference is that the couple decides to impose travel on everyone. There is a huge difference. 

Maggie0829

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

No, there *isn't* a huge difference when the majority of the guestlist is OOT.  It's pretty much the same thing. . . except the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere else.  But everyone else has to.

I'm deleting all these boxes and probably fucked them up.

The difference is that the couple decides to impose travel on everyone. There is a huge difference. 

Yeah I still don't see the difference.  I don't give a crap if the couple has to travel or not.  What I care about is if the couple picked a location, whether it be where they live or some exotic island, that requires a large majority of their guests to travel.  So if the couple lives in Maui and their entire guest list lives in Pennsylvania and Maryland and they decide to get married in Maui then yeah, I think the couple should up their hosting.  It doesn't matter if they live in Maui, they are still expecting people to travel a shit ton to come to their wedding.

MrsMack10612

I had 50 OOT guests and I counted that as folks that were not in the New England area, an hour or less drive away and could not have made it a day trip.  

Most of them declined.  Those that did not were mostly family and were invited to the RD, those that weren't were friends that were originally from here and had moved away and spent their free time with their own families catching up or were WP members and included in any pre-wedding activities anyway.

As a guest, I wouldn't expect to travel to someone's home city for their wedding and think they should be entertaining me the whole time.  To me that's part and parcel of the wedding guest gig.  Even if it was someplace that the couple had to travel to (my definition of a DW) and stateside, I'm not sure I would think that.  However, if they are going to what I consider a truly DW (HI (unless they live there, then it's my "home city" rule), Jamaica, Mexico), maybe a little more should be given on the part of the hosts.  

lyndausvi

Maggie0829 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

No, there *isn't* a huge difference when the majority of the guestlist is OOT.  It's pretty much the same thing. . . except the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere else.  But everyone else has to.

I'm deleting all these boxes and probably fucked them up.

The difference is that the couple decides to impose travel on everyone. There is a huge difference. 

Yeah I still don't see the difference.  I don't give a crap if the couple has to travel or not.  What I care about is if the couple picked a location, whether it be where they live or some exotic island, that requires a large majority of their guests to travel.  So if the couple lives in Maui and their entire guest list lives in Pennsylvania and Maryland and they decide to get married in Maui then yeah, I think the couple should up their hosting.  It doesn't matter if they live in Maui, they are still expecting people to travel a shit ton to come to their wedding.

The reason we picked a stateside wedding over an island wedding was for our guests benefit.  Not ours.  The islands were are home.  We even owned a condo there.   We knew them coming to us would be very expensive for them.  Most would not be able to attend.   Their presence meant more to us then the location.  

They still had to travel some (3-5 hours for most, plane rides for about a quarter of them).  But it was still overall less expensive than trying to go to the islands.

No regrets. 

[Deleted User]

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

lyndausvi

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

DH's side of the family lives in Long Island.  Mine in DE/PA area.   Wedding was in  Cape May.

Now we do not see our families often, so in our case we had an open house at the beach rental.   

In your case, I'm sure I would do something similar.   Or at the very least arrange a meet up at a bar or something even if it's not hosted.   

I've been to many OOT weddings.  Some in the WP, others not.    The couple has always made themselves available the night before for their OOT guests.  Most had some sort of hosted event.   Some were more formal (i.e. a sit down dinner).   Most were something casual like an open house.    A few simply said let's meet at "x" location, but it was not hosted.

It's not required, but I think it's something a couple with a lot of OOT guests should strive to do.  At the wedding you get maybe 5 minutes with the couple, if that.   It's nice to get that extra time.

PrettyGirlLost

MyNameIsNot said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

No, there *isn't* a huge difference when the majority of the guestlist is OOT.  It's pretty much the same thing. . . except the couple doesn't have to travel anywhere else.  But everyone else has to.

I'm deleting all these boxes and probably fucked them up.

The difference is that the couple decides to impose travel on everyone. There is a huge difference. 

Good call on the boxes, lol!

If the couple lives in BFE, and the majority of their guest list do not live in BFE (80%-95%)  and have to travel to BFE for the wedding, the couple is still "imposing" travel on everyone.

If we are going to harp on couples to host a pre reception when they have a DW, then we should be harping on couples who have a majority of OOT guests to do the same, because the same principle applies. 

Take the couple out of it.  Just consider the guests- do most or all of them have to fly to Mexico?  If yes, then we strongly suggest a pre- reception.  Do most or all guests have to travel to Topeka?  If yes, then we strongly suggest a pre reception.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here!  I don't personally think a couple should feel obligated to  host these additional events.  However, I agree with everyone that it would be a nice gesture if financially and logistically someone can pull it off.  I don't consider it an etiquette blunder if you don't, though.

A lot of my guestlist was OOT, so in retrospect we probably *should* have had a pre reception.  But we didn't because we didn't have the budget to pay for a wedding AND an additional reception prior to the wedding, which would have entailed having to rent out a space to host it plus providing food and drinks, and there was just no time.  The majority of the OOTers arrived Friday, and we were already busy with the rehearsal and RD.  DH's family offered to host the RD, but did not offer to host my entire guestlist.

MrsMack10612 said:

As a guest, I wouldn't expect to travel to someone's home city for their wedding and think they should be entertaining me the whole time.  To me that's part and parcel of the wedding guest gig.  Even if it was someplace that the couple had to travel to (my definition of a DW) and stateside, I'm not sure I would think that.

This.

PrettyGirlLost

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

Isn't New Jersey, like, directly south of New York?  I mean, I know NYCers think neighborhoods in NYC outside of their own are foreign countries, but I wouldn't worry about having a pre wedding event just for guests traveling in from NYC! ><

ChiccoBeanz

So I'm not going to get into the semantics much, but maybe think of it like this:

1. Where is this DW? Was it costly for all involved to attend?

2. You clearly would rather stay with the guests you don't really get to see often, so based on costs and all for everyone to attend, if YOU were a guest, would you be understanding/feel okay with the Bride and Groom stopping by your family dinner for a few and then heading back to the RD?

3. Go with how YOU  and your FH would feel, if the shoe was on the other foot. 

Personally, I would stop by and say hello and thank everyone for coming. But budget does come into play here, and to add an extra event may be out of the question for you, but who knows but you. 

I think that your side of the family that is in an uproar about this RD is being rude. You decided it was wedding party only, oh well. When they get married/got married then they do it/did it their way. This is YOUR wedding and people shouldn't make you feel bad about YOUR decisions. 

Anyhoo, regardless of what ANY of us say, you have to make the decision and live with the consequences, not us. Maybe if Dad is willing to host the dinner for the family, maybe, if you choose the Welcome event, he can host the entire event and then everyone is happy and you can still spend time with everyone you haven't seen. If it's one big room, no one can really complain now can they? 

[Deleted User]

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

Isn't New Jersey, like, directly south of New York?  I mean, I know NYCers think neighborhoods in NYC outside of their own are foreign countries, but I wouldn't worry about having a pre wedding event just for guests traveling in from NYC! ><

Hahah yes it is! That is why I was like "well...I mean they ARE traveling and staying in hotels, but it's not like, hours and hours away. About 2 max.

PrettyGirlLost

abcdevonn said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

Isn't New Jersey, like, directly south of New York?  I mean, I know NYCers think neighborhoods in NYC outside of their own are foreign countries, but I wouldn't worry about having a pre wedding event just for guests traveling in from NYC! ><

Hahah yes it is! That is why I was like "well...I mean they ARE traveling and staying in hotels, but it's not like, hours and hours away. About 2 max.

It would be ridiculous, to me, to fell like I was expected to host a pre wedding function for these guests.  But I also don't ever *expect* to see any couple, local or OOT or DW, prior to the actual ceremony and reception.  I assume they are busy at that point.

banana468

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

Isn't New Jersey, like, directly south of New York?  I mean, I know NYCers think neighborhoods in NYC outside of their own are foreign countries, but I wouldn't worry about having a pre wedding event just for guests traveling in from NYC! ><

Hahah yes it is! That is why I was like "well...I mean they ARE traveling and staying in hotels, but it's not like, hours and hours away. About 2 max.

It would be ridiculous, to me, to fell like I was expected to host a pre wedding function for these guests.  But I also don't ever *expect* to see any couple, local or OOT or DW, prior to the actual ceremony and reception.  I assume they are busy at that point.

I feel like if they're going to be at an RD with some of their guests then if they're having a huge OOT guest list, eat with all of them.