Save-the-Date Etiquette

freebirdKJ1987

My fiancé and I are planning on having a small family wedding, with a larger reception for all of our friends and family that evening. Do we send out save-the-dates to all attendees, or only the ones invited to the wedding? Thank you!

MobKaz

freebirdKJ1987 said:

My fiancé and I are planning on having a small family wedding, with a larger reception for all of our friends and family that evening. Do we send out save-the-dates to all attendees, or only the ones invited to the wedding? Thank you!

There is only one set of wedding guests, and that is those invited to the ENTIRE wedding. Your wedding reception should follow immediately after your wedding ceremony.  That is how you hosts guests properly.  STD's are not necessary for an after party.

Can I ask why you are not inviting everyone to the entire wedding event? 

I will NEVER understand this new trend.

PamBeesly524

GlamQueenBride

This is wrong on so many levels. You invite everyone to everything. If you want a small wedding, then have a small wedding and invite all those people who attended the wedding to a party immediately afterwards. NO ONE ELSE SHOULD BE INVITED TO THIS PARTY (it's called a reception).

If you want to have a larger party with the rest of your friends, that is done at some later date and it is NOT a reception, just a party. You can invite whoever you want to this.

But the bottom line is, you don't have a wedding ceremony with one guest list and a reception immediately after with another guest list. It's wrong.

[Deleted User]

I hate when people do this. Personally I've seen it cause hurt feelings.

delujm0

i'll never understand this, but if the ceremony is very small and the reception much larger, it's not technically against etiquette AS LONG AS everyone is properly hosted.  Which means that everyone at the reception gets the same stuff (meaning that you can't invite only the ceremony people to dinner, and then add your friends just for dancing.  It's all or nothing at the after-ceremony event - everyone gets cocktails, dinner, dancing, etc).

 

The reception in this case would have to be much larger than the ceremony for this to not be rude.  Like "ceremony has 20 guests and reception has 200."  If you have 50 at your ceremony and then 100 at the reception, i can see where the 50 that were only invited to the reception would feel like second rate guests.  The ceremony is the less expensive event, so i'll never get why people don't just invite all of their guests to everything.  If your ceremony is an intimate event for you, and you don't want to share it with 200 people, i don't understand why you'd want to host those 200 people afterwards.  Just have a small wedding and move on.

poodledoodleooo

delujm0 said:

i'll never understand this, but if the ceremony is very small and the reception much larger, it's not technically against etiquette AS LONG AS everyone is properly hosted.  Which means that everyone at the reception gets the same stuff (meaning that you can't invite only the ceremony people to dinner, and then add your friends just for dancing.  It's all or nothing at the after-ceremony event - everyone gets cocktails, dinner, dancing, etc).

....

I have to admit, I never understand when people use this term (though it's possible I've used it myself). Are there technicalities to etiquette? I mean if something is rude and hurtful, wouldn't that be an etiquette no-no, regardless of "technicalities?" And how are these technicalities decided?! I still find it kind a a odd to be invited to only a portion of the event, since the wedding ceremony is, indeed, a part of the whole event, even if only Mom and Dad get to attend the ceremony. I know people have differing opinions on this though, and what I think may not necessarily be what your guests think.

Anyway, I would just send the STD to those invited to the ceremony AND reception. It might be confusing/hurtful for some to get an STD, which precludes a formal invite, and then later an invite to the "reception only."

freebirdKJ1987

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

PamBeesly524

freebirdKJ1987 said:

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

Unfortunately, you can't control how folks post on the internet. You won't find this to be a popular plan here on TK, because most of us view what you just described above as putting your "vision" before your guests. A lot of people here would never choose a venue that would not allow them to have everyone there that they wanted, which is why we always recommend you decide on your budget first, then your guest list, THEN everything else. Your need for pictures/vision/beautiful decor should not come before your need to have certain people celebrate with you.
If i were a guest who was only invited to the reception, I would be disappointed and a little hurt that the bride and groom didn't invite me to their ceremony because "there wasn't enough room".

julieanne912

Funny, most of us here expect brides to be "tactful and polite" and invite all their guests to BOTH parts of their wedding day.  

Jen4948

PoodleDoodleOoo said:

delujm0 said:

i'll never understand this, but if the ceremony is very small and the reception much larger, it's not technically against etiquette AS LONG AS everyone is properly hosted.  Which means that everyone at the reception gets the same stuff (meaning that you can't invite only the ceremony people to dinner, and then add your friends just for dancing.  It's all or nothing at the after-ceremony event - everyone gets cocktails, dinner, dancing, etc).

....

I have to admit, I never understand when people use this term (though it's possible I've used it myself). Are there technicalities to etiquette? I mean if something is rude and hurtful, wouldn't that be an etiquette no-no, regardless of "technicalities?" And how are these technicalities decided?! I still find it kind a a odd to be invited to only a portion of the event, since the wedding ceremony is, indeed, a part of the whole event, even if only Mom and Dad get to attend the ceremony. I know people have differing opinions on this though, and what I think may not necessarily be what your guests think.

Anyway, I would just send the STD to those invited to the ceremony AND reception. It might be confusing/hurtful for some to get an STD, which precludes a formal invite, and then later an invite to the "reception only."

Yes, there are technicalities, and they get decided the same way other rules of etiquette do-by general usage.

I agree with you that not inviting everyone to the whole event doesn't usually make sense and can be hurtful, and for that reason I wouldn't do it. 

poodledoodleooo

@freebirdKJ1987
I don't think anyone was rude. Your set-up is not a popular one, and people shared that opinion, but no one was rude about it. Others have pointed out how this set-up is hurtful to some guests. I have been invited to a wedding like this. The ceremony was in a garden that held about 90 people, but the couple wanted to invite about 200 guests total. I didn't understand why they chose to have their wedding at that venue if it didn't fit all their guests. I'm sure it was beautiful, but if it doesn't hold all 200 people, it doesn't really fit the description of a "perfect venue" does it? It really feels like the couple is deciding that a pretty garden wedding is more important than the nearest and dearest the couple invites, and yeah, that feels pretty awful.

aurianna

OP,
I really would consider a different venue so you can treat all your guests equally.
If that just isn't going to happen, to keep hurt feelings to a minimum, I would only invite wedding party, their significant others, immediate family and their SO's to the actual ceremony.
If it's just 10 guests at the ceremony and 100 guests at the reception, it's a slightly easier pill to swallow than 35 guests at the ceremony and 100 at the reception.

The reception needs to be right after to ceremony, too. No gaps.

If you send STDs don't make them for a wedding. Make them for a "celebration of marriage," since the reception guests aren't actually invited to the wedding and just the party celebrating it.

MyNameIsNot

freebirdKJ1987 said:

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

Who was rude?

If you care more about a garden than your friends and family, people are going to question you. If you think the responses here were bad (they were actually rather polite) you are going to be in for quite the shock when your friends and family find out that you care less about them than a back drop. 

STDs only go to those invited to the wedding. 

[Deleted User]

freebirdKJ1987 said:

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

Who was rude? Like I said I saw this happen first hand so I am telling you what happened in a situation you are planning on doing.  People gossiped behind the couples back, gave the parents grief about it, refused to come, etc. etc. It wasn't received well at all. You just need to understand out will have at least one person with hurt feelings over it.    But if you are ok with that then so be it. I think people here just wanted you to realize it doesn't go without consequences.  The couple I know that did this DID send save the dates and that might have added to the hurt feelings... It gave everyone even longer to think about it and fume about it.  Basically they got a invite to save the date to give them a gift is how it appeared.

delujm0

Jen4948 said:

PoodleDoodleOoo said:

delujm0 said:

i'll never understand this, but if the ceremony is very small and the reception much larger, it's not technically against etiquette AS LONG AS everyone is properly hosted.  Which means that everyone at the reception gets the same stuff (meaning that you can't invite only the ceremony people to dinner, and then add your friends just for dancing.  It's all or nothing at the after-ceremony event - everyone gets cocktails, dinner, dancing, etc).

....

I have to admit, I never understand when people use this term (though it's possible I've used it myself). Are there technicalities to etiquette? I mean if something is rude and hurtful, wouldn't that be an etiquette no-no, regardless of "technicalities?" And how are these technicalities decided?! I still find it kind a a odd to be invited to only a portion of the event, since the wedding ceremony is, indeed, a part of the whole event, even if only Mom and Dad get to attend the ceremony. I know people have differing opinions on this though, and what I think may not necessarily be what your guests think.

Anyway, I would just send the STD to those invited to the ceremony AND reception. It might be confusing/hurtful for some to get an STD, which precludes a formal invite, and then later an invite to the "reception only."

Yes, there are technicalities, and they get decided the same way other rules of etiquette do-by general usage.

I agree with you that not inviting everyone to the whole event doesn't usually make sense and can be hurtful, and for that reason I wouldn't do it. 

Yup.  Having an intimate ceremony followed by a larger reception is not necessarily rude.  It is etiquette approved to have a VERY SMALL (read: only parents, siblings, grandparents, wedding party, and their SOs) ceremony followed by a larger reception.  I don't get it, and would never do it myself, but it's not actually against etiquette.  Just like it's not against etiquette to not give truly single people a +1.  I personally gave every single person a +1 because i would want to be able to bring a date to a wedding if i was a single guest.  but if i had decided to not do that, it wouldn't technically be against etiquette, even though some people may feel that it was rude to not allow them a date.

 

That being said: normally the reasoning for doing things this way is that the B&G truly want a very intimate ceremony for whatever reason.  It's not because they want their ceremony pictures to be in a specific location that will not allow for their larger guest list.  I agree with PP that if i was only invited to the reception for this event and found out it was basically because having more guests at the ceremony would have ruined the B&G's ceremony "vision", i would not be pleased.

 

I personally would not do this, OP.  However, if you are hard set on it, i suggest inviting ONLY immediate family and SOs to the ceremony.  It's a lot less likely to hurt feelings that way (though it still definitely could).  If you were planning to invite like 50 people to the ceremony and add another 100-150 to the reception...i'd be pretty insulted to be one of the 100-150.  50 people isn't exactly an intimate wedding ceremony.

 

If youi are sending dave the dates to the reception-only folks, i'd word them to avoid using the word "wedding" or "reception" because technically the point of a reception is to host the people who attended your ceremony.  Maybe call it a "celebration of marriage" instead.  Though i'm sure people will be confused when they eventually receive an invitation only to a reception regardless.

artbyallie

freebirdKJ1987 said:

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

These two statements leave you with two options that are not rude. 1) Have a small wedding with only the people who will be able to be seated in the garden (Note: if you cannot have chairs, you cannot invite guests to this location at all because everyone MUST HAVE A SEAT, non-negotiable). 2) Nix the garden because it will not hold the people you wish to invite.

SP29

I'm with PPs on this....

You choose a venue based on your guest list. If all these guests are so important to you to share your "big day", then they should be important enough to be invited to your ceremony (which IS the wedding) at a venue that will fit them all. It really does make it look like you have prioritized your venue over your guests. 

At the same time, if you truly want a smaller wedding, that is A-OK! You do not need to invite every person you've ever said, "Hi!" to because you feel you should. People also understand that weddings are expensive and not everyone can be invited. I assure you no one is going to end a friendship because they weren't invited to your wedding. 

If you continue with your current plans (though we all caution you not), you would only send STDs to those invited to your wedding. STDs are also not required and are best used for VIPs only. Anyone who is sent a STD must be sent an invitation to the wedding. 

levioosa

I'm sorry, but you made a choice to value a pretty venue over celebrating your union with these other people.  That was your choice.  Don't send out STDs for a party where people won't even get to witness your union.  That's the whole point of the day.  And for the record, no one was rude here, except for your idea.  

CMGragain

OP, please define "small family wedding".  If it is more than immediate family only (parents, siblings/spouses) then it is not a proper thing to do at all.  If aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents will be invited to your ceremony, then your plans are very, very rude, indeed.

STDs are not for parties.  They are for weddings.  Wedding = ceremony and reception.  People are more important than venues.

JoanE2012

freebirdKJ1987 said:

Thank you for opinions, although I must say I'm disappointed in the volume of rude replies. Guess I just expected people to be more tactful and polite. We are planning on using a beautiful garden that only holds a small number of people, hence a small wedding. However, we still want to involve other people in our big day. I have known other people who have used historic venues and do something similar, which is why I asked.

No one was rude to you.  Not agreeing or liking your idea doesn't make someone rude.

Either have the small wedding and only invite people to the reception who are invited to the ceremony.  Or, have a larger wedding somewhere else where everyone can attend both the ceremony and reception.  What's more important - your vision or your guests?  Quite frankly, I'd be ticked off if I found I was only invited to the reception because your vision of a garden wedding was more important.

MesmrEwe

Skip the save the date cards - they're a wasted expense and often lead to more issues down the road.  Just send out the Invitations at the proper time.

Next, no one here was rude to you OP.  Hosting a wedding where you don't invite your guests to the ceremony is rude though.  Your party is a "Celebration of Marriage" not a wedding reception.  A wedding reception signifies your guests are good enough to be invited to the ceremony regardless of when/where it's held AND the reception.  If the "small intimate family wedding" is You/FI, parents, siblings/SO, WP/SO, and grandparents ONLY you have a little flex, however, it's still rude and guests to your celebration party will think as much even if they won't say it direct to your face..  A cousin of DH's who was in all of our weddings did this - and - the more outspoken members of the family needless to say gave her double barrels about how rude it was even though she chose that route anyway..

AW3380

My cousin decided to invite the entire family to her ceremony, but only certain people to her reception.  It caused a lot of hurt feelings and was quite rude.  I almost skipped the whole event altogether. 

If you want to host a larger amount of people for your reception then the proper thing to do would be to invite them to the ceremony as well.  I know the idea of an "intimate ceremony" is hip right now but think about it, are you really going to be focusing on anyone other than your fiance and the officiant during the ceremony for the most part?