Tiered weddings

CraftyG

This is probably an obvious question so sorry i'm just curious! All weddings that i've attended or friends have planned, there's always been day guest then extra evening guests so it never really crossed my mind. Now that i'm actually planning i completely get now that this can come across really rude as you're basically ranking your guests.

1) Although i've seen some opinions that it's allowed if it's a family only ceremony and then more guests come to celebrate for drinks and dancing later on, is this universally accepted? If so then where do you draw the line for a 'small intimate wedding' so that it doesn't come across as rude?

2) Also if you personally were only invited as an evening guest to a wedding, would you generally go and celebrate or turn the invitation down due to only being invited to a specific part? 

-Just for clarification i personally am planning a small wedding with all guests invited to the entire day, i'm just curious as to the etiquette behind it and personal views as this is a controversial topic, thanks! 

thisismynickname2

CraftyG said:

This is probably an obvious question so sorry i'm just curious! All weddings that i've attended or friends have planned, there's always been day guest then extra evening guests so it never really crossed my mind. Now that i'm actually planning i completely get now that this can come across really rude as you're basically ranking your guests.

1) Although i've seen some opinions that it's allowed if it's a family only ceremony and then more guests come to celebrate for drinks and dancing later on, is this universally accepted? If so then where do you draw the line for a 'small intimate wedding' so that it doesn't come across as rude? It needs to be very very small and truly family only. Like, if you have a couple siblings, nieces and nephews, maybe grandparent(s) in addition to your parents. Then it's fairly acceptable, but having 50 people for the ceremony and an additional 50 added on to the reception wouldn't be right. 

2) Also if you personally were only invited as an evening guest to a wedding, would you generally go and celebrate or turn the invitation down due to only being invited to a specific part? Me? I'd go. The only time I've attended a tiered event, I didn't know about it until we got there. We thought we were attending a celebration party well after the wedding; turns out it was right after the dinner reception on the wedding day. These people were not close friends; they were in our broader social circle.
The fact that we know full well these are "extended friends" is what made the awkward surprise more palatable. If any people I thought were my close friends did that to me, I'd have felt very slighted. But for this, we never ever expected to get any kind of wedding invite so it was like, Ok sure let's go party with them, why not?  Oh, and nothing was hosted for us, by the way. 

-Just for clarification i personally am planning a small wedding with all guests invited to the entire day, i'm just curious as to the etiquette behind it and personal views as this is a controversial topic, thanks! 

crowsgirl15

CraftyG said:

This is probably an obvious question so sorry i'm just curious! All weddings that i've attended or friends have planned, there's always been day guest then extra evening guests so it never really crossed my mind. Now that i'm actually planning i completely get now that this can come across really rude as you're basically ranking your guests.

1) Although i've seen some opinions that it's allowed if it's a family only ceremony and then more guests come to celebrate for drinks and dancing later on, is this universally accepted? If so then where do you draw the line for a 'small intimate wedding' so that it doesn't come across as rude?

2) Also if you personally were only invited as an evening guest to a wedding, would you generally go and celebrate or turn the invitation down due to only being invited to a specific part? 

-Just for clarification i personally am planning a small wedding with all guests invited to the entire day, i'm just curious as to the etiquette behind it and personal views as this is a controversial topic, thanks! 

I would turn it down. Not to make some point or anything, but if I'm not invited to witness the union, I don't really want to buy a gift, figure out transportation, lodging, and come to a party. I have other things I could be doing.

charlotte989875

CraftyG said:

This is probably an obvious question so sorry i'm just curious! All weddings that i've attended or friends have planned, there's always been day guest then extra evening guests so it never really crossed my mind. Now that i'm actually planning i completely get now that this can come across really rude as you're basically ranking your guests.

1) Although i've seen some opinions that it's allowed if it's a family only ceremony and then more guests come to celebrate for drinks and dancing later on, is this universally accepted? If so then where do you draw the line for a 'small intimate wedding' so that it doesn't come across as rude?

2) Also if you personally were only invited as an evening guest to a wedding, would you generally go and celebrate or turn the invitation down due to only being invited to a specific part? 

-Just for clarification i personally am planning a small wedding with all guests invited to the entire day, i'm just curious as to the etiquette behind it and personal views as this is a controversial topic, thanks! 

1) For me it would be immediate family only, maybe grandparents. But beyond that when you start inviting aunts/uncles, cousins, friends it makes me wonder why you didn't just invite everyone. Also this might be an UO but these private ceremonies really only are okay in my book is if there is a religious or cultural reason (I.e. A ceremony where only active members of that faith can be involved), I fou want a small wedding that's great, have a small reception to thank those people for attending, but a reception without a ceremony feels rude in my book. 

2) No, I probably wouldn't go. I might send a congratulations card with no gift, but really again the reception is a thank you for attending the ceremony and witnessing the wedding, why go to a reception if you weren't invited to the thing the reception is a thank you for attending? 

STARMOON44

Are you in England? I understand this is more common there. I've never seen it in the US and would be offended. The only time I think if is ok is if it is truly just immediate family at the ceremony. No aunts or cousins or BFFs. 

MobKaz

The ceremony would have to be very small, including no one but immediate family.  I am personally not a fan of the small ceremony/big reception plan.  If I were ever to be invited to a reception only event, I would decline.

londinium215

I was invited to a tiered reception once, and it was the only type of scenario in which I would be okay with it: the bride and groom went with their parents and siblings (they each had one sibling) to get married, then the 8 of them went out to dinner. Afterwards they had rented a space and invited everyone to celebrate with them, they hosted it with finger foods and drinks (but as it was well after dinner time anyway, no one was expecting a proper meal) and I thought it was really nice. 

That said, I wouldn't be okay with attending a tiered wedding reception if the ceremony had more than just close family - if you're inviting some friends to the ceremony but not others, then you're effectively B-listing, and I'd more than likely decline the invite. 

MobKaz

STARMOON44 said:

Are you in England? I understand this is more common there. I've never seen it in the US and would be offended. The only time I think if is ok is if it is truly just immediate family at the ceremony. No aunts or cousins or BFFs. 

I have seen it here in the states.  Not to generalize, but I am in the midwest and have seen it several times in "small town", Wisconsin.    What is even worse, is that often the "reception only" guests are invited to dancing and a cash bar.  I have spoken to people about it, and many of them liken it to "a night out".  It seems to be one of those things where people from the area become accustomed to it.    There is often not much else to do in the area, so it gives the "locals" something to do.  Not a fan.

thisismynickname2

I'll also add, OP, that I truly never understood the point of this. People who post that they want to do this always say something like, "We hate being the center of attention," or "We want the ceremony to be really intimate."
Newsflash- you're the center of attention at your wedding reception too. And, to me, the intimate ceremony point goes out the window if you then have a party where you're the center of attention. If you don't want 100+ people watching you say vows, then why do you want 100+ people celebrating the fact that you said vows? ( cough gifts cough...)

kvruns

My only reference is being invited to the "wedding celebration" of what I thought was a private wedding (either couple only or family only) but we later learned the wedding ceremony was the night before with family and select friends and the day 2 when we were invited was everyone else. I knew it was a wedding celebration going into it and while I didn't love it (bc their reasons for the private wedding seemed silly) I went because it was my friend and I was going to get to hang out w/ friends I don't see a ton. If I'd known they were doing the bigger private wedding the day before I still would have attended but I probably would have been more annoyed before than after lol.

CraftyG

londinium215 said:

I was invited to a tiered reception once, and it was the only type of scenario in which I would be okay with it: the bride and groom went with their parents and siblings (they each had one sibling) to get married, then the 8 of them went out to dinner. Afterwards they had rented a space and invited everyone to celebrate with them, they hosted it with finger foods and drinks (but as it was well after dinner time anyway, no one was expecting a proper meal) and I thought it was really nice. 

That said, I wouldn't be okay with attending a tiered wedding reception if the ceremony had more than just close family - if you're inviting some friends to the ceremony but not others, then you're effectively B-listing, and I'd more than likely decline the invite. 

-SITB-

This sounds so lovely! With only eight people at the actual ceremony it's probably the best way to do it and you're not choosing aunties over cousins or your three closest friends or anything like that.

CraftyG

thisismynickname said:

I'll also add, OP, that I truly never understood the point of this. People who post that they want to do this always say something like, "We hate being the center of attention," or "We want the ceremony to be really intimate."
Newsflash- you're the center of attention at your wedding reception too. And, to me, the intimate ceremony point goes out the window if you then have a party where you're the center of attention. If you don't want 100+ people watching you say vows, then why do you want 100+ people celebrating the fact that you said vows? ( cough gifts cough...)

That is so true and especially when it's an 'intimate ceremony' with 100 of their closest family and friends and then an extra hundred for drinks and dancing, everyone is going to want to talk to the bride and groom regardless of the time of day so you're not getting away with anything!

SaintPaulGal

I had never heard of this practice before reading these forums, and then lo and behold a few months ago I got one of these consolation prize invites myself.  It was from a girl I went to high school with, someone who was part of my extended friend group but not a person I was ever particularly close to.  I strongly considered going because it would have been fun to reconnect with the old high school crew, but in the end I couldn't justify driving two hours each way for a cash bar just to see some people I will be seeing at our upcoming reunion anyway.  

Oh, and the invite was on facebook.

jacques27

I perhaps would go if I thought our relationship was close enough to warrant it, but I would not be pleased and it will affect the relationship in the future, if for no other reason than it lets me know what kind of person you are and how you regard people and that is in a way that isn't really compatible with my personal philosophy. 

I went to one once.  I was basically guilt-tripped into going to it by our mutual friends who convinced me I would be a bad friend by not going, despite the fact that it was made pretty apparent to me that having a big party on a holiday was more important to the couple and I didn't rank high enough to actually see my friend exchange vows (though others did).  So...yeah.  I went.  There were other etiquette issues, as well (such as cash bar).  Never said anything directly to my friend, but the relationship has never quite been the same.  It's a pretty shitty feeling. 

southernbelle0915

1) I would draw the line at immediate family - parents, siblings, grandparents.

2) If I found out I was only invited to the dancing portion (not the ceremony or dinner), I would probably decline. If I were invited to the entire reception (including dinner), but not the ceremony, I'd be confused but be way more likely to consider attending.

kahluakoala

If there was a "dancing only" after party, I would happily attend if it were convenient and local for me (i.e. I could take a cab from my house). I like getting dressed up and dancing and partying! But it's not really about the couple for me at that point, it's about like, "oh cool, sounds like a fun night out".

The only time I can imagine this happening is with a coworker or fringe friend, like someone who's wedding I wouldn't expect to be invited to in the first place. In that case, it wouldn't bug me, I'd just put on a dress and pop over. No gift.

My feelings on a "reception only" invite are..."well, that's odd". But, to be honest, as long as I'm invited to the whole reception I'd probably attend. But I would think it was very strange. I'm not sure I'd be *offended*, just confused, especially if it was more than ~10 people at the ceremony.

Jen4948

1) Immediate family should be limited to immediate family - parents, siblings, SOs of the above, maybe grandparents and their SOs - but nobody else should be invited.

2) I would most likely not go.

poodledoodleooo

*** All "you's" in this post are "general you's" and not directed at any particular person ***

I'm pretty deadset on the idea that a wedding is one entire events - not two - for which a guest should be invited to the entire thing.

I've heard around these here parts that a "truly intimate ceremony with a larger reception is okay."

My personal thoughts: I think that is bullshit.

"Intimate" is pretty subjective. What is considered intimate to me might not be considered intimate to you. Intimate to me would be eloping - no guests whatsoever. Intimate to you (general you, obviously) might include your parents, siblings, close nieces and nephews, the grandma that practically raised you and your favorite uncle and his new wife, etc... Does the size of the overall reception matter when considered intimacy? Would a 50 person ceremony be considered intimate if, say, there were 500 people invited to the reception or does that not matter at all?

In my mind, saying "please come to the reception only to celebrate" is like saying "Hey, I want to have an intimate movie viewing at my place, but we're not that close so feel free to come afterward for drinks." Or "I'm only having several people over for Josh's birthday pool party - we wanted it to be intimate - but, do join us for dinner at 6." In all of these situations, folks were really only invited to 1/2 of the event and I think that is pretty rude.

I absolutely 100% decline all wedding receptions where I'm not invited to the ceremony. Nothing makes me feel like an unwanted "but this person might bring me a gift" kind of guest than being invited to the reception only. If you want to celebrate with me - cool I'd love to be there for the whole thing. If not - cool, I hope you have a great wedding day!

To me the ceremony is the most important part. It's not a burden or a drag and it doesn't take too long. I don't get restless or want to bolt right to the cocktail hour once it's over. To me the ceremony is the part I want to be there for, and if you don't feel like you need or want me there to witness your union, well that is cool, but then I also feel like you don't really need or want me to "celebrate" with you after.

[Deleted User]

We were invited to a tiered reception in May, and it was an easy decline.

We were invited to join at 8 pm on a Friday, in the middle of no where. It was inconvenient on so many levels - 2.5 hour train/car ride, we'd both miss some work, and we probably would have had to get an expensive hotel for the night. It's not that the couple lived far away from us, but they wanted an estate or castle, and those get cheaper the farther from civilization you go. 

They had a honeyfund to boot.

Had it been closer to home and had there been people we knew who were also going, we probably would have gone. No gift and a definite eye roll, though. 

kvruns

CraftyG said:

thisismynickname said:

I'll also add, OP, that I truly never understood the point of this. People who post that they want to do this always say something like, "We hate being the center of attention," or "We want the ceremony to be really intimate."
Newsflash- you're the center of attention at your wedding reception too. And, to me, the intimate ceremony point goes out the window if you then have a party where you're the center of attention. If you don't want 100+ people watching you say vows, then why do you want 100+ people celebrating the fact that you said vows? ( cough gifts cough...)

That is so true and especially when it's an 'intimate ceremony' with 100 of their closest family and friends and then an extra hundred for drinks and dancing, everyone is going to want to talk to the bride and groom regardless of the time of day so you're not getting away with anything!

The one I went to their reason was that the groom didn't want to have a wedding party so because you aren't going to have groomsmen/bridesmaids you therefore cannot get married in front of the group. I also can't feel the justification of not wanting center of attention because they did a big grand entrance so as you guys have said they still got the same level of attention at the 2nd party so there was no point in the private ceremony

southernbelle0915

@PoodleDoodleOoo - I get where you're coming from. I love the ceremony, too.

But I think an "intimate" ceremony and big reception can be done for a number of reasons that I don't necessarily side-eye.

What I DO side-eye the hell out of is the other way around...inviting people to the ceremony but not the reception. Or inviting people to dancing but not dinner. Basically the "we did it to save money" reason. NOPE.

SP29

1) I would consider the "line" parents, siblings, grandparents. But I agree that the definition of intimate greatly varies. In some cases (or many!) friends can be closer than family. But once you start picking and choosing, you're putting your guests into a tier.

I am fully understanding in the case of religious requirements. For example, a friend of mine is Mormon and was married in the temple. Only her and her husband could be part of the ceremony- their family had to wait outside for them. THAT is intimate!

However, I don't *get* the intimate ceremony/larger reception. If you want a smaller ceremony- great! But own it. Personally, I feel like if I'm not important enough to be invited to the ceremony (which is fine!), then why invite me to the reception?

2) The above leads to this answer. In the case of my friend married in the Mormon temple, I was invited to and would have attended the reception, but we were out of town. In another case, depends on the relationship. I might go if it were someone close to me, but I'd probably silently judge. I think I'd be more happy to celebrate with a friend/family member in another way (i.e. lets do lunch or dinner, I'll still give you a gift) than be invited to only the reception.

I'm in Canada, and I've heard of/ been invited to a couple of tiered receptions. One was one of DH's family members, who had a "small" wedding of 250 guests (Italian/Greek wedding)! I was a teenager at the time, and even still, it felt weird to be only invited to the reception. 2 of them were open receptions, where a co-worker put up an invitation on the bulletin board for everyone to attend the dance portion. I did not attend either. I would never show up to any event (even someone's house party) without being explicitly invited by the host.

PrettyGirlLost

1.  Small, intimate wedding should be your immediate family and grandparents only.  No Friends, no cousins, not 20+ people. 

And if you really only want those few people to witness your actual ceremony, then you really shouldn't be having a huge reception after with additional folks.  It really makes no sense given that the reception is the party YOU host to honor the people who witnessed and supported your union, and people always find out that they were not invited to the ceremony and it's awkward and uncomfortable for everyone.   People's feelings will be hurt.

I've only been to a single tiered wedding and I was invited to the ceremony and the reception, whereas other mutual friends were only invited to the reception.  That was super awkward. 

2. If I was only invited to the reception, I'd have to really think about whether I wanted to go.  Is this the wedding of a close friend?  Well maybe not since I wasn't invited to the ceremony.  I'd have to think about it and determine my actions on a case by case basis, lol.

SaintPaulGal

SP29 said:

1) I would consider the "line" parents, siblings, grandparents. But I agree that the definition of intimate greatly varies. In some cases (or many!) friends can be closer than family. But once you start picking and choosing, you're putting your guests into a tier.

I am fully understanding in the case of religious requirements. For example, a friend of mine is Mormon and was married in the temple. Only her and her husband could be part of the ceremony- their family had to wait outside for them. THAT is intimate!

However, I don't *get* the intimate ceremony/larger reception. If you want a smaller ceremony- great! But own it. Personally, I feel like if I'm not important enough to be invited to the ceremony (which is fine!), then why invite me to the reception?

2) The above leads to this answer. In the case of my friend married in the Mormon temple, I was invited to and would have attended the reception, but we were out of town. In another case, depends on the relationship. I might go if it were someone close to me, but I'd probably silently judge. I think I'd be more happy to celebrate with a friend/family member in another way (i.e. lets do lunch or dinner, I'll still give you a gift) than be invited to only the reception.

I'm in Canada, and I've heard of/ been invited to a couple of tiered receptions. One was one of DH's family members, who had a "small" wedding of 250 guests (Italian/Greek wedding)! I was a teenager at the time, and even still, it felt weird to be only invited to the reception. 2 of them were open receptions, where a co-worker put up an invitation on the bulletin board for everyone to attend the dance portion. I did not attend either. I would never show up to any event (even someone's house party) without being explicitly invited by the host.

This is my thought as well.

To take it a step further, I, personally, would be much more hurt/offended/annoyed to be invited to the reception and not the ceremony than I would be to just get an invite to the drinks and dancing portion.  Getting invited to what amounts to the "after party" would signal to me that the bride and groom wanted me there to celebrate with them but they couldn't afford to host me for dinner.  (TOTALLY NOT OKAY, but not all that personally hurtful to me if we weren't super close.)  However, if I was invited to the reception but I wasn't allowed to witness the actual wedding I would find that personally hurtful.  Ceremonies are not charged per guest, so literally the only reason I would be barred from attending is because the bride and groom preferred a room without me over a room with me in it.  In that case, there's no way in hell you are getting a present from me and I am going to seriously question the friendship.  I completely get that not everyone can be invited, but to be cut out of the ceremony but included in the reception speaks to a willful exclusion rather than a situational one.

(The exception here would be someone with very specific religious rules as described above.  I would be sad I couldn't witness their actual marriage, but I wouldn't hold it against them.)

ei34

For "small intimate wedding", I draw the line at immediate family- parents, grandparents, siblings, and siblings' spouses and children, if applicable.  Once the bride's three aunts and the groom's two best friends are also there, I'm wondering why I didn't make the cut.

I've never been invited to a tiered wedding, but my attendance would be based on upon:  am I invited to the entire reception (cocktail hour, dinner, dancing, dessert)?  Or just a portion?  If the breakdown is an immediate family ceremony and then everyone else at the reception, I'm in.  But if I got wind of some guests invited to dinner but I'm only invited to dance, I'd skip.  There are enough bars, etc in NYC that I don't need a wedding to have a night out.

glasgowtolondon

This happens frequently in the UK - at least in my circle, my FI's circle, and at every company I've ever worked at, both in Scotland and England. I think it's fair to say thats a decent amount of weddings to take a read from. I don't like it, I find it very gift grabby. And for some reason the evening guests seem to be invited without their SO almost every time. I have been to these b list invites on a few occasions - I don't mind so much when it's for someone in my team at work - but it's pretty much a consolation prize invite no matter how you slice it. I don't know why it seems to be accepted over here, but I'm not a fan at all and will only go if it doesn't put me out in any way.

ScottishSarah

I'm also in the UK and it is very common.  Saying that I've never heard of a wedding in my own family with tiered guests.  But I've been to friends weddings with this format.  It didn't really bother us as we were not close friends.  

ernursej

I've been to multiple tiered weddings and the only one that I was actually okay with was for a Mormon wedding. I'm not Mormon so couldn't go into the temple. The other weddings I've been included in all the tiers but felt that I had to walk on egg shells for fear that I might misspeak to someone that had not been at all tiers.

Intimate non-religious ceremony line would be just parents and siblings. No friends or extended family. I might be okay with that, but I've never been put in that situation so don't really know.

londinium215

@ScottishSarah and @glasgowtolondon, I moved to the UK a few years ago and when I was planning my wedding all the venues I looked at seemed to expect things that I really side-eye like cash bars and evening guests. I recently asked a British friend of mine about it and he said that while cash bars and evening guests are often done, many people do side-eye it and think it's not appropriate hosting. 

I really have to wonder who is doing it since every British person I've spoken to about it (except one coworker of mine) seems to think tiered guests aren't okay... but the venue coordinators all expected it, so clearly people are doing it. 

glasgowtolondon

londinium215 said:

@ScottishSarah and @glasgowtolondon, I moved to the UK a few years ago and when I was planning my wedding all the venues I looked at seemed to expect things that I really side-eye like cash bars and evening guests. I recently asked a British friend of mine about it and he said that while cash bars and evening guests are often done, many people do side-eye it and think it's not appropriate hosting. 

I really have to wonder who is doing it since every British person I've spoken to about it (except one coworker of mine) seems to think tiered guests aren't okay... but the venue coordinators all expected it, so clearly people are doing it. 

I don't have to wonder, as I mentioned above it's various members of my family, FI's family, various friends, and when someone at work gets married they seem to invite people to their "evening do". I've rec'd a few of these invites myself, but mostly have witnessed evening guests turning up after dinner at weddings I have attended for the full day. I'm sure there are loads of people who don't think it's a great way to host (myself included), but many more who almost expect both of these things. I don't know why!

ScottishSarah

I worked in various venues in Edinburgh over the years, about 90% had additional evening guests and about 95% had some form of cash bar!  This was for larger weddings.  For the smaller ones (less than 30 guests) then tended to be properly hosted.