wedding and reception

smrluvn717

my FH and I want a very very small wedding but would love to party the night away with all of our friends. what is the correct way of notifying ppl that were getting married and would like them to come to the reception but Not the ceremony? would it be weird if we had the reception on different day say before the wedding or after? our ceremony would be at most 40 ppl. but weve got many friends and extended family that we would like to celebrate with us.

Summer2011Bride

Most people on here will agree with me that you should not do this. It is typically considered poor etiquette to invite people to one and not the other. It comes across as "You weren't important enough to witness our marriage, but we want a gift from you, so come to the reception." Even if that's NOT how you mean it, that's how it will come across. I would be offended as a guest if I was only invited to the after-party.

If you have a reception on a separate day, it is no longer a wedding reception. You should not have a WP, wear your dress, cut the cake or any of those things. It can be a get-together to celebrate your marriage, but it won't be a reception. The only time I think inviting to one and not the other is OK is when your ceremony is literally just you and your immediate family. Period. No one else. But 40 people is not that and I think it would be rude. I would either include everybody in everything or only have 40 people come to both.

brilibby4

There really is not a polite way to do this. 

GeauxTigers17

It is not rude to invite people to the reception and not the ceremony. It is rude to do it the other way around. As long as everyone who gets a ceremony invite gets invited to the reception, you are fine. 

Send out invitations phrased for the reception (Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the pleasure of your company at the wedding reception of their daughter, Sarah Sue....etc)

and insert cards for those invited to the ceremony. 

I do not think anyone will get offended to be invited to the party but not the ceremony. It's perfectly within etiquette.

I agree that you shouldn't do it on a different day if you want all the traditional "reception" activities like dances and cake cutting, though - feels too "do-over" ish. You can absolutely have a reception on a different day if it's just to have a party with everyone. 

smrluvn717

the 40 ppl would include immidate family on each side (with split families it can be quite alot of ppl) as well as grandparents close aunts and uncles.

strlzfan11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:29b1efa4-8dd7-43f6-9997-0500b01d526f">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It is not rude to invite people to the reception and not the ceremony. It is rude to do it the other way around. As long as everyone who gets a ceremony invite gets invited to the reception, you are fine.  Send out invitations phrased for the reception (Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the pleasure of your company at the wedding reception of their daughter, Sarah Sue....etc) and insert cards for those invited to the ceremony.  I do not think anyone will get offended to be invited to the party but not the ceremony. It's perfectly within etiquette. I agree that you shouldn't do it on a different day if you want all the traditional "reception" activities like dances and cake cutting, though - feels too "do-over" ish. You can absolutely have a reception on a different day if it's just to have a party with everyone. 
Posted by GeauxTigers17[/QUOTE]

What planet did you come from? 

GeauxTigers17

One in which Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt exist. Look it up. 

SD3194

My friend is getting married on the side of a cliff (the guests have to hike to the spot) and he is only inviting 20 people. Then afterwards hes having a small reception inviting 40 people. Then after that they're having a big party/camp out type deal where anyone is invited. Kindof weird that its tiered like that.

I'm not invited to the ceremony or reception but I'm not sure I want to go party at a camp ground and then sleep in a tent. I'm bummed that I can't see them get married because me and the FI are pretty close with them.

Just think about your guests. I go to a wedding to see people get married, I can eat and drink at home. If I got an invitation to a reception only I might not show up.

Summer2011Bride

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:29b1efa4-8dd7-43f6-9997-0500b01d526f">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It is not rude to invite people to the reception and not the ceremony. It is rude to do it the other way around. As long as everyone who gets a ceremony invite gets invited to the reception, you are fine.  Send out invitations phrased for the reception (Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the pleasure of your company at the wedding reception of their daughter, Sarah Sue....etc) and insert cards for those invited to the ceremony.  I do not think anyone will get offended to be invited to the party but not the ceremony. It's perfectly within etiquette. I agree that you shouldn't do it on a different day if you want all the traditional "reception" activities like dances and cake cutting, though - feels too "do-over" ish. You can absolutely have a reception on a different day if it's just to have a party with everyone. 
Posted by GeauxTigers17[/QUOTE]

I would find this extremely rude as a guest. Everyone that is invited to my wedding would also find this rude. The whole reason you're having a wedding is to witness these people get married. So you're essentially asking everyone else to miss the main event and just come for the part where they bring gifts. That is rude. I don't care what etiquette book you're looking at says. To me, this is common sense etiquette. You either invite everyone to both or you have a very small ceremony and a party on a different day.

brilibby4

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:29b1efa4-8dd7-43f6-9997-0500b01d526f">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It is not rude to invite people to the reception and not the ceremony. It is rude to do it the other way around. As long as everyone who gets a ceremony invite gets invited to the reception, you are fine.  Send out invitations phrased for the reception (Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the pleasure of your company at the wedding reception of their daughter, Sarah Sue....etc) and insert cards for those invited to the ceremony.  I do not think anyone will get offended to be invited to the party but not the ceremony. It's perfectly within etiquette. I agree that you shouldn't do it on a different day if you want all the traditional "reception" activities like dances and cake cutting, though - feels too "do-over" ish. You can absolutely have a reception on a different day if it's just to have a party with everyone. 
Posted by GeauxTigers17[/QUOTE]

Tigers, you are wrong.  Go away.

strlzfan11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:11ece4e5-6b26-4a08-9893-9680dbf0423d">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]One in which Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt exist. Look it up. 
Posted by GeauxTigers17[/QUOTE]

While it may be written that way I don't understand it at all.  It's like inviting someone to your kid's birthday party just to watch them open up presents but not for the games, cake, & ice cream.  JMO.  I just think it's rude and was shocked that some people actually think it's ok to do this.

I don't exactly view 40 people as a very small wedding either, OP.  How many additional people did you want to invite to the reception?  You do realize that the reception is where the bulk of your costs are eaten up don't you?  It doesn't cost anything to you for them to come see the ceremony.

GeauxTigers17

It's ridiculous to have a reception before the wedding - I didn't even see that in the OP, and wasn't addressing that in my post, at all. 

And actually, the rationale you give, Summer, is exactly why you can't invite people to the ceremony and not the reception. The ceremony invitation was considered the part that required a gift, but if you didn't get a reception invite, it looked like the couple wanted a gift from you without wanting to host you and include you in the "fun" part. I've got etiquette books ranging from 1922 (my grandmother collected them) and this is nothing new. 

Whether you personally find it tacky, or whatever, is your prerogative. You don't have to care what a book says. But it is wrong to call the OP rude for wanting to have a family wedding and a larger reception, which is perfectly acceptable in polite society. 

Edit: I find it really bizarre that people on an etiquette board don't care about the actual etiquette of a situation and instead apply their own views. 

smrluvn717

even if you were very close to them or family? that seems silly no offense but its about celebrating with the bride and groom.

smrluvn717

to each their own i suppose but would you not want to celebrate with friends (where only close family is invited to the reception)? i use 'reception' in loose terms seeing as the word means to receive the new couple. weither it be cake cutting and such or a nice dinner. or hell even have a huge party with friends? cost is not the issue a private atomosphere is more for what i was going for.

smrluvn717

pointing out that some religions dont allow guests not under the same faith to witness the ceremony....not thats something i have to deal with. but having guests only come to a reception is not unheard of.

SD3194

Why can't you invite more people to the ceremony? It's not like it costs extra unless you have to upgrade because your church is itty bitty. The reception is the money pit.

smrluvn717

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:588b9c23-1fa9-465e-9681-3a5376d496ea">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: wedding and reception : How does having a large reception to celebrate figure in with your "private" atmosphere?
Posted by ILoveMilkDuds[/QUOTE]


a private ceremony im surprised i have to explain that.

strlzfan11

I still don't think 40 people = private.

DramaGeek

Well, I would be offended if I found out you had that large of a ceremony and just invited me to the reception.  Unless you're a Duggar or marrying one, in which case 40 really is immediate family only.  The ceremony is the part I care about.  If I missed that, I would likely skip the reception as well.

SamiGraceT

I'm just in the idea that for a private wedding - for us, that'd be erm, 6 guests.  40 is into full wedding scale, so invite everyone to the ceremony.  Plus, the wedding itself for us is cheap, it's the reception that's going to take the money.

j_jaye

Sorry to chime in but I can not find any reference to this issue on Emily Post so can the person who quoted it please provide a link. There was mention of inviting guests to a reception after a initmate private ceremony but I think we can all agree that 40 people does not make an intimate ceremony!

smrluvn717

well there ya go guys. got my answer straight from the knot.
http://wedding.theknot.com/wedding-questions/wedding-guest-list-advice/qa/invite-wedding-guests-to-party-not-ceremony.aspx

GeauxTigers17

It's in Emily Post's Wedding Etiquette Guide. I don't think the text is online. 

But I did find this in a quick search, forgive me if the text shows up small:

http://www.emilypost.com/planning-your-wedding/521-receptioninvitationcourtesies

This one because she refers to the situation. She wouldn't have done that if it wasn't Ok. 

http://www.bartleby.com/95/11.html – see line 18

This one for the sake of history. It's got the wording for when this happens. 

Edited to add - also, on the 40 people thing: I'm not doing this, but if my fiancé and I were to include only immediate families, we'd be at 30, so it IS possible that it would be extremely close family only and still be 40 people. 

smrluvn717

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:6516eb7b-7ad9-49a3-b51c-5153f034af5c">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: wedding and reception : Grandparents, aunts, and uncles are not immediate family.  And as many have said, 40 people does not an intimate ceremony make.
Posted by bree4305[/QUOTE]
would you say that if they lived next door? raised you? yeah i would include them. who are you to say they are not close family.

SD3194

I think your priorities are a little weird. You obviously care about the people that you are inviting to your reception so why not include them in your ceremony? I think that if you only invite a select few to the ceremony, your reception will have a weird vibe.

sister2groom

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:e6059c2b-b742-4a7c-a7a0-6460517cf16e">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]pointing out that some religions dont allow guests not under the same faith to witness the ceremony....not thats something i have to deal with. but having guests only come to a reception is not unheard of.
Posted by smrluvn717[/QUOTE]

See, but those people actually have a rare but legitimate reason to not invite them to the ceremony, because certain guests wouldn't be allowed in the doors. I don't think not wanting to is a good enough reason to not invite people to the ceremony.

It's not about what rules in some etiquette book say, but rather what will hurt or offend your guests. If I found out you didn't invite me to your ceremony for no good reason, but you did want me at the reception I would be confused and a little hurt because it would feel like you just didn't want me there to witness one of the most important events of your life.

Summer2011Bride

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_wedding-reception-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:552b01ae-c532-429d-9220-9a55b7eadb2dPost:ed33b572-deaa-4aa3-8d67-f211191ab3a8">Re: wedding and reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It's ridiculous to have a reception before the wedding - I didn't even see that in the OP, and wasn't addressing that in my post, at all.  And actually, the rationale you give, Summer, is exactly why you can't invite people to the ceremony and not the reception. The ceremony invitation was considered the part that required a gift, but if you didn't get a reception invite, it looked like the couple wanted a gift from you without wanting to host you and include you in the "fun" part.<strong> I've got etiquette books ranging from 1922</strong> (my grandmother collected them) and this is nothing new.  Whether you personally find it tacky, or whatever, is your prerogative. You don't have to care what a book says.<strong> But it is wrong to call the OP rude  for wanting to have a family wedding </strong>and a larger reception, which is perfectly acceptable in polite society.  Edit: I find it really bizarre that people on an etiquette board don't care about the actual etiquette of a situation and instead apply their own views. 
Posted by GeauxTigers17[/QUOTE]

But this isn't 1922.

And 40 people is no longer an immediate family wedding. From a later post of yours Tiger, you said your immediate family is over 30 people? How many brothers and sisters do you <em>have?</em> Immediate family is considered parents and siblings in all circumstances I've ever heard of. Once you start including cousins, aunts, nephews, etc. it is no longer immediate family; it is extended family. Then presumably, those cousins would bring significant others, etc. and now you no longer have just a family wedding. Then people will be offended that they were only good enough to attend part of your celebration, not the whole thing.

So yes, I do feel it is rude.

GeauxTigers17

I said it was in a book from 1922, so therefore it was nothing new. You are misconstruing the context of my statement - I was not at all trying to imply that one should follow the 1922 Emily Post, simply that this has been around a very long time. 

This is also in my current Emily Post book, which I referenced in a later post. It's also in Miss Manners' Guide to an Excruciatingly Correct Wedding and the current Amy Vanderbilt. And not a single one of those books has the word "immediate" as a qualifier before the word "family." In fact, they don't even say the wedding ceremony must be restricted to "family" to make it alright.

It would absolutely agree that it's bizarre to have 40 people at a ceremony, then only 80 at the reception. It's no longer "private" when 50% of your guest list is at the ceremony. But a wedding of 40 and then a party for 500? Yes, I think it qualifies. 

You don't have to like it. You're perfectly within your rights to politely decline an invitation of this sort, should you ever receive one. I can see that many more people are offended by this than I ever would have thought possible: I just can't believe people read so much into invitations. But just because YOU feel it is rude, does not make it so. 

Mrs.B6302007

It depends on the difference between the size of the ceremony and the reception.  If you want to have a family only ceremony, that's fine but you need to make sure your reception guest list waaaay outnumbers the ceremony guest list.  20 at the ceremony and 40 at the reception is not alright.  The general consensus though is if you want a small ceremony then you get a small reception.

squeakyduck

I wouldn't go if I had a reception only invite. I don't think the after party is the least bit important and I would be sad to not see the actual wedding. That's just my opinion. 

I know ceremony only invites are considered rude by most people, but I would go to if I were invited to that. I feel like the ceremony is the important part. 

As others have said, it doesn't cost anything to invite everyone to the ceremony. I don't understand why you wouldn't want people to witness the marriage they are expected to celebrate at the reception. 

Goldlie11

GeauxTigers17 is right.  I just finished reading through a copy of an etiquette book by Emily Post.  It is considered proper etiquette to have a smaller ceremony and larger reception.  Guests who are invited to a reception are under no obligation to bring a gift, since they did not witness the marriage. There is no stipulation that private ceremonies HAVE to include immediate family only.  

Having said that, I still wouldn't want to do it.  I personally like to see the ceremony and think that private ceremonies should be kept very small. To me 40 people is a lot (then again we're only expecting ~50 people at our wedding).  I think it would be awkward to have so many that have attended the ceremony and then some who have not.  Just think about this conversation:

Guest A:  "Didn't the bride look so beautiful in her dress?  The look on her face was priceless as she listened to her husband's vows.  You could tell she was trying not to sob."

Guest B:  "I wasn't there.  I wasn't invited to the ceremony."  (Insert awkward pause).