Second reception

simulatedsanity · November 2009

Hi, just wanted to get a few opinions.

We're having a small winter wedding (30 people) at a resort an hour away from our home (does that qualify as a destination wedding?) Question: Can we have another party in the summer (fancier backyard style) and invite the other 50 or so people we would have liked to come but couldn't afford to take to the resort? We don't want to seem like we're fishing for gifts, but we'd like to celebrate with them.

Do we call this party a reception? Just a family party? We wanted to have things like wedding pics out etc. but we don't want people to feel like second best.

Thoughts appreciated!

MeaghanandMichael · November 2009

"...but we don't want people to feel like second best"

and this is how they are going to feel. don't do it.

Nebb · November 2009

They will feel that way.
Why cant you wait and just have one wedding in the summer? or expand the wedding in the winter?

pumpkinpumpkin · November 2009

Why can you afford them in the summer but not the winter?

Don't do it.

mocha beans · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:bad9a9db-a23d-4e84-ba95-e19b579a96d8">Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]Hi, just wanted to get a few opinions. We're having a small winter wedding (30 people) at a resort an hour away from our home (does that qualify as a destination wedding?) Question: Can we have another party in the summer (fancier backyard style) and invite the other 50 or so people we would have liked to come but couldn't afford to take to the resort? We don't want to seem like we're fishing for gifts, but we'd like to celebrate with them. Do we call this party a reception? Just a family party? We wanted to have things like wedding pics out etc. but we don't want people to feel like second best. Thoughts appreciated!
Posted by simulatedsanity[/QUOTE]

Since it's not that far from your home, I wouldn't call it a DW.

Calling the summer party a reception will seem silly; people will feel slighted and know they made the B-list.

Your best option would be to just bill it as a party, and if people ask to see wedding pics, you can bring them out. But don't treat it like a reception, it will seem gift grabby.

ring_pop · November 2009

Throw a summer party by all means, but don't call it a reception or anything "wedding" related. Why can't you just have a summer party for the sake of having a party? Trust me, 6 months after the wedding you won't feel like you're in wedding mode anymore anyway.

simulatedsanity · November 2009

Thanks everyone, I was already feeling like it was a bad idea but you guys helped tip the scales.

tidetravel · November 2009

Even if it was considered a DW, AHRs are usually held for people who WERE invited to the wedding, but could not make it due to travel issues. They are not held for people that you could not afford to host.

Catwoman708 · November 2009

It's perfectly acceptable and proper to have a smaller ceremony, then have a larger reception later.

If it makes anyone feel "second best" then they don't know much about ettiquette. Someone will always manage to find something to be offended about with ANY wedding, that just comes with the territory.

BUT, the sooner you have the second reception, the better. More than 3-4 months after the ceremony and guests just won't be very excited, or likely to attend.

If it's your first time after your wedding you are hosting guests, then you are "receiving" them for the first time as a married couple. That consitutes a "reception".

You could just call it a party, especially if it's more than 3-4 months after the ceremony. If someone else is hosting, they can throw the party in "honor of the newlyweds", but you don't really throw a party in your own honor.

JK10910 · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:e27b6616-cf9d-4fc4-9198-08d48bed79ee">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It's perfectly acceptable and proper to have a smaller ceremony, then have a larger reception later. If it makes anyone feel "second best" then they don't know much about ettiquette.
Posted by Catwoman708[/QUOTE]

It is? Says who?

Nebb · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:e27b6616-cf9d-4fc4-9198-08d48bed79ee">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It's perfectly acceptable and proper to have a smaller ceremony, then have a larger reception later. If it makes anyone feel "second best" then they don't know much about ettiquette. Someone will always manage to find something to be offended about with ANY wedding, that just comes with the territory. BUT, the sooner you have the second reception, the better. More than 3-4 months after the ceremony and guests just won't be very excited, or likely to attend. If it's your first time after your wedding you are hosting guests, then you are "receiving" them for the first time as a married couple. That consitutes a "reception". You could just call it a party, especially if it's more than 3-4 months after the ceremony. If someone else is hosting, they can throw the party in "honor of the newlyweds", but you don't really throw a party in your own honor.
Posted by Catwoman708[/QUOTE]
EEEEEHHH! Wrong.

Please dont listen to this advice OP.

duckie1905 · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:2966ea11-bc2c-41d4-9e1a-70bbb23a5390">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Second reception : It is? Says who?
Posted by JK10910[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I think it kind of sucks, actually. Nothing like being a second or third tiered friend or family member.

Catwoman708 · November 2009

It's perfectly acceptable and proper to have a smaller ceremony, then have a larger reception later. If it makes anyone feel "second best" then they don't know much about ettiquette.
Posted by Catwoman708

"It is? Says who?"

Every actual ettiquette book or resource I've ever read, and I'm not counting "wedding industry" as an ettiquette resource.

It has always been acceptable to have private ceremonies or destination weddings, and host a larger reception later for everyone.

YES, granted it WILL make some people feel slighted to not have been invited to the small ceremony. This is human nature. Hopefully they have enough class and manners to not mention it or take it personally. If they are offended, it's becuase of their own issues, not becuase it's an ettiquette faux pas.

Because the whole point of manners and ettiquette is to keep from hurting other's feelings, It's an excellent point to consider how it will make your guests feel to be invited to the party but not the ceremony. If you have a gracious bunch of friends who wish you well, there should be no problem. If there is often much drama and pettiness over such things, then you might reconsider either whom you invite, or the type of people you have for friends.

What is improper is to invite people to a ceremony but not the reception, or to a shower and not the ceremony. It's also improper for guests to ask why they aren't invited, or to complain about the guest list in any way.

Nebb · November 2009

If they are offended its because they werent chosen to go to the FIRST reception, and were B listed. That doesnt make them etiquette illiterate, it makes them normal human beings. Not petty, not people you need to unfriend.

Thats absolutely screwed. Time to pull the etiquette book out from up your ass and look at things from a normal perspective.

Catwoman708 · November 2009

"The first reception" is likely at the resort where she is having her ceremony. 30 people is a pretty small wedding, probably immediate family and WP only.

*edited to add: It's only a "B" list if the guests are second choice for the same party. These are two separate events.

Am I horribly mistaken, or are there not posts all the time on numerous boards about having destination weddings, private ceremonies, or JOP/courthouse weddings, followed by a larger, later reception?

To me, it's still a small ceremony followed by a bigger party later. Just because some people would feel slighted to not be included in with immediate family or the WP doesn't mean everyone is that self centered.

Nebb · November 2009

Well luckily the OP knew it was a bad idea and didnt take your advice.

JK10910 · November 2009

I guess I just don't see the point in having a later celebration with all those people if they're not inviting them to the first party. I can see AHR when the people invited to the second party were all people that were invited to the first one and just were unable to travel. I can even see getting married quickly at the JOP for some reason or another and having a big party/vow renewal later (as long as they don't call it a wedding because they never had a "real" wedding). But not inviting people to one party just because you can't afford to have them at your dream venue, and then having a second party 6 months later just doesn't quite compute for me.

For the record, OP, this statement is not directed at you. I know you "get it."

ring_pop · November 2009

I agree with JK - etiquette or not, I just don't see the point of the second celebration.

I was invited to an AHR following a small (but not tiny) DW once. To me, it just reeked of AW and one day in the spotlight not being enough for the couple. I mean, gawd. You're married, we get it.

MyNameIsNot · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:1f965ca0-0777-4c4f-b98d-ebf074c30a44">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]Am I horribly mistaken, or are there not posts all the time on numerous boards about having destination weddings, private ceremonies, or JOP/courthouse weddings, followed by a larger, later reception? To me, it's still a small ceremony followed by a bigger party later. Posted by Catwoman708[/QUOTE]

The difference is that in a typical DW with an AHR, all the AHR guests are actually invited to the DW, but chose not to make the trip for whatever reason, and are then invited to an AHR.

With the JOP/elope situation, there was no first reception and no first guest list that the second tier guest was excluded from.

In the OPs case, it would be no different from me getting married with 100 people, and then a few months later hosting another reception with 200 that we'd had to cut from the guest list because of space.

squirrly · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:e27b6616-cf9d-4fc4-9198-08d48bed79ee">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It's perfectly acceptable and proper to have a smaller ceremony, then have a larger reception later. If it makes anyone feel "second best" then they don't know much about ettiquette.
Posted by Catwoman708[/QUOTE]

Nope, pretty sure etiquette is to ensure that people are made to feel comfortable. What you're describing, Catwoman, isn't going to make anyone comfortable. Quite the opposite.

OP - please, please, please don't listen to this.

squirrly · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:2c5d7772-2628-4db7-9316-10236a85e4a4">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]It has always been acceptable to have private ceremonies or destination weddings, and host a larger reception later for everyone.
Posted by Catwoman708[/QUOTE]

That's true - if you have NO reception at the time of the cermony, and only have a larger reception later. What's NOT acceptable is to have a ceremony + reception in December for 30 people, and a second reception for another 50 people months later. Nope. Not the same at all. And totally not ok.

mwhitson14 · November 2009

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_second-reception?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:26bd46ee-aa39-43b2-9667-720bbba0987aPost:fe00fe67-7e78-4665-aca3-7707f260c42c">Re: Second reception</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Second reception : The difference is that in a typical DW with an AHR, all the AHR guests are actually invited to the DW, but chose not to make the trip for whatever reason, and are then invited to an AHR. With the JOP/elope situation, there was no first reception and no first guest list that the second tier guest was excluded from. In the OPs case, it would be no different from me getting married with 100 people, and then a few months later hosting another reception with 200 that we'd had to cut from the guest list because of space.
Posted by MyNameIsNot[/QUOTE]

This sums it up so nicely, I think it needs to be reposted.

thesuninherhead · November 2009

An hour away from the OP's home is not a DW, and thus the debate about having a DW and AHR doesn't actually fit with this situation, to start.

OP, I'm glad you can see that this isn't the best of ideas. Your guests will be offended, and honestly, six months after the fact it will just seem bizarre that you're holding another 'wedding' party, as everyone will be well aware that you've been married for half a year, and that they didn't get an invite.

Second reception

Re: Second reception

Choose Another Board

Search Boards