Which is worse?

arendiva · March 2013

I'd like to preface this question by saying I'm not doing either of these two things. I'm just curious what most people find more offensive.

When people invite you only to the reception or when people invite you only to the ceremony.

I've been to a wedding where I was invited only to the reception and it really bothered me. Technically they were in the clear ettiquettewise since their ceremony was immediately before the reception and was immediate family only. But it still really bothered me. I feel like wittnessing the actual marriage is the whole point of going to the wedding and since the reception was an informal backyard shindig I kind of felt like I bought an expensive gift just to attend a BBQ.

I've never been only invited to a ceremony so I'm not sure If I would feel worse about that.

Thoughts? Stories?

Jen4948 · March 2013

I'd find it more offensive to be invited only to the ceremony.

One of my closest friends is Mormon and she had a temple sealing. As a non-Mormon, I couldn't have gone to that, but she did have a reception that non-Mormons could attend along with Mormons.

Inviting people only to the ceremony but not the reception says that they don't consider you close enough to spend money to host you.

kmbryant2413 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:d6d4614a-c561-46c5-a10d-3d3ab52a1787">Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I'd like to preface this question by saying I'm not doing either of these two things. I'm just curious what most people find more offensive. When people invite you only to the reception or when people invite you only to the ceremony. I've been to a wedding where I was invited only to the reception and it really bothered me. Technically they were in the clear ettiquettewise since their ceremony was immediately before the reception and was immediate family only. But it still really bothered me. I feel like wittnessing the actual marriage is the whole point of going to the wedding and since the reception was an informal backyard shindig I kind of felt like I bought an expensive gift just to attend a BBQ. I've never been only invited to a ceremony so I'm not sure If I would feel worse about that. Thoughts? Stories?
Posted by arendiva[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>I, personally, am the opposite. I think I would feel worse about being invited only to the reception because it says 'You're cool enough to party with, just not close enough to watch our vows'. I'm always down to party, but don't need people to invite me somewhere just to do it.

</div>

wittykitty14 · March 2013

I would definitely be bothered by both. I LOVE the ceremony. It's my favorite part!

Inviting people to the reception only is acceptable, inviting people to the ceremony only is not. It's very rude. The reception, the way I see it, is a big thank you for your guests. If there's no reception, there's no sign of gratitude. Plus, it's just really tacky-"Thanks for taking the time to watch me get married, but you're not important enough to me for us to feed you". That's all I can think of. I'm sure others can add!

aurianna · March 2013

Clearly both are bad, but as PP said, ceremony only is essentially "take time out of your life to look at me in a pretty dress, and maybe still bring a gift... but I'm not going to take money out of my wallet to feed you."

the reception is the thank you for attending the ceremony. At least those who dind't get invited to the ceremony still get a thank you and a hosted party.

jaenella · March 2013

I think I'd feel worse about being invited to the ceremony only, if I knew that they were having a reception - it's like saying "you're good enough friends to watch me get married and bring a present, but I don't actually want to spend any money to host you afterwards."

If it's an immediate family only ceremony I wouldn't be upset about being invited to the reception only, but if everyone was invited to the ceremony but me, then I'd be offended!

I've never had either - although I have been invited to the latter part of a tiered reception!

daria24 · March 2013

I think it's horrible to being only invited to one part (except in cases like a Temple sealing, or an immediate family-only ceremony) but if forced to choose, I think it's more rude to only be invited to the ceremony. It says "please celebrate ME and give me a gift, but you're not good enough for me to spend a dime on to feed you."

hardlyhannah · March 2013

I have something worse than either option.

We have friends that invited me and FI to the ceremony, not to dinner, but then to dancing. What made it worse - there were only 4 people (me, FI, my best friend and her SO at the time) not invited to dinner!!! Really people?

Mind you - this couple had been in a terrible drunk driving accident (they were hit by someone who was drunk and high) and we spent a ton of time at the hospital with the husband because he was in a coma for a couple of months. It was like a slap in the face.

We have debated whether we want to involve them or not in our wedding for the above reason alone. It was just so so rude.

kmbryant2413 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:35bc25e5-0f39-463d-a04e-e489a19c6b3b">Re: Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I have something worse than either option. We have friends that invited me and FI to the ceremony, not to dinner, but then to dancing. What made it worse - there were only 4 people (me, FI, my best friend and her SO at the time) not invited to dinner!!! Really people? Mind you - this couple had been in a terrible drunk driving accident (they were hit by someone who was drunk and high) and we spent a ton of time at the hospital with the husband because he was in a coma for a couple of months. It was like a slap in the face. We have debated whether we want to involve them or not in our wedding for the above reason alone. It was just so so rude.
Posted by hardlyhannah[/QUOTE]

<div>I wouldn't invite them, and I wouldn't bat an eyelash at doing it. That's amazingly rude.</div>

FizzySips · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:35bc25e5-0f39-463d-a04e-e489a19c6b3b">Re: Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I have something worse than either option. We have friends that invited me and FI to the ceremony, not to dinner, but then to dancing. What made it worse - there were only 4 people (me, FI, my best friend and her SO at the time) not invited to dinner!!! Really people? Mind you - this couple had been in a terrible drunk driving accident (they were hit by someone who was drunk and high) and we spent a ton of time at the hospital with the husband because he was in a coma for a couple of months. It was like a slap in the face. We have debated whether we want to involve them or not in our wedding for the above reason alone. It was just so so rude.
Posted by hardlyhannah[/QUOTE]

OMG. Mortifying. I would find it difficult to still include them in my wedding, TBH. Though I know that wedding attendance and participation are not reciprocal it would be hard not to let this huge snub impact whether you invite them or not.

arendiva · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:35bc25e5-0f39-463d-a04e-e489a19c6b3b">Re: Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I have something worse than either option. We have friends that invited me and FI to the ceremony, not to dinner, but then to dancing. What made it worse - there were only 4 people (me, FI, my best friend and her SO at the time) not invited to dinner!!! Really people? Mind you - this couple had been in a terrible drunk driving accident (they were hit by someone who was drunk and high) and we spent a ton of time at the hospital with the husband because he was in a coma for a couple of months. It was like a slap in the face. We have debated whether we want to involve them or not in our wedding for the above reason alone. It was just so so rude.
Posted by hardlyhannah[/QUOTE]

That is the worst tiered event story I've ever heard. Why exclude only 4 people? That's so weird.

hardlyhannah · March 2013

I could be wrong, maybe they did that to more people and the rest just didn't show because of how rude it was. Either way it verified happened to 4 of us.

We're on fine terms now, but only see them a couple of times a year. I think they would be really offended if we didn't invite them to ours - we'll see.

winelover123 · March 2013

When I was in high school I was invited to my coach's ceremony only. The girls who were also on my squad but had been in the coach's dance classes early were also invited to the reception. I hated it - my friends talked about going to the reception then how much fun they had after and all I was invited to was the ceremony. I didn't understand why she just didn't invite the dance class girls only.

I think it's worse to invite someone to the ceremony only.

AJuliaNJ · March 2013

I'd be more upset to be invited to the ceremony only. I wouldn't even show up if there was a reception that others were invited to, but I wasn't.

Peledreamsofrain · March 2013

Both are offensive, in my book. However, only one of those essentially equals 'gimmie prezzies, then shoo so I don't have to spend money feeding you.'

[Deleted User] · March 2013

I thankfully have no experiences for either as I would find both rather offputting. However, I'd definitely find it more offensive to invite someone only the ceremony. It's basically saying "hey, come and give me a gift to celebrate me, but you're not worth enough for me to buy you dinner."

That being said, I'd be wicked pissed if I found out that the ceremony was large (more than immediate family and a friend or two) and I was just someone excluded for no good reason.

MuppetFan · March 2013

I'd be offended by both, unless, as PP indicated, it was a mormon wedding (or any other religious ceremony) where I was not allowed to enter the premesis to attend....but would've otherwise been invited.

DoubleLL1118 · March 2013

My mom and dad got a 'reception only' invite once. Except they were asked to come at like 8p.m. when everyone else had already eaten, there was not even cake left and of course no place to sit. If I was her I would have taken my check right out of that card. I dont think she knew at the time(of receiving the invite) that she was one of the only ones invited late. How Rude.

arendiva · March 2013

I guess I have just never gotten the point of inviting people to the reception only. I understand people wanting to hav e aprivate ceremony, but I kind of feel like you should just celebrate with the people you feel close enough to share the ceremony with. I understand why from an ettiquette perspective not inviting someone to a reception is worse but I still feel more annoyed with the alternative.

Option one: Someone invite me to a wedding ceremony but not the reception. (rude of them not to host me properly) The effect on me is that I have to go get my own dinner. Something I would have had to do if I hadn't gone to the wedding anyway.

Option 2: I'm invited to the reception only. I feel compelled to spend lots of money on a gift for the sake of attending what is effectively a dinner party (from my perspective). People all around me are talking about what a beautiful touching ceremony it was. I'm kind of out of the loop because I wasn't there.

lyndausvi · March 2013

I've been invited to option 1 before and never been offend in the least. I might be disappointed in not seeing the vows, but I do not get my panties in a wad over getting an invitation to party with family and friends. Bascially being invited to only the reception is being invited to a party. I like parties specially with free food and booze (which all our receptions have). ::shrugs::

Option 2 is just wrong.

arendiva · March 2013

I think you might have your numbers backwards.

SomethingBeautiful08 · March 2013

The worse siduation I've heard about was the reception only after dinner invite. I would be ticked at both missing the ceramony and the meal / part of the reception. Second worst would be ceramony only... I would be offended by a reception only invite unless I couldn't attend the cermony due to their religous faith.

lyndausvi · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:d0706b6c-117a-48a2-b267-39b05ec3dec9">Re: Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I think you might have your numbers backwards.
Posted by arendiva[/QUOTE]

<div>
</div><div>Sorry - I took my options from this line in the OP -</div><div>
</div><div>"<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">When people invite you only to the reception (option 1) or when people invite you only to the ceremony (option 2)."</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;" class="Apple-style-span">I didn't read all the posts when I replied.</span></div>

Jen4948 · March 2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_which-is-worse-1?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:1d37909e-898e-4d65-bd44-cc42bf56e6f4Post:35bc25e5-0f39-463d-a04e-e489a19c6b3b">Re: Which is worse?</a>:
[QUOTE]I have something worse than either option. We have friends that invited me and FI to the ceremony, not to dinner, but then to dancing. What made it worse - there were only 4 people (me, FI, my best friend and her SO at the time) not invited to dinner!!! Really people? Mind you - this couple had been in a terrible drunk driving accident (they were hit by someone who was drunk and high) and we spent a ton of time at the hospital with the husband because he was in a coma for a couple of months. It was like a slap in the face. We have debated whether we want to involve them or not in our wedding for the above reason alone. It was just so so rude.
Posted by hardlyhannah[/QUOTE]

Wow, that's insanely rude!!! I would definitely scratch them off any future guest lists of mine!

zizibet · March 2013

Reception only invitations don't bother me in the least. I grew up and live in a very Mormon area, and temple sealings with large receptions afterward are common.
Part of the reason it's OK etiquette-wise to have people at reception but not ceremony is that gifts are given for the ceremony not the reception-so to invite someone to only the gift giving portion of an event but not the thank you for coming to the event is rude.

Simply Fated · March 2013

In Response to Re:Which is worse?:[QUOTE]Reception only invitations don't bother me in the least. I grew up and live in a very Mormon area, and temple sealings with large receptions afterward are common. nbsp;nbsp; Part of the reason it's OK etiquettewise to have people at reception but not ceremony is that gifts are given for the ceremony not the receptionso to invite someone to only the gift giving portion of an event but not the thank you for coming to the event is rude. Posted by zizibet[/QUOTE]
Why are gifts only expected at the ceremony? I mean, the gift is for the bride and groom on their marriage. The timing the gift is given shouldn't matter. I can mail it to their house and now the gift is for neither part.

Either way, now I have a question... the card box and/or gift table are usually set up at the reception site. Is this a nono?

I don't think one or the other is worse to not be invited to. Ideally I think people should be invited to both.

However, ideally at least the reception has food, so there's that lol.

NOLAbridealmost · March 2013

A ceremony only invite is inexcusable but I sill think its crappynto invite people to the reception only. I wanna see my friends get married!

Havana2014 · March 2013

Here in ireland it's totally acceptable to be invited to only the 'dancing/party' part of a wedding. But then weddings here have a very different timeline. The ceremony is usually at about 1 or 1.30. Then on to the reception venue for drinks/ cocktails and canapés etc. Dinner would be called at approx 6pm, finishing at about 8pm. People who are invited to the' afters' would usual arrive for about 8.30/9pm when the band is starting. A DJ will then come on at 11pm, food is served again at about 12am. Then when the DJ finishes at about 2/3am it's on to the hotel bar till the early hours. It's not considered bad etiquette at all to send out evening only invites. You would never get a ceremony only invite however.

Which is worse?

Re: Which is worse?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards