this is the code for the render ad
Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Wedding Etiquette Forum
Wedding Etiquette Forum
New Discussion

Martha should know better...

offthemarket915offthemarket915 member
250 Love Its 100 Comments First Answer First Anniversary
edited January 2014 in Wedding Etiquette Forum

I was reading the latest Martha Stewart Weddings magazine, which includes a Q&A ettique column (forget the name of the woman who writes the answers).  One MOB asked about having a tiered wedding because their chapel cannot hold as many people as the reception venue.  Imagine my shock when the answer was, Sure go ahead, it's fairly common and perfectly ok.   What???  SMH

Report Reply to Post

Re: Martha should know better...

  • MNVegasMNVegas member
    Fifth Anniversary 1000 Comments 250 Love Its Name Dropper
    I've never considered MS as an etiquette expert so not surprised at her answer.
    Mary Click here for my bio! image
    Report Reply
  • lyndausvilyndausvi mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    edited January 2014
    It's okay to have a smaller ceremony and a larger reception.    Just not the other way around.

    It's generally suggested that the smaller ceremony to be very small compared to the reception to lessen the chances of people being hurt.   Of course, some people will be hurt regardless. Others, like myself, didn't mind not attending a ceremony when we found out only siblings and parents attended.    However, had half the reception guests were invited  to both and I was part of the half that wasn't I would have felt slighted.

    Some religions like the Mormon's only allow members in the temple.  In that case, some non-mormon family and friends would not be invited to the ceremony and only the reception.  (I wouldn't feel slighted if I was part of the minority not invited to the ceremony because of the religious aspect).


    Again only ceremony and not reception is a no-no.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    Report Reply
  • offthemarket915offthemarket915 member
    250 Love Its 100 Comments First Answer First Anniversary

    I've never considered MS as an etiquette expert so not surprised at her answer.

     

     

    Stuck in the box-

     

    Someone else writes the column.  IMO, if you're going to hold it out as a source of info, you'd better know what you're talking about.

    Report Reply
  • offthemarket915offthemarket915 member
    250 Love Its 100 Comments First Answer First Anniversary
    lyndausvi  well as I stated above the reasons were not religious, it was merely a space issue.   And maybe it's cool for the Mormons, but where I'm from, this is just not done.  Considered very rude and gift-grabby.   After all, the reception is the thank-you to the guests for attending the ceremony.
    Report Reply
  • HisGirlFriday13HisGirlFriday13 member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary 5 Answers
    It's Martha Stewart. Really, just consider the source.

    And if it's a truly private ceremony -- for religious reasons or whatever -- with only parents/grandparents/siblings in attendance, and then a larger reception, that's OK. But it had better be a huge discrepancy -- like 20 people at the ceremony and 200 at the reception.

    If it's 140 at the ceremony and 170 at the reception, that's SO not OK.
    Anniversary

    image
    I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
    Report Reply
  • lyndausvilyndausvi mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    I get why you might fell slighted, but it's not a breech of etiquette.

    A certain chapel can be very important to some people.  It could be their life long church.   I don't fault someone for wanting to get married there, but also want to celebrate with others at the reception.

    And I call BS on the gift grabby.   My social group's receptions are fully hosted parties.   None of us spend thousands of dollars providing food, drink and open bar just to get a set of towels.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    Report Reply
  • HisGirlFriday13HisGirlFriday13 member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary 5 Answers
    lyndausvi said:
    I get why you might fell slighted, but it's not a breech of etiquette.

    A certain chapel can be very important to some people.  It could be their life long church.   I don't fault someone for wanting to get married there, but also want to celebrate with others at the reception.

    And I call BS on the gift grabby.   My social group's receptions are fully hosted parties.   None of us spend thousands of dollars providing food, drink and open bar just to get a set of towels.
    If that's the case, then you make adjustments. If you are dead-set on that chapel, and it can only hold 140, then you either invite only that number to the wedding OR you have a private ceremony and then a huge reception. But you don't invite 80 percent of the guests to both and 20 percent to only the reception. 

    I am totally on-board with private ceremonies and big receptions, as long as that's truly the case. But a "tiered" event, when most of the guests are important enough to make both events, but some aren't, is rude, no matter how you cut it.
    Anniversary

    image
    I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
    Report Reply
  • banana468banana468 member
    Knottie Warrior 25000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    Martha Stewart is NOT known for appropriate decorum. She used to live a few towns away and the local paper was filled worth complaints about how she treated others.

    I'll take her advice on a nice way to decorate my living room and that's about it.
    Report Reply
  • lyndausvilyndausvi mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    HisGirlFriday13 said:
    lyndausvi said:
    I get why you might fell slighted, but it's not a breech of etiquette.

    A certain chapel can be very important to some people.  It could be their life long church.   I don't fault someone for wanting to get married there, but also want to celebrate with others at the reception.

    And I call BS on the gift grabby.   My social group's receptions are fully hosted parties.   None of us spend thousands of dollars providing food, drink and open bar just to get a set of towels.
    If that's the case, then you make adjustments. If you are dead-set on that chapel, and it can only hold 140, then you either invite only that number to the wedding OR you have a private ceremony and then a huge reception. But you don't invite 80 percent of the guests to both and 20 percent to only the reception. 

    I am totally on-board with private ceremonies and big receptions, as long as that's truly the case. But a "tiered" event, when most of the guests are important enough to make both events, but some aren't, is rude, no matter how you cut it.
    I was only going on what the OP posted.   Nothing  in the OP said anything about size  of either guest list or even what kind of chapel it is?      

    Just stating that a small ceremony/larger reception is not against etiquette.  Which is correct.

    Personally speaking I agree with you about size of the ceremony vs the reception and even said so in my first reply.   






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards