Really?! Found this on WW

aleighc3 · April 2014

http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-forums/how-to-word-the-invites-when-we-will-already-be-married/ef8bfa4811686ffc.html

annnnd go!

huskypuppy14 · April 2014

Since they are not reenacting the ceremony, I don't think it's that big a deal. It's perfectly acceptable to have a close family ceremony and then have a reception at a later time. It doesn't matter that this party is the next day or the next month.

aleighc3 · April 2014

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.

syoun1nj · April 2014

Actually in this case she seems to be doing it the proper way. The only time it's okay to only invite people to the ceremony is if you are having a very private, family-only ceremony. And she isn't lying to her guests about being married.

larrygaga · April 2014

My sister did the ceremony and reception on different days, but all the same people were invited.

aleighc3 · April 2014

To me it's rude...I get the reason to have a nice, private ceremony. What I don't get, is having a big reception party. If you really wanted it to be a private family and close friends only event, keep it to those people and don't open your "private moment" to everyone else who was not special enough to get invited to actually see you get wed. So, you won't let me see you marry, but you want me to celebrate it? Yeah, but no.

aleighc3 · April 2014

It is rude, RUDE ,....rude..it's rude anyway you put it...

AddieCake · April 2014

It's not rude when the ceremony is private like that.

lookame3639 · April 2014

Back in the day when there weren't special wedding dresses and huge receptions there were traditional private ceremonies, sometimes destination weddings after the couple came back they would have a reception. These receptions were basic food and company to share the event.

You can have a reception at any time so long as it's receiving guests without all the traditional wedding type things (bouquet tosses, cake cuttings ect) a reception is a basic party with food and such.

syoun1nj · April 2014

You can think it is rude all you want. But that does not make it so.

AlexisA01 · April 2014

I am trying to figure out how is this rude? I remember other regs saying a private ceremony is fine as long as it was truly private.

KGold80 · April 2014

I don't see an issue with this at all. This isn't like a tiered reception or anything like that. I would gladly attend the celebration of a friend who was married in a small, private wedding. In fact, my fiancé and I will likely be invited to something similar later this summer because some friends of his are getting married on the beach in a private ceremony when they go on vacation with their kids. Now, if they invited you to the ceremony and then decided not to invite you to the reception that would be rude. This is not rude.

huskypuppy14 · April 2014

These things are rude:

Inviting 50 people to your ceremony and inviting 70 people to the reception (it's too small of a percentage of people that were not included in the ceremony).
Inviting 100 people to the ceremony but only 50 people to the reception.

Tiered receptions.
Being married and having a "redo" ceremony and reception, especially if you don't tell people you are already married.

What is not rude:

Having a private ceremony with immediate family only and having a reception with more people.
Having a at home reception after a destination wedding.
Having a private ceremony with only members of your faith (common in Mormon weddings, because only members can attend the ceremony) and then having a reception with all your friends and family.

ETA: I put the private religious ceremony in the wrong place.

Simply Fated · April 2014

aleighc3 said:
It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.

I agree with you.

If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception?

I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't."

I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different.

I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding."
Well, isn't this the same thing?
Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding."
This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

Inkdancer · April 2014

Simply Fated said:

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.
I agree with you. If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception? I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't." I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different. I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding." Well, isn't this the same thing? Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding." This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

The reception isn't just for thanking people for coming to the ceremony--it can also be thanking them for supporting your relationship and for being good friends/ family members. As long as it was a truly private ceremony and the reception is properly hosted, it's perfectly fine.

It also sort of depends on the hosting. Inviting people to a cash-bar, potluck reception at which you will open all the gifts in front of them? That's tacky no matter how you slice it. But if you choose to invite your friends and family to a reception where you provide food and drink, and are open with them about the fact that you were married a few days or hours before, go ahead.

Simply Fated · April 2014

Inkdancer said:

Simply Fated said:

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.
I agree with you. If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception? I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't." I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different. I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding." Well, isn't this the same thing? Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding." This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

The reception isn't just for thanking people for coming to the ceremony--it can also be thanking them for supporting your relationship and for being good friends/ family members. As long as it was a truly private ceremony and the reception is properly hosted, it's perfectly fine.

It also sort of depends on the hosting. Inviting people to a cash-bar, potluck reception at which you will open all the gifts in front of them? That's tacky no matter how you slice it. But if you choose to invite your friends and family to a reception where you provide food and drink, and are open with them about the fact that you were married a few days or hours before, go ahead.

The bolded part negates the whole, "You have to invite those who came to the ceremony to the reception because the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony." What you posted there, in the bold, tells brides on this forum that the guests don't need to invite guests to both. Why is it okay to only invite guests to the reception and not the ceremony, if it's a small ceremony? You didn't answer that. All I see is, "it's perfectly fine." Why is it fine? Logically, why is it fine to invite someone to celebrate something they weren't invited to? You can have a party at any time where you invite guests to to come celebrate the fact that you are in a happy and loving relationship. I don't agree with you that it should be at the "reception." It should be called something else. I mean, if the point of the reception is to host those who came to the ceremony, and that's not what you're doing, then it should be called something else.
The same thing as we tell brides, "Don't call it a bridal shower, call it a 'lunch out with friends'."

Inkdancer · April 2014

Simply Fated said:

Inkdancer said:

Simply Fated said:

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.
I agree with you. If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception? I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't." I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different. I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding." Well, isn't this the same thing? Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding." This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

The reception isn't just for thanking people for coming to the ceremony--it can also be thanking them for supporting your relationship and for being good friends/ family members. As long as it was a truly private ceremony and the reception is properly hosted, it's perfectly fine.

It also sort of depends on the hosting. Inviting people to a cash-bar, potluck reception at which you will open all the gifts in front of them? That's tacky no matter how you slice it. But if you choose to invite your friends and family to a reception where you provide food and drink, and are open with them about the fact that you were married a few days or hours before, go ahead.

The bolded part negates the whole, "You have to invite those who came to the ceremony to the reception because the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony." What you posted there, in the bold, tells brides on this forum that the guests don't need to invite guests to both. Why is it okay to only invite guests to the reception and not the ceremony, if it's a small ceremony? You didn't answer that. All I see is, "it's perfectly fine." Why is it fine? Logically, why is it fine to invite someone to celebrate something they weren't invited to? You can have a party at any time where you invite guests to to come celebrate the fact that you are in a happy and loving relationship. I don't agree with you that it should be at the "reception." It should be called something else. I mean, if the point of the reception is to host those who came to the ceremony, and that's not what you're doing, then it should be called something else.
The same thing as we tell brides, "Don't call it a bridal shower, call it a 'lunch out with friends'."

Consider the following cases:

The bride and groom are LDS. Nobody who is not Mormon is allowed to enter a Temple, but as Mormons they can only get married in a temple. Should they not allow their friends and family to celebrate with them at all, if those people are not members of their faith?

Someone in the immediate family of the bride or groom is unwell. Only about 8 people can join them in the hospital chapel--which is as far from her room as the mother can go. Would you ask them to choose between hosting their family and friends at a party and having their mother at the ceremony?

Even Crane's Blue Book allows that truly intimate ceremonies with larger receptions later are okay. This line needs to be treated with care, but inviting only immediate family to the ceremony and then a much larger guest list to the reception has long been considered an etiquette-acceptable practice.

Maggie0829 · April 2014

I am not a fan of the private ceremony, larger reception thing. But that doesn't mean doing so is rude. Just because you may not approve or like something doesn't make it generally a rude thing to do.

Cash bar? Not enough seats for guests? HM jar? All completely rude things.

Not having your favorite type of vodka? Serving chicken when you want steak? Not playing your favorite type of music? Not at all rude, just not things you like.

See the difference?

Simply Fated · April 2014

Inkdancer said:

Simply Fated said:

Inkdancer said:

Simply Fated said:

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.
I agree with you. If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception? I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't." I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different. I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding." Well, isn't this the same thing? Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding." This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

The reception isn't just for thanking people for coming to the ceremony--it can also be thanking them for supporting your relationship and for being good friends/ family members. As long as it was a truly private ceremony and the reception is properly hosted, it's perfectly fine.

It also sort of depends on the hosting. Inviting people to a cash-bar, potluck reception at which you will open all the gifts in front of them? That's tacky no matter how you slice it. But if you choose to invite your friends and family to a reception where you provide food and drink, and are open with them about the fact that you were married a few days or hours before, go ahead.

The bolded part negates the whole, "You have to invite those who came to the ceremony to the reception because the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony." What you posted there, in the bold, tells brides on this forum that the guests don't need to invite guests to both. Why is it okay to only invite guests to the reception and not the ceremony, if it's a small ceremony? You didn't answer that. All I see is, "it's perfectly fine." Why is it fine? Logically, why is it fine to invite someone to celebrate something they weren't invited to? You can have a party at any time where you invite guests to to come celebrate the fact that you are in a happy and loving relationship. I don't agree with you that it should be at the "reception." It should be called something else. I mean, if the point of the reception is to host those who came to the ceremony, and that's not what you're doing, then it should be called something else.
The same thing as we tell brides, "Don't call it a bridal shower, call it a 'lunch out with friends'."

Consider the following cases:

The bride and groom are LDS. Nobody who is not Mormon is allowed to enter a Temple, but as Mormons they can only get married in a temple. Should they not allow their friends and family to celebrate with them at all, if those people are not members of their faith?

Someone in the immediate family of the bride or groom is unwell. Only about 8 people can join them in the hospital chapel--which is as far from her room as the mother can go. Would you ask them to choose between hosting their family and friends at a party and having their mother at the ceremony?

Even Crane's Blue Book allows that truly intimate ceremonies with larger receptions later are okay. This line needs to be treated with care, but inviting only immediate family to the ceremony and then a much larger guest list to the reception has long been considered an etiquette-acceptable practice.

I'm not going to touch your first example because I have opinions that might come off as offensive to some.
For the second example... is that the case here? Hell, is the first example you gave the case here? Is the thread from the WW posted by a Mormon whose dad is in the hospital with terminal cancer?
At what point are the situations not good enough or important enough to warrant a "private ceremony" followed by a larger reception?
In our lives we make decisions. That includes who you invite to your wedding ceremony. Sometimes we're given boundaries and limitations for our guest list. I truly believe that we should own the tough decisions we make.

For the third example, a book says it's okay? Well, then if Emily's Post's book says Honeymoon Registries are okay, then they must be okay...
Why does the Crane Etiquette book say it's okay? Like, what reason does it give, other than "Because we say it's okay."
Why is it an acceptable practice?

Maggie0829 · April 2014

Simply Fated said:

For the third example, a book says it's okay? Well, then if Emily's Post's book says Honeymoon Registries are okay, then they must be okay... Why does the Crane Etiquette book say it's okay? Like, what reason does it give, other than "Because we say it's okay."Why is it an acceptable practice?

I really hate when people only use what a book says as whether or not something is acceptable. Whatever happened to using common sense?

Simply Fated · April 2014

Maggie0829 said:

Simply Fated said:

For the third example, a book says it's okay? Well, then if Emily's Post's book says Honeymoon Registries are okay, then they must be okay... Why does the Crane Etiquette book say it's okay? Like, what reason does it give, other than "Because we say it's okay."Why is it an acceptable practice?

I really hate when people only use what a book says as whether or not something is acceptable. Whatever happened to using common sense?

Yeah, I just don't take what I read in a book automatically as fact and the final word. I fully admit to trying to follow what Miss Manners says, but that's usually because she offers logic behind her advice.
I would just like to know why a private ceremony followed by a large reception is acceptable. I understand that a lot of people accept it, but why is that?

We don't accept prewedding parties that way, so why postwedding parties?

kitty8403 · April 2014

I'm not normally one to get my panties in a wad over PPDs, but most Knottie regulars will recommend not having them. But this poster is not having a PPD. I cannot see this particular case hitting any of the usual reasons PPDs are generally considered rude by the majority of etiquette board regulars.

1. She is not lying to guests about the timing of her marriage.

2. She is not staging a "redo" ceremony.

3. We have no particular reason to suppose she is registering for lots of gifts or asking for cash from those not attending the ceremony.

4. She's hosting a party to celebrate a life event. She is not pretending to be a bride. Married people are allowed to throw parties and invite friends/family to them. They are allowed to dance and play music and eat cake if they want to.

5. The objection to the word "reception" is semantic and not overly relevant since most posters in that thread suggested alternative phrasing such as "celebration" instead.

6. A wedding is a wedding. A reception is a party. They are different events that serve different purposes. Weddings solemnize the marriage. Receptions serve both to acknowledge the time/support of those who witnessed the couple's marriage and allow those closest to the couple an opportunity to celebrate with them. This is why inviting someone to the ceremony but not the reception would be rude--they gave you their time and support, and by excluding them, you would be discounting their efforts.

crunchymamaof2 · April 2014

I agree with you that I think this is a rude thing to do but etiquette wise it's just fine. I don't necessarily understand it except for the cases @inkdancer described. But this is not one of the many wedding wire fails and they've done nothing wrong.

Gerbertmcway · April 2014

Simply Fated said:

Inkdancer said:

Simply Fated said:

It is rude to invite someone to the reception but not the ceremony. It's basically saying " ok, well you were not important enough to be invited to see me get wed, but by all means please come to a party where you will most likely give a gift"

It comes off as very rude, and as if her "reception" guests are just an afterthought. Rude.
I agree with you. If the point of the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony, then shouldn't only those invited to the ceremony also be invited to the reception? I have yet to hear/read a reason why it isn't rude, other than something along the lines of "it just isn't." I've asked a couple of times in different threads for reasons and I haven't recieved in answer in any of them. Maybe this will be different. I mean, we tell brides not to invite people to showers if they aren't invited to the wedding because it says, "You're good enough to get me a gift for my wedding, but not good enough to actually attend my wedding." Well, isn't this the same thing? Same with Bach parties. "You can come to my prewedding party, but not my actual wedding." This is like saying, "You can come to my post wedding party, but not my actual wedding."

The reception isn't just for thanking people for coming to the ceremony--it can also be thanking them for supporting your relationship and for being good friends/ family members. As long as it was a truly private ceremony and the reception is properly hosted, it's perfectly fine.

It also sort of depends on the hosting. Inviting people to a cash-bar, potluck reception at which you will open all the gifts in front of them? That's tacky no matter how you slice it. But if you choose to invite your friends and family to a reception where you provide food and drink, and are open with them about the fact that you were married a few days or hours before, go ahead.

The bolded part negates the whole, "You have to invite those who came to the ceremony to the reception because the reception is to thank the guests for coming to the ceremony." What you posted there, in the bold, tells brides on this forum that the guests don't need to invite guests to both. Why is it okay to only invite guests to the reception and not the ceremony, if it's a small ceremony? You didn't answer that. All I see is, "it's perfectly fine." Why is it fine? Logically, why is it fine to invite someone to celebrate something they weren't invited to? You can have a party at any time where you invite guests to to come celebrate the fact that you are in a happy and loving relationship. I don't agree with you that it should be at the "reception." It should be called something else. I mean, if the point of the reception is to host those who came to the ceremony, and that's not what you're doing, then it should be called something else.
The same thing as we tell brides, "Don't call it a bridal shower, call it a 'lunch out with friends'."

So basically you're arguing over word choice.... Got it.

crunchymamaof2 · April 2014

@gerbertmcway changing a word can change the entire meaning of a phrase. So yes, word choice is often argued on here. Usually due to snowflakes wanting a certain word or name so they get more presents and attention.

Really?! Found this on WW

Re: Really?! Found this on WW

Choose Another Board

Search Boards