Family Drama!

PrettyGirlLost · July 2015

banana468 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

I'm starting to get slightly confused and concerned about this whole "other events" situation. A lot of our friends are coming from NYC to our wedding in south Jersey. But the rest of my family (and FI's family) are from the SJ area. What you all say it would be great to have an extra event planned? Because, well...we actually live in NYC and see our friends quite often, but they are all probably getting hotel rooms even though they could technically drive home. I didn't really think twice about it until now, because IMO (which might be wrong), when you agree to go to a wedding, you are aware of the costs that come into play by agreeing to go.

Isn't New Jersey, like, directly south of New York? I mean, I know NYCers think neighborhoods in NYC outside of their own are foreign countries, but I wouldn't worry about having a pre wedding event just for guests traveling in from NYC! ><

Hahah yes it is! That is why I was like "well...I mean they ARE traveling and staying in hotels, but it's not like, hours and hours away. About 2 max.

It would be ridiculous, to me, to fell like I was expected to host a pre wedding function for these guests. But I also don't ever *expect* to see any couple, local or OOT or DW, prior to the actual ceremony and reception. I assume they are busy at that point.

I feel like if they're going to be at an RD with some of their guests then if they're having a huge OOT guest list, eat with all of them.

Depends on who is hosting the RD. It's the hosts' prerogative to host whomever they want and can afford to host.

Like I mentioned earlier, my IL's didn't offer to host all the OOT guests- even though most were my FIL's family. They only offered to host the WP and their SO's/kids. Seemed reasonable to me! We hosted everyone properly, as per this board, at the reception though ;-)

Knottie24078198 · July 2015

Most of you are missing my original dilemma, which is that this extra event is sceluded to only certain people and I would like to spend more time with ALL of the guests, not just a handful of them. So now am I supposed to invite EVERYONE to this second dinner...which is going to cost way to much to buy dinner two nights in a row for everyone. Or tell the few that have already been invited...too bad there is a change of plans and we are throwing a lunch that everyone is invited to?

Maggie0829 · July 2015

Knottie24078198 said:

Most of you are missing my original dilemma, which is that this extra event is sceluded to only certain people and I would like to spend more time with ALL of the guests, not just a handful of them. So now am I supposed to invite EVERYONE to this second dinner...which is going to cost way to much to buy dinner two nights in a row for everyone. Or tell the few that have already been invited...too bad there is a change of plans and we are throwing a lunch that everyone is invited to?

But your Father is allowed to plan whatever dinner he wishes and invite whoever he wants. If you want to spend time with ALL of your guests then you need to include them all at the RD (or instead of dinner you could do cocktails and appetizers and just nix having a rehearsal completely) or plan an after wedding day brunch with everyone. If you do the brunch then your Father can still have his dinner the night before but you shouldn't feel obligated to stop by since you will be seeing all of your guests at the brunch.

[Deleted User] · July 2015

Knottie24078198 said:

Most of you are missing my original dilemma, which is that this extra event is sceluded to only certain people and I would like to spend more time with ALL of the guests, not just a handful of them. So now am I supposed to invite EVERYONE to this second dinner...which is going to cost way to much to buy dinner two nights in a row for everyone. Or tell the few that have already been invited...too bad there is a change of plans and we are throwing a lunch that everyone is invited to?

Wait wasn't your dad throwing the second event? I'd say that is his call, if he is hosting it. If YOU are paying for it, and you don't want to do both, then do one or the other depending on what works best for your guests.

Knottie24078198 · July 2015

What most of you are missing here is that this extra event is only including SELECT guests, not ALL guests. That is my problem. I have no issue with hosting something extra as long as everyone is included!

AddieCake · July 2015

So just don't go to the event your dad is hosting. Then YOU aren't the one snubbing anyone. Or tell him how you feel about wanting everyone included.

Maggie0829 · July 2015

Knottie24078198 said:

What most of you are missing here is that this extra event is only including SELECT guests, not ALL guests. That is my problem. I have no issue with hosting something extra as long as everyone is included!

But what you are not understanding is that your Father does not have to include everyone in his dinner. He can host whatever event he wants, especially if it is the same night as your RD. I mean I get why he wants to do what he is doing. He wants to spend time with his family too and what better time then when you are busy with your rehearsal and rehearsal dinner and his family is free to do whatever.

So you can host a next day brunch for everyone. But your Father can still do whatever he damn well pleases.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2015

Knottie24078198 said:

Most of you are missing my original dilemma, which is that this extra event is sceluded to only certain people and I would like to spend more time with ALL of the guests, not just a handful of them. So now am I supposed to invite EVERYONE to this second dinner...which is going to cost way to much to buy dinner two nights in a row for everyone. Or tell the few that have already been invited...too bad there is a change of plans and we are throwing a lunch that everyone is invited to?

We already addressed this issue.

I have said twice now, this will be the 3rd time, make a brief appearance at your father's dinner and say hi to ppl then leave and go do whatever you want with whomever you want.

aurianna · July 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

Knottie24078198 said:

Most of you are missing my original dilemma, which is that this extra event is sceluded to only certain people and I would like to spend more time with ALL of the guests, not just a handful of them. So now am I supposed to invite EVERYONE to this second dinner...which is going to cost way to much to buy dinner two nights in a row for everyone. Or tell the few that have already been invited...too bad there is a change of plans and we are throwing a lunch that everyone is invited to?

We already addressed this issue.

I have said twice now, this will be the 3rd time, make a brief appearance at your father's dinner and say hi to ppl then leave and go do whatever you want with whomever you want.

This.

Also, if you want to see people but don't want to / can't host another event, you can always spread something by word of mouth "FI and I will be hanging out at the hotel bar around this time the night before the wedding in case anyone wants to hang." In that case you aren't on the hook to host anything, but you can still spend time with people.

snowywinter · July 2015

banana468 said:

Jen4948 said:

KatWAG said:

Unpopular opinion: If you are asking everyone to travel for your wedding, you should host a welcome dinner for everyone. Not a RD for a select few.

I disagree.
First of all, the person throwing the rehearsal dinner may not be the one inviting all the people who need to travel. Second, just because someone is traveling to a wedding does not entitle them to additional hospitality-especially if they are not in the wedding party. They will be invited to the reception, where presumably they will receive all the amenities that guests are entitled to. And it can really cost a ton of money to host lots of people who aren't in the wedding party-especially if the numbers of people traveling almost turn it into a second reception.

But the point is that they are CHOOSING to make this a DW for all those guests. So I'm with the others on the UO on this. If you're picking a DW (not wedding in the bride's hometown which means the grooms family travels but a wedding in the Adirondacks when no one lives there) then you're forcing ALL your guests to make travel plans and turn your wedding into a vacation weekend. When you make that choice, I think it comes with hosting the dinner the night before for all those people.

I can tell you that if you picked a DW and only hosted me for the reception I'd think you were being a bit cheap.

If you thought I was being cheap by "only" hosting you for the reception, I can promise you we wouldn't be friends.

snowywinter · July 2015

southernbelle0915 said:

So etiquette-wise, sure.... they could ask everyone to travel to Jamaica and then serve afternoon cake and punch. Technically they hosted something immediately following the ceremony and it was appropriate for the time of day, so no problem, right? Yup. And technically, no one had to attend if they didn't want to.

Well if I'm spending thousands of dollars to attend your beach resort wedding in Jamaica, I would be little bummed if the couple only hosted cake and punch. It would feel like, "ok this couple asked me to spend thousands of dollars to witness their wedding and then they're only willing to pay $5/guest for a reception....?"

Sorry if that sounds judgey but I would absolutely have that thought. We went to a DW this winter and the couple hosted a welcome dinner, a reception, and a bar hopping tour on a private bus. I truly felt like they valued their guests making the trek for them. If they had served cake and punch....not so much.

So if the couple spends $300 on you, they value you. If they don't, they don't value you.

yogapants · July 2015

Knottie1434918845 said:

southernbelle0915 said:

So etiquette-wise, sure.... they could ask everyone to travel to Jamaica and then serve afternoon cake and punch. Technically they hosted something immediately following the ceremony and it was appropriate for the time of day, so no problem, right? Yup. And technically, no one had to attend if they didn't want to.

Well if I'm spending thousands of dollars to attend your beach resort wedding in Jamaica, I would be little bummed if the couple only hosted cake and punch. It would feel like, "ok this couple asked me to spend thousands of dollars to witness their wedding and then they're only willing to pay $5/guest for a reception....?"

Sorry if that sounds judgey but I would absolutely have that thought. We went to a DW this winter and the couple hosted a welcome dinner, a reception, and a bar hopping tour on a private bus. I truly felt like they valued their guests making the trek for them. If they had served cake and punch....not so much.

So if the couple spends $300 on you, they value you. If they don't, they don't value you.

Please. PLEASE. You are being deliberately obtuse here. There is a whole lot in between cake and punch and a 7-course dinner.

But yes, if the couple and the majority of the guests live in, say, Florida and they decide that their wedding vision requires a wedding on the coast of Oregon, and then they host some $10 per person pasta buffet, I am going to assume that their "vision" was more important than their guests.

I have friends who are getting married in Albuquerque. Plane tickets from where I live cost us $1k as a couple. But these friends are originally from Connecticut and Virginia, have extended family in Michigan and New Mexico, went to school in North Carolina and New York City, and now live in Nebraska. Anywhere they chose would've been a destination wedding for the majority of the guest list, so I don't fault them for just picking a place.

But if you (general you) live in Tennessee, where you and your fiancé grew up and went to college and most of your guests are also Tennesseeans, and then you choose to have a wedding in Montana, then yeah I think you need to make sure you're going the extra mile for your guests. You had an easy option (get married in Tennessee, easy for everyone or almost everyone on the guest list) and you chose not to go that route. And if you choose to do that and then don't make a little extra effort, I do wonder why you even bothered to invite all those guests in the first place.

banana468 · July 2015

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

Jen4948 said:

KatWAG said:

Unpopular opinion: If you are asking everyone to travel for your wedding, you should host a welcome dinner for everyone. Not a RD for a select few.

I disagree.
First of all, the person throwing the rehearsal dinner may not be the one inviting all the people who need to travel. Second, just because someone is traveling to a wedding does not entitle them to additional hospitality-especially if they are not in the wedding party. They will be invited to the reception, where presumably they will receive all the amenities that guests are entitled to. And it can really cost a ton of money to host lots of people who aren't in the wedding party-especially if the numbers of people traveling almost turn it into a second reception.

But the point is that they are CHOOSING to make this a DW for all those guests. So I'm with the others on the UO on this. If you're picking a DW (not wedding in the bride's hometown which means the grooms family travels but a wedding in the Adirondacks when no one lives there) then you're forcing ALL your guests to make travel plans and turn your wedding into a vacation weekend. When you make that choice, I think it comes with hosting the dinner the night before for all those people.

I can tell you that if you picked a DW and only hosted me for the reception I'd think you were being a bit cheap.

If you thought I was being cheap by "only" hosting you for the reception, I can promise you we wouldn't be friends.

Fair enough. If I'm taking days off of work and spending multiple nights in a hotel all to support your choice in a DW, I think you need to do more than the required 15 pieces of flair. If it's not a DW, fine.

snowywinter · July 2015

yogapants said:

Please. PLEASE. You are being deliberately obtuse here. There is a whole lot in between cake and punch and a 7-course dinner. But yes, if the couple and the majority of the guests live in, say, Florida and they decide that their wedding vision requires a wedding on the coast of Oregon, and then they host some $10 per person pasta buffet, I am going to assume that their "vision" was more important than their guests. I have friends who are getting married in Albuquerque. Plane tickets from where I live cost us $1k as a couple. But these friends are originally from Connecticut and Virginia, have extended family in Michigan and New Mexico, went to school in North Carolina and New York City, and now live in Nebraska. Anywhere they chose would've been a destination wedding for the majority of the guest list, so I don't fault them for just picking a place. But if you (general you) live in Tennessee, where you and your fiancé grew up and went to college and most of your guests are also Tennesseeans, and then you choose to have a wedding in Montana, then yeah I think you need to make sure you're going the extra mile for your guests. You had an easy option (get married in Tennessee, easy for everyone or almost everyone on the guest list) and you chose not to go that route. And if you choose to do that and then don't make a little extra effort, I do wonder why you even bothered to invite all those guests in the first place.

They invited you because they love you and want you to be there. They may not have the financial means to host you at several different parties to prove that to you, but if you need all that to know you're valued, it makes me wonder why you bothered to go in the first place. DW are expensive for all involved and you're right that the couple made a choice to do it where they chose to do it. But by the same token, every single guest also made a choice to attend. I also think it would be tacky to only do a cake and punch reception when you're at a DW; a full reception would be more appropriate. That said, to attend the wedding -- even a DW -- with the expectation they are going to be hosted to more than what a normal wedding entails (ceremony and reception) is on them. And if they are, in fact, "hurt" that they weren't hosted to more than what a normal wedding entails, that speaks more to the person than the couple.

banana468 · July 2015

If a couple opt for a wedding that becomes a required vacation for all their guests and all they think they need to do for the guests is host one meal I think it speaks to the sad state of the special snowflakes we are raising.

Sure I'll bet that your guests had a great time fishing on the lake and spending their time in the hotel pool after a day of paddle boating that they wouldn't have been able to do without you picking such a beautiful destination and way for your guests to have a great time. But I think it's a sad state that a couple would require all of their guests to travel for multiple DAYS and then think that they only should pick up the tab for ONE MEAL. Yeah, if that makes me an ungrateful guest for thinking that you expecting me to be in your wedding destination area for multiple days means that you'll actually host me for more than the one day call me ungrateful. Because I'll have a few words for you too.

snowywinter · July 2015

banana468 said:

If a couple opt for a wedding that becomes a required vacation for all their guests and all they think they need to do for the guests is host one meal I think it speaks to the sad state of the special snowflakes we are raising. Sure I'll bet that your guests had a great time fishing on the lake and spending their time in the hotel pool after a day of paddle boating that they wouldn't have been able to do without you picking such a beautiful destination and way for your guests to have a great time. But I think it's a sad state that a couple would require all of their guests to travel for multiple DAYS and then think that they only should pick up the tab for ONE MEAL. Yeah, if that makes me an ungrateful guest for thinking that you expecting me to be in your wedding destination area for multiple days means that you'll actually host me for more than the one day call me ungrateful. Because I'll have a few words for you too.

You're making the choice to go and to stay for multiple days. Depending on where the wedding is, at some DW locations, you can go for just one night if you feel that strongly about it. Or decline the invitation altogether.

I'm not saying the bride and groom shouldn't offer pizza and sodas the night people come in, IF THEY CAN afford to. I'm saying expecting it is on you. Their obligation ends at ceremony and reception. Anything else is extra and expecting anything else is your own entitlement, not lack of etiquette on their part.

banana468 · July 2015

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

If a couple opt for a wedding that becomes a required vacation for all their guests and all they think they need to do for the guests is host one meal I think it speaks to the sad state of the special snowflakes we are raising.

Sure I'll bet that your guests had a great time fishing on the lake and spending their time in the hotel pool after a day of paddle boating that they wouldn't have been able to do without you picking such a beautiful destination and way for your guests to have a great time. But I think it's a sad state that a couple would require all of their guests to travel for multiple DAYS and then think that they only should pick up the tab for ONE MEAL. Yeah, if that makes me an ungrateful guest for thinking that you expecting me to be in your wedding destination area for multiple days means that you'll actually host me for more than the one day call me ungrateful. Because I'll have a few words for you too.

You're making the choice to go and to stay for multiple days. Depending on where the wedding is, at some DW locations, you can go for just one night if you feel that strongly about it. Or decline the invitation altogether.

I'm not saying the bride and groom shouldn't offer pizza and sodas the night people come in, IF THEY CAN afford to. I'm saying expecting it is on you. Their obligation ends at ceremony and reception. Anything else is extra and expecting anything else is your own entitlement, not lack of etiquette on their part.

And this is where I honestly think you can follow the letter of etiquette of etiquette and not the spirit of it. If you're having a real DW with guests taking the time and days to be there and you honestly think your only obligation is a meal I AM going to think you're mistaken.

But I also think you shouldn't have a DW I'd you're not going to up your game. Just like you don't have to go all out for a NYE wedding and you could end it at 9:45 but I think you need to think more about your guests and not just what is the minimum.

We didn't have our wedding where we lived in the tiny state of CT because it would have turned the event into one requiring a hotel stay for most guests or they would have had to leave early. Instead we had it closer to where our parents and many extended family lived.

Weddings have turned into a new beast from what they used to be. It chaps my hide to see people citing the etiquette that the only requirements are hosting the reception when years ago a couple wouldn't have presumed top think to turn their vow exchange into a vacation for all guests. Sure you can stand there and tell me that and you will be "right". But I think it's a sad statement that a couple wants their event to occupy their guests' entire weekend while saying that they only think they need to feed their guests one meal of it.

Jen4948 · July 2015

banana468 said:

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

If a couple opt for a wedding that becomes a required vacation for all their guests and all they think they need to do for the guests is host one meal I think it speaks to the sad state of the special snowflakes we are raising.

Sure I'll bet that your guests had a great time fishing on the lake and spending their time in the hotel pool after a day of paddle boating that they wouldn't have been able to do without you picking such a beautiful destination and way for your guests to have a great time. But I think it's a sad state that a couple would require all of their guests to travel for multiple DAYS and then think that they only should pick up the tab for ONE MEAL. Yeah, if that makes me an ungrateful guest for thinking that you expecting me to be in your wedding destination area for multiple days means that you'll actually host me for more than the one day call me ungrateful. Because I'll have a few words for you too.

You're making the choice to go and to stay for multiple days. Depending on where the wedding is, at some DW locations, you can go for just one night if you feel that strongly about it. Or decline the invitation altogether.

I'm not saying the bride and groom shouldn't offer pizza and sodas the night people come in, IF THEY CAN afford to. I'm saying expecting it is on you. Their obligation ends at ceremony and reception. Anything else is extra and expecting anything else is your own entitlement, not lack of etiquette on their part.

And this is where I honestly think you can follow the letter of etiquette of etiquette and not the spirit of it. If you're having a real DW with guests taking the time and days to be there and you honestly think your only obligation is a meal I AM going to think you're mistaken.

But I also think you shouldn't have a DW I'd you're not going to up your game. Just like you don't have to go all out for a NYE wedding and you could end it at 9:45 but I think you need to think more about your guests and not just what is the minimum.

We didn't have our wedding where we lived in the tiny state of CT because it would have turned the event into one requiring a hotel stay for most guests or they would have had to leave early. Instead we had it closer to where our parents and many extended family lived.

Weddings have turned into a new beast from what they used to be. It chaps my hide to see people citing the etiquette that the only requirements are hosting the reception when years ago a couple wouldn't have presumed top think to turn their vow exchange into a vacation for all guests. Sure you can stand there and tell me that and you will be "right". But I think it's a sad statement that a couple wants their event to occupy their guests' entire weekend while saying that they only think they need to feed their guests one meal of it.

Gee, right here in this forum we tell brides and grooms that etiquette holds that they have no "right to expect" anything more from their wedding party members than to buy an outfit and show up in it sober, on time, and in good spirits, and every time a bride claims to expect to be "entitled" to more than that, we call them "entitled," "selfish," and "bridezilla." Yet you would call people who don't do more for you as a guest "selfish" and "entitled" ? You didn't have to accept their invitation and they didn't have to invite you, any more than any person asked to be in a wedding party has to agree-or any bride or groom has to ask them.

Sorry, but I'm not sympathetic to this argument or that it "chaps your hide" that you're not getting more than what etiquette entitles you to. You're entitled as a wedding guest to a nice (not "elaborate") reception immediately after the ceremony, wherever it takes place, with protection from the elements, sufficient food and drinks for the time of day, seats, working bathrooms, and to be personally greeted by the hosts and couple and thanked for any gift you give the couple. But you are not entitled to additional hosting beyond that. To say it "chaps your hide" that you're not getting it simply because the wedding is a DW or you had to travel overnight, when you didn't have to come at all, makes you look pretty grabby.

banana468 · July 2015

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

If a couple opt for a wedding that becomes a required vacation for all their guests and all they think they need to do for the guests is host one meal I think it speaks to the sad state of the special snowflakes we are raising.

Sure I'll bet that your guests had a great time fishing on the lake and spending their time in the hotel pool after a day of paddle boating that they wouldn't have been able to do without you picking such a beautiful destination and way for your guests to have a great time. But I think it's a sad state that a couple would require all of their guests to travel for multiple DAYS and then think that they only should pick up the tab for ONE MEAL. Yeah, if that makes me an ungrateful guest for thinking that you expecting me to be in your wedding destination area for multiple days means that you'll actually host me for more than the one day call me ungrateful. Because I'll have a few words for you too.

You're making the choice to go and to stay for multiple days. Depending on where the wedding is, at some DW locations, you can go for just one night if you feel that strongly about it. Or decline the invitation altogether.

I'm not saying the bride and groom shouldn't offer pizza and sodas the night people come in, IF THEY CAN afford to. I'm saying expecting it is on you. Their obligation ends at ceremony and reception. Anything else is extra and expecting anything else is your own entitlement, not lack of etiquette on their part.
And this is where I honestly think you can follow the letter of etiquette of etiquette and not the spirit of it. If you're having a real DW with guests taking the time and days to be there and you honestly think your only obligation is a meal I AM going to think you're mistaken.

But I also think you shouldn't have a DW I'd you're not going to up your game. Just like you don't have to go all out for a NYE wedding and you could end it at 9:45 but I think you need to think more about your guests and not just what is the minimum.

We didn't have our wedding where we lived in the tiny state of CT because it would have turned the event into one requiring a hotel stay for most guests or they would have had to leave early. Instead we had it closer to where our parents and many extended family lived.

Weddings have turned into a new beast from what they used to be. It chaps my hide to see people citing the etiquette that the only requirements are hosting the reception when years ago a couple wouldn't have presumed top think to turn their vow exchange into a vacation for all guests. Sure you can stand there and tell me that and you will be "right". But I think it's a sad statement that a couple wants their event to occupy their guests' entire weekend while saying that they only think they need to feed their guests one meal of it.

Gee, right here in this forum we tell brides and grooms that etiquette holds that they have no "right to expect" anything more from their wedding party members than to buy an outfit and show up in it sober, on time, and in good spirits, and every time a bride claims to expect to be "entitled" to more than that, we call them "entitled," "selfish," and "bridezilla." Yet you would call people who don't do more for you as a guest "selfish" and "entitled" ? You didn't have to accept their invitation and they didn't have to invite you, any more than any person asked to be in a wedding party has to agree-or any bride or groom has to ask them.

Sorry, but I'm not sympathetic to this argument or that it "chaps your hide" that you're not getting more than what etiquette entitles you to. You're entitled as a wedding guest to a nice (not "elaborate") reception immediately after the ceremony, wherever it takes place, with protection from the elements, sufficient food and drinks for the time of day, seats, working bathrooms, and to be personally greeted by the hosts and couple and thanked for any gift you give the couple. But you are not entitled to additional hosting beyond that. To say it "chaps your hide" that you're not getting it simply because the wedding is a DW or you had to travel overnight, when you didn't have to come at all, makes you look pretty grabby.

I'm saying that when a couple choose a DW (not just one where I travel to it but one where they have all guests travel to a non local destination because they want their guests to be there for a wedding weekend then yes, they need to up their game.

Or what you're actually saying is that a couple could ask me to attend their DW in Punta Cana and if it's 2 PM in the afternoon they can serve cake and punch because that fits with the time of day.

And I'd be out of line to expect more than cake and punch at the 2 PM DW because the couple is hosting what is appropriate for the time of day. Even though the destination would require a flight and a hotel stay it's how the couple chose to host their guests and they don't need to do more. Yeah, I'm sorry but that logic doesn't fly.

We also advise couples not to expect presents but I'd certainly tell someone that if she's attending a wedding, she should buy a gift that's in her budget.

If a couple don't want to do more for guests they shouldn't expect their guests to go above and beyond for them. It's a two way street here.

Jen4948 · July 2015

I agree that a DW reception the couple should go over and above what they might offer if they were getting married locally, but for the guests to "expect" that is as rude and entitled as a couple "expecting" more or more expensive gifts as "reimbursements" for the amount of hospitality they offer their guests.

If the couple went to a lot of trouble to provide their guests with an elaborate reception, only to complain about how it "chaps their hides" that the only gifts they got were cheap and didn't "cover the guests' plates," we'd tell them they were being "greedy" and "entitled."

I think for either hosts or guests to "expect" more than the minimum is expecting too much. It's certainly nice and desirable for them to actually go beyond that, but for one side to decide that the minimum is not enough and complain about how deprived they feel loses my sympathy.

banana468 · July 2015

Jen4948 said:
I agree that a DW reception the couple should go over and above what they might offer if they were getting married locally, but for the guests to "expect" that is as rude and entitled as a couple "expecting" more or more expensive gifts as "reimbursements" for the amount of hospitality they offer their guests.

If the couple went to a lot of trouble to provide their guests with an elaborate reception, only to complain about how it "chaps their hides" that the only gifts they got were cheap and didn't "cover the guests' plates," we'd tell them they were being "greedy" and "entitled."

I think for either hosts or guests to "expect" more than the minimum is expecting too much. It's certainly nice and desirable for them to actually go beyond that, but for one side to decide that the minimum is not enough and complain about how deprived they feel loses my sympathy.

And I don't have sympathy for a couple who want their guests to incur extra expenses while standing on a stack of bibles to swear that they did just the minimum. If you want a wedding that's more than the minimum from guests, then there should be more from the hosts.

Jen4948 · July 2015

banana468 said:

Jen4948 said:
I agree that a DW reception the couple should go over and above what they might offer if they were getting married locally, but for the guests to "expect" that is as rude and entitled as a couple "expecting" more or more expensive gifts as "reimbursements" for the amount of hospitality they offer their guests.

If the couple went to a lot of trouble to provide their guests with an elaborate reception, only to complain about how it "chaps their hides" that the only gifts they got were cheap and didn't "cover the guests' plates," we'd tell them they were being "greedy" and "entitled."

I think for either hosts or guests to "expect" more than the minimum is expecting too much. It's certainly nice and desirable for them to actually go beyond that, but for one side to decide that the minimum is not enough and complain about how deprived they feel loses my sympathy.
And I don't have sympathy for a couple who want their guests to incur extra expenses while standing on a stack of bibles to swear that they did just the minimum. If you want a wedding that's more than the minimum from guests, then there should be more from the hosts.

While I don't sympathize with hosts who limit what they provide to the bare minimum, I also don't sympathize with guests who demand more than that. Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways.

'Bye now. I think there is nothing more to gain by pursuing this as we're not going to reach agreement.

banana468 · July 2015

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

Jen4948 said:
I agree that a DW reception the couple should go over and above what they might offer if they were getting married locally, but for the guests to "expect" that is as rude and entitled as a couple "expecting" more or more expensive gifts as "reimbursements" for the amount of hospitality they offer their guests.

If the couple went to a lot of trouble to provide their guests with an elaborate reception, only to complain about how it "chaps their hides" that the only gifts they got were cheap and didn't "cover the guests' plates," we'd tell them they were being "greedy" and "entitled."

I think for either hosts or guests to "expect" more than the minimum is expecting too much. It's certainly nice and desirable for them to actually go beyond that, but for one side to decide that the minimum is not enough and complain about how deprived they feel loses my sympathy.
And I don't have sympathy for a couple who want their guests to incur extra expenses while standing on a stack of bibles to swear that they did just the minimum. If you want a wedding that's more than the minimum from guests, then there should be more from the hosts.
While I don't sympathize with hosts who limit what they provide to the bare minimum, I also don't sympathize with guests who demand more than that. Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways.

'Bye now. I think there is nothing more to gain by pursuing this as we're not going to reach agreement.

Who said anything about demanding? I'm not Frank Barrone. I'm not going to stand up and say "There is to be a full bar. With top shelf hooch! It's in the Bible!"

My point is that when a couple picks a DW, they are expecting more than the norm from their guests. They should offer more to them as a result.

Would I say something to a couple that didn't pick up the tab for a night before dinner or day after breakfast? No. Of course not. But I'd think long and hard about a couple who wanted me to spend more than the norm just to attend their wedding but who didn't host or do anything extra for the guests.

Finally, I think you're right that we aren't going to reach an agreement here.

snowywinter · July 2015

banana468 said:

And this is where I honestly think you can follow the letter of etiquette of etiquette and not the spirit of it. If you're having a real DW with guests taking the time and days to be there and you honestly think your only obligation is a meal I AM going to think you're mistaken. But I also think you shouldn't have a DW I'd you're not going to up your game. Just like you don't have to go all out for a NYE wedding and you could end it at 9:45 but I think you need to think more about your guests and not just what is the minimum. We didn't have our wedding where we lived in the tiny state of CT because it would have turned the event into one requiring a hotel stay for most guests or they would have had to leave early. Instead we had it closer to where our parents and many extended family lived. Weddings have turned into a new beast from what they used to be. It chaps my hide to see people citing the etiquette that the only requirements are hosting the reception when years ago a couple wouldn't have presumed top think to turn their vow exchange into a vacation for all guests. Sure you can stand there and tell me that and you will be "right". But I think it's a sad statement that a couple wants their event to occupy their guests' entire weekend while saying that they only think they need to feed their guests one meal of it.

Your position makes no sense to me whatsoever. If anything has changed with etiquette, it is on the guests' part, not on couples. It used to be that people went to a wedding to celebrate the bride and groom and all they expected was cake and champagne. If a full dinner was served, that was an even better day. Now, if you don't serve a 4-course meal, have an open bar all night long, and fall all over yourself to curtsey your guests every change you get, you're seen as a poor host in some people's minds. With a DW, all that is multiplied.

It used to be that people wanting a DW, eloped. No harm, no fuss. Now they invite you to share in their celebration and they get guests who feel even more entitled for making the CHOICE to go. It's like a couple who wants THEIR DAY (and YES, it is THEIR day), to be somewhere other than home can't win. If they don't invite guests, then close friends and family will be hurt. If they do invite guests, then they're on the hook for a billion dollar wedding because you made the free choice to attend and now you feel like they have to play to what you want all weekend long. Sorry, but that's BS. They are obligated to spend time with you and to spend some money on you at the reception. They are not obligated to give you a big welcome basket, serve you a pre-wedding dinner, give you a farewell brunch, or anything else. If they can afford to, then yes, it would be a generous gesture. But if they can't afford to, then they can't afford to. Simple as that. It's their wedding and they get to choose the venue and the budget. The only thing you decide is whether or not you're willing to go. Making the choice to go with the expectation that you deserve more than what a normal wedding guest would get is your entitlement.

And FYI, that "one meal" will likely cost them $75.00 or more. You may have spent a hell of a lot more on travel, but that was YOUR choice. If you expect them to spend $1000 on every guest because they spent $1000 getting there, then don't expect to be invited to many DWs as I doubt most people could afford you.

banana468 · July 2015

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

And this is where I honestly think you can follow the letter of etiquette of etiquette and not the spirit of it. If you're having a real DW with guests taking the time and days to be there and you honestly think your only obligation is a meal I AM going to think you're mistaken.

But I also think you shouldn't have a DW I'd you're not going to up your game. Just like you don't have to go all out for a NYE wedding and you could end it at 9:45 but I think you need to think more about your guests and not just what is the minimum.

We didn't have our wedding where we lived in the tiny state of CT because it would have turned the event into one requiring a hotel stay for most guests or they would have had to leave early. Instead we had it closer to where our parents and many extended family lived.

Weddings have turned into a new beast from what they used to be. It chaps my hide to see people citing the etiquette that the only requirements are hosting the reception when years ago a couple wouldn't have presumed top think to turn their vow exchange into a vacation for all guests. Sure you can stand there and tell me that and you will be "right". But I think it's a sad statement that a couple wants their event to occupy their guests' entire weekend while saying that they only think they need to feed their guests one meal of it.

Your position makes no sense to me whatsoever. If anything has changed with etiquette, it is on the guests' part, not on couples. It used to be that people went to a wedding to celebrate the bride and groom and all they expected was cake and champagne. If a full dinner was served, that was an even better day. Now, if you don't serve a 4-course meal, have an open bar all night long, and fall all over yourself to curtsey your guests every change you get, you're seen as a poor host in some people's minds. With a DW, all that is multiplied.

It used to be that people wanting a DW, eloped. No harm, no fuss. Now they invite you to share in their celebration and they get guests who feel even more entitled for making the CHOICE to go. It's like a couple who wants THEIR DAY (and YES, it is THEIR day), to be somewhere other than home can't win. If they don't invite guests, then close friends and family will be hurt. If they do invite guests, then they're on the hook for a billion dollar wedding because you made the free choice to attend and now you feel like they have to play to what you want all weekend long. Sorry, but that's BS. They are obligated to spend time with you and to spend some money on you at the reception. They are not obligated to give you a big welcome basket, serve you a pre-wedding dinner, give you a farewell brunch, or anything else. If they can afford you, then yes, it would be a generous gesture. But if they can't afford to, then they can't afford to. Simple as that. It's their wedding and they get to choose the venue and the budget. The only thing you decide is whether or not you're willing to go. Making the choice to go with the expectation that you deserve more than what a normal wedding guest would get is your entitlement.

You lost me at THEIR DAY.

Are you actually trying to argue that attending a DW is some kind of consolation prize for the guests because the couples would have eloped otherwise?

snowywinter · July 2015

banana468 said:

You lost me at THEIR DAY. Are you actually trying to argue that attending a DW is some kind of consolation prize for the guests because the couples would have eloped otherwise?

Uh, no. Maybe look up what a consolation prize is? What I'm saying is that couples who want to get married somewhere other than home are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't. If they get married in their dream wedding location and invite you, you're going to expect to be hosted all weekend, which many people can't afford. If they don't invite guests, you're going to be hurt that you weren't invited. They can't win. So the answer is that they have to have their wedding at a place convenient for you? Please. It's their choice where the wedding is held. It's your choice whether you go or not. They should be able to choose their venue without having to worry about your inflated sense of entitlement when you make the choice to attend.

banana468 · July 2015

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

You lost me at THEIR DAY. Are you actually trying to argue that attending a DW is some kind of consolation prize for the guests because the couples would have eloped otherwise?

Uh, no. Maybe look up what a consolation prize is? What I'm saying is that couples who want to get married somewhere other than home are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't. If they get married in their dream wedding location and invite you, you're going to expect to be hosted all weekend, which many people can't afford. If they don't invite guests, you're going to be hurt that you weren't invited. They can't win. So the answer is that they have to have their wedding at a place convenient for you? Please. It's their choice where the wedding is held. It's your choice whether you go or not. They should be able to choose their venue without having to worry about your inflated sense of entitlement when you make the choice to attend.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. If a couple opts for a DW then as long as they are hosting what is expected for the time of day then they're fine. So a couple could have a DW and then host a cake and punch reception.

In what was stated above, you are comparing a couple who would have eloped to then making the choice to invite their guests to that DW. If a couple doesn't invite me to a wedding then I can be sad and move on. There's no requirement that DH and I be on anyone's guest list.

But choosing a DW means choosing a wedding that requires more of the guests. When a couple makes that choice to request more from their guests, I think they should do more to show them that they appreciate their guests literally went out of their way to be there. No, they don't *have* to and not everything is tit for tat. And on paper, there's nothing requiring them to do this. Just like etiquette doesn't hold that you need to step it up if your wedding is on NYE. And I could go to a wedding on NYE that is dry and ends at 11 PM too. But I'd scratch my head a bit and wonder why the couple made a choice to have a wedding on a big party night when people keep it going until after midnight if they didn't want to do that for their guests.

@scribe95, I feel like the statement you made is the same kind of statement we see from people who say, "Yeah there was a gap but we found something to do during that time it wasn't hosted and we had a great time at the reception."

I'm not saying that what you said *is* the same thing but it does sound similar.

I fully acknowledge that there's no etiquette rule on DWs that state that a couple should do more.

kkitkat79 · July 2015

banana468 said:

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

You lost me at THEIR DAY. Are you actually trying to argue that attending a DW is some kind of consolation prize for the guests because the couples would have eloped otherwise?

Uh, no. Maybe look up what a consolation prize is? What I'm saying is that couples who want to get married somewhere other than home are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't. If they get married in their dream wedding location and invite you, you're going to expect to be hosted all weekend, which many people can't afford. If they don't invite guests, you're going to be hurt that you weren't invited. They can't win. So the answer is that they have to have their wedding at a place convenient for you? Please. It's their choice where the wedding is held. It's your choice whether you go or not. They should be able to choose their venue without having to worry about your inflated sense of entitlement when you make the choice to attend.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. If a couple opts for a DW then as long as they are hosting what is expected for the time of day then they're fine. So a couple could have a DW and then host a cake and punch reception.

In what was stated above, you are comparing a couple who would have eloped to then making the choice to invite their guests to that DW. If a couple doesn't invite me to a wedding then I can be sad and move on. There's no requirement that DH and I be on anyone's guest list.

But choosing a DW means choosing a wedding that requires more of the guests. When a couple makes that choice to request more from their guests, I think they should do more to show them that they appreciate their guests literally went out of their way to be there. No, they don't *have* to and not everything is tit for tat. And on paper, there's nothing requiring them to do this. Just like etiquette doesn't hold that you need to step it up if your wedding is on NYE. And I could go to a wedding on NYE that is dry and ends at 11 PM too. But I'd scratch my head a bit and wonder why the couple made a choice to have a wedding on a big party night when people keep it going until after midnight if they didn't want to do that for their guests.

@scribe95, I feel like the statement you made is the same kind of statement we see from people who say, "Yeah there was a gap but we found something to do during that time it wasn't hosted and we had a great time at the reception."

I'm not saying that what you said *is* the same thing but it does sound similar.

I fully acknowledge that there's no etiquette rule on DWs that state that a couple should do more.

It requires nothing of the guests because the guests are not required to go. They are invited to go and are free to decline.

banana468 · July 2015

kkitkat79 said:

banana468 said:

Knottie1434918845 said:

banana468 said:

You lost me at THEIR DAY.

Are you actually trying to argue that attending a DW is some kind of consolation prize for the guests because the couples would have eloped otherwise?

Uh, no. Maybe look up what a consolation prize is? What I'm saying is that couples who want to get married somewhere other than home are doomed if they do and doomed if they don't. If they get married in their dream wedding location and invite you, you're going to expect to be hosted all weekend, which many people can't afford. If they don't invite guests, you're going to be hurt that you weren't invited. They can't win. So the answer is that they have to have their wedding at a place convenient for you? Please. It's their choice where the wedding is held. It's your choice whether you go or not. They should be able to choose their venue without having to worry about your inflated sense of entitlement when you make the choice to attend.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. If a couple opts for a DW then as long as they are hosting what is expected for the time of day then they're fine. So a couple could have a DW and then host a cake and punch reception.

In what was stated above, you are comparing a couple who would have eloped to then making the choice to invite their guests to that DW. If a couple doesn't invite me to a wedding then I can be sad and move on. There's no requirement that DH and I be on anyone's guest list.

But choosing a DW means choosing a wedding that requires more of the guests. When a couple makes that choice to request more from their guests, I think they should do more to show them that they appreciate their guests literally went out of their way to be there. No, they don't *have* to and not everything is tit for tat. And on paper, there's nothing requiring them to do this. Just like etiquette doesn't hold that you need to step it up if your wedding is on NYE. And I could go to a wedding on NYE that is dry and ends at 11 PM too. But I'd scratch my head a bit and wonder why the couple made a choice to have a wedding on a big party night when people keep it going until after midnight if they didn't want to do that for their guests.

@scribe95, I feel like the statement you made is the same kind of statement we see from people who say, "Yeah there was a gap but we found something to do during that time it wasn't hosted and we had a great time at the reception."

I'm not saying that what you said *is* the same thing but it does sound similar.

I fully acknowledge that there's no etiquette rule on DWs that state that a couple should do more.

It requires nothing of the guests because the guests are not required to go. They are invited to go and are free to decline.

Oh please. Should I have phrased it differently? Choosing a DW means that the couple is requiring those who choose to attend to spend more and take more time. And of course all guests are free to decline if they desire but a couple choosing a DW is choosing a location requiring that their guests travel if they want to be there.

banana468 · July 2015

scribe95 said:
Yeah, not hosting an extra meal the night before a wedding for all guests is NOT AT ALL the same as gaps, which I hate and are clearly against etiquette.

No, but saying that you didn't mind and had a great time is a line a lot of people use in defense of them. Your logic in your post above is how you felt but it isn't a statement to be used for or against.

Family Drama!

Re: Family Drama!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards