Wedding Etiquette Forum

Family Drama!

1235»

Answers

  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    I imagine you're right - it's the industry and the way weddings have become.  

    I was very surprised with my own wedding of the long distance guests who did come and the closer to home ones who didn't.

     


  • abcdevonn said:


    I feel like this is like deciding to go to any party that isn't nearby. If someone invites you to come to their house for a party that is 4 hours away, and you accept, you know you're going to pay more in gas, potentially need to find somewhere to stay (or stay with the host), etc. You don't get to expect that the party host will do more for you just because you've traveled further, because you're already said "I understand the expenses of my decision and I'm still deciding to go anyway."
    I think the big difference is that when you're invited to a party 4 hours away, people didn't just pick a place 4 hours away to have a party.   DH's cousins live about 2 hours away from us so most of the family weddings for that end of the family are 2 hours away.   BUT, that's a family location and understood to be
    1) Their home locale.   It's not a DW or destination party for them.
    2) By being a home locale, there are other people in the area.   We *can* stay in hotels but given the friend / family dynamic, it's not a must.   (This is often but not necessarily the case when a couple marries at a "home base".)
    3) Done with home aspects in mind.   Things are in driving / local distance based on their planning.

    That's vastly different from a couple who decides, (scenario A) "Hey!   Wouldn't it be great to tie the knot in Jamaica (or the Adirondacks, or the Grand Canyon or any location that isn't near any friends / family simply because they want a DW)!   It's so beautiful there so we called a travel agent and worked out a deal for the friends and family who want to attend!"


    And even that is different from (scenario B) a couple who lives in one country with family around the globe who try to pick a location that's the most convenient for their guests.

    When a couple opts for scenario A, the DW because they just like the DW idea and don't want to do a local wedding, they're doing so by already making things less convenient for their guests because they're putting their vision first.   And in this case, their vision is a much more expensive wedding for the guests to attend. 

    FWIW, I feel somewhat similarly about scenario A as I do about a couple who put Black Tie on their wedding invitations because they want their guests to be all fancy dancy dressed but who don't actually host a completely black tie event and who have tons of guests that aren't black tie people.   Sure the guests don't have to accept the invitation because they aren't a summons, but I'm not a big fan of sending invitations with the attitude of, "Well if you don't want to spend the money to be at my party then you don't have to come."   
    [Deleted User]

  • banana468 said:

    abcdevonn said:


    I feel like this is like deciding to go to any party that isn't nearby. If someone invites you to come to their house for a party that is 4 hours away, and you accept, you know you're going to pay more in gas, potentially need to find somewhere to stay (or stay with the host), etc. You don't get to expect that the party host will do more for you just because you've traveled further, because you're already said "I understand the expenses of my decision and I'm still deciding to go anyway."
    I think the big difference is that when you're invited to a party 4 hours away, people didn't just pick a place 4 hours away to have a party.   DH's cousins live about 2 hours away from us so most of the family weddings for that end of the family are 2 hours away.   BUT, that's a family location and understood to be
    1) Their home locale.   It's not a DW or destination party for them.
    2) By being a home locale, there are other people in the area.   We *can* stay in hotels but given the friend / family dynamic, it's not a must.   (This is often but not necessarily the case when a couple marries at a "home base".)
    3) Done with home aspects in mind.   Things are in driving / local distance based on their planning.

    That's vastly different from a couple who decides, (scenario A) "Hey!   Wouldn't it be great to tie the knot in Jamaica (or the Adirondacks, or the Grand Canyon or any location that isn't near any friends / family simply because they want a DW)!   It's so beautiful there so we called a travel agent and worked out a deal for the friends and family who want to attend!"


    And even that is different from (scenario B) a couple who lives in one country with family around the globe who try to pick a location that's the most convenient for their guests.

    When a couple opts for scenario A, the DW because they just like the DW idea and don't want to do a local wedding, they're doing so by already making things less convenient for their guests because they're putting their vision first.   And in this case, their vision is a much more expensive wedding for the guests to attend. 

    FWIW, I feel somewhat similarly about scenario A as I do about a couple who put Black Tie on their wedding invitations because they want their guests to be all fancy dancy dressed but who don't actually host a completely black tie event and who have tons of guests that aren't black tie people.   Sure the guests don't have to accept the invitation because they aren't a summons, but I'm not a big fan of sending invitations with the attitude of, "Well if you don't want to spend the money to be at my party then you don't have to come."   
    I feel the same way about scenario A.
  • Maggie0829Maggie0829 Ravens & Bohs & Crabs & O's member
    Eighth Anniversary 10000 Comments 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    I always get a giggle when B_) turns into B)

    banana468[Deleted User]
  • Yeah, that was Scenario B and not Scenario Sunglasses. 
    Maggie0829[Deleted User]OliveOilsMom
  • Maggie0829Maggie0829 Ravens & Bohs & Crabs & O's member
    Eighth Anniversary 10000 Comments 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    banana468 said:
    Yeah, that was Scenario B and not Scenario Sunglasses. 
    I like Scenario Sunglasses though.  That little emoji just seems super cool.

    CMGragain[Deleted User]
  • CMGragainCMGragain member
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 25 Answers
    edited July 2015
    All of this controversy is why I, personally, dislike DWs.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • @abcdevonn - (I've tagged you rather than all those boxes).

    You said you're not a fan, but you also seem clear that you don't think the couple needs to go above & beyond because it's a DW.

    My question is why is it ok for the couple to expect more out of their guests (time, money, travel, etc.)but they guests are not allowed to expect more from the hosts, per the above.

    And I say the couple is expecting more because you invite people expecting the will attend, as such expecting to spend more time/money to attend your wedding (generally speaking of course).

    I disagree. You invite people because you would like them to be there, but unless you're an ass, you shouldn't expect that your guest list will all attend, despite the cost. People have a choice, both bride and groom and guests. If a place is special to the B&G and they want to get married there, they should be allowed to make that decision without the expectation that they will host a weekend long or week long event. Most people don't have the money for that.

    A friend of mine got married in London because she met her fiance there while they were both at the London School of Economics. It cost a lot, but I made the trip and all I expected was ceremony and reception. I didn't go in to it thinking "if you expect me to cross the ocean, there better be other events." I knew going in this is just a wedding, like any other wedding, and the difference is that it's not local. If you go into it with that attitude, you're a lot less likely to be disappointed or feel disvalued or whatever because you weren't showered with multiple receptions and events.
    Jen4948[Deleted User]PrettyGirlLostKnottie24078198
  • I understand what you're saying.   And to a certain point I agree with you.

    I think it's about being gracious on both sides and being appreciative that your guests showed up to your extravagant destination.    No, they don't *have* to do it, but there's a lot to be said for a couple who do.
    [Deleted User]MrsMack10612PrettyGirlLost
  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    @abcdevonn - (I've tagged you rather than all those boxes).

    You said you're not a fan, but you also seem clear that you don't think the couple needs to go above & beyond because it's a DW.

    My question is why is it ok for the couple to expect more out of their guests (time, money, travel, etc.)but they guests are not allowed to expect more from the hosts, per the above.

    And I say the couple is expecting more because you invite people expecting the will attend, as such expecting to spend more time/money to attend your wedding (generally speaking of course).

    I disagree. You invite people because you would like them to be there, but unless you're an ass, you shouldn't expect that your guest list will all attend, despite the cost. People have a choice, both bride and groom and guests. If a place is special to the B&G and they want to get married there, they should be allowed to make that decision without the expectation that they will host a weekend long or week long event. Most people don't have the money for that.

    A friend of mine got married in London because she met her fiance there while they were both at the London School of Economics. It cost a lot, but I made the trip and all I expected was ceremony and reception. I didn't go in to it thinking "if you expect me to cross the ocean, there better be other events." I knew going in this is just a wedding, like any other wedding, and the difference is that it's not local. If you go into it with that attitude, you're a lot less likely to be disappointed or feel disvalued or whatever because you weren't showered with multiple receptions and events.
    But expecting any of them to attend is still the expectation that your guests are going to go above and beyond "normal" travel. The couple is still expecting it even from some of their guests.  I'm not saying it's right on either side of the equation, just that their is expectation of something extra from both sides.

     

  • @abcdevonn - (I've tagged you rather than all those boxes).

    You said you're not a fan, but you also seem clear that you don't think the couple needs to go above & beyond because it's a DW.

    My question is why is it ok for the couple to expect more out of their guests (time, money, travel, etc.)but they guests are not allowed to expect more from the hosts, per the above.

    And I say the couple is expecting more because you invite people expecting the will attend, as such expecting to spend more time/money to attend your wedding (generally speaking of course).

    I disagree. You invite people because you would like them to be there, but unless you're an ass, you shouldn't expect that your guest list will all attend, despite the cost. People have a choice, both bride and groom and guests. If a place is special to the B&G and they want to get married there, they should be allowed to make that decision without the expectation that they will host a weekend long or week long event. Most people don't have the money for that.

    A friend of mine got married in London because she met her fiance there while they were both at the London School of Economics. It cost a lot, but I made the trip and all I expected was ceremony and reception. I didn't go in to it thinking "if you expect me to cross the ocean, there better be other events." I knew going in this is just a wedding, like any other wedding, and the difference is that it's not local. If you go into it with that attitude, you're a lot less likely to be disappointed or feel disvalued or whatever because you weren't showered with multiple receptions and events.
    But expecting any of them to attend is still the expectation that your guests are going to go above and beyond "normal" travel. The couple is still expecting it even from some of their guests.  I'm not saying it's right on either side of the equation, just that their is expectation of something extra from both sides.
    That's exactly my point.   You can't say, "Well there was no expectation because they could have declined."

    The point is that if your guests were to accept then they DID (or do) need to spend more than the norm if you're having a destination wedding because you picked a location over guests (scenario A).  And sure, some can decline but those that accept ARE faced with the burden of a high cost to attend.

    And yes, you can say, "They don't have to accept" but that's way easier said than done depending on the relationship you have with the couple tying the knot.   If it's a close family member or a close friend, you're faced with either shelling out extra money or missing a major life event of someone you love.   So it's a rather loaded statement to say, "They didn't have to attend" or "We checked with our VIPs and they agreed."   Because we all know that not everyone will be honest with you about your plans being a bit more than they prefer and many people do try to make attending a wedding happen even when it's a financial challenge.


    MrsMack10612SP29
  • MegEn1MegEn1 member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments Second Anniversary First Answer
    So this thread is kind of freaking me out a little bit. 

    FI and I are having our wedding about 1 hour from where we live. Most, if not all, of our friends live around here. We imagine most of them will get hotel rooms because they're kind of a drinking crowd, but that's their choice. 

    Family will have to drive or fly in, I'd say 75% of the guest list is coming from around the country, a few internationally. Most within 3 hours drive. 

    We did this because we can't afford a wedding in our home city. 

    Our RD is just going to be rehearsal people, the people who are coming in a day early to thank them for that. During the day that Saturday I'll likely be with the bridal party and some OOT family members most of the day. The wedding is at 6:30pm on Saturday, so we imagine most people won't be coming in until Saturday anyway.

    Am I having a destination wedding? I fought hard against doing a brunch because we really just can't afford it, but now I'm scared I'm being rude. 

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • I'm slightly confused because you said most are within a 3 hour drive, but people are coming from around the country...but, I'd say it is fine and you're not really having a destination wedding. If you are concerned, you could just let them know you will be at XYZ location for brunch, but you don't have to HOST it. It just gives guests another chance to see you before they leave.
    [Deleted User]PrettyGirlLost
  • abcdevonn said:
    I'm slightly confused because you said most are within a 3 hour drive, but people are coming from around the country...but, I'd say it is fine and you're not really having a destination wedding. If you are concerned, you could just let them know you will be at XYZ location for brunch, but you don't have to HOST it. It just gives guests another chance to see you before they leave.
    This.   The logistics explained confuse me but I wouldn't call this a DW.
  • MegEn1MegEn1 member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments Second Anniversary First Answer
    Sorry. Roughly 75% of people are not 'local' to our area (about 1 hour from site). Of those 75%, the majority are within a 3 hour drive of the location, though some are coming from beyond that. 

    Honestly I was super excited not to have a brunch because a lot of these people I don't even know and I really just wanted to spend time with my OOT family. But now all this has me worried! 

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • I personally would not expect brunch or another gathering, but I'd recommended waiting for others to chime in since I might be the minority. But, like I said, if you are worried, telling people you'll be somewhere for brunch does not mean that they will/have to sit down with you and have a long convo. If the hotel people are staying at has continental breakfast, that is a great way to say thanks and goodbye to guests. They can stop in, grab food, swing by and say hi and be on their way. Lots of hotels that don't have breakfasts have a place to buy breakfast food, and you can hang out there for an hour, too.

    On an aside, why are you inviting people to your wedding that you don't really know? FI's family?
  • MegEn1MegEn1 member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments Second Anniversary First Answer
    FI's family is hosting the catering and so they kind of got free range on the invites. So a lot of co-workers, friends, etc. that FI has met a few times and that I don't know at all. 

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • MegEn1 said:
    FI's family is hosting the catering and so they kind of got free range on the invites. So a lot of co-workers, friends, etc. that FI has met a few times and that I don't know at all. 
    Ah gotcha
  • SP29SP29 member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    @MegEn1 You're fine not hosting something extra. I wouldn't call this a DW wedding.

    I feel like there is generally a lot more travel of people to live in different places, as there are many ways to stay connected with family, or more avenues for jobs, education, etc. It can be pretty common that a family is spread out all over the country.

    Even those who are in support of extra hosted events for DWs, I don't think they are saying that just because the guests are spread out and need to travel, or the B&G don't get married in their hometown, means that the wedding is a "Destination Wedding". I think they are referring more toward a B&G who choose a location BECAUSE they want to turn their wedding into a vacation, thus prioritizing a vision over making things easy on guests.
  • My thing with all this, is I would rather spend more time with the people who invited me if I came from farther away.  I don't necessarily have to be hosted multiple times though.  My cousin and his bride met a bunch of us cousins at the hotel bar several times throughout the weekend.  Sometimes we bought our own drinks, sometimes the father of the groom picked up a round.  It was just nice to be able to spend more time than just the reception with the newlyweds.  The time was more important than the hosting for those extra "events".
  • SP29 said:
    @MegEn1 You're fine not hosting something extra. I wouldn't call this a DW wedding.

    I feel like there is generally a lot more travel of people to live in different places, as there are many ways to stay connected with family, or more avenues for jobs, education, etc. It can be pretty common that a family is spread out all over the country.

    Even those who are in support of extra hosted events for DWs, I don't think they are saying that just because the guests are spread out and need to travel, or the B&G don't get married in their hometown, means that the wedding is a "Destination Wedding". I think they are referring more toward a B&G who choose a location BECAUSE they want to turn their wedding into a vacation, thus prioritizing a vision over making things easy on guests.
    EXACTLY!

    It's one thing to have guests coming from other locations.   That happens when you have friends and family around the globe.   It's another thing to make the active choice to host your wedding in a location that requires all your guests to travel and to do so because the location is your priority.   

    There's a big difference between my BIL's wedding that as 500 miles away from us in his wife's hometown and my coworker getting married in Jamaica because he likes it there. 
  • banana468 said:
    SP29 said:
    @MegEn1 You're fine not hosting something extra. I wouldn't call this a DW wedding.

    I feel like there is generally a lot more travel of people to live in different places, as there are many ways to stay connected with family, or more avenues for jobs, education, etc. It can be pretty common that a family is spread out all over the country.

    Even those who are in support of extra hosted events for DWs, I don't think they are saying that just because the guests are spread out and need to travel, or the B&G don't get married in their hometown, means that the wedding is a "Destination Wedding". I think they are referring more toward a B&G who choose a location BECAUSE they want to turn their wedding into a vacation, thus prioritizing a vision over making things easy on guests.
    EXACTLY!

    It's one thing to have guests coming from other locations.   That happens when you have friends and family around the globe.   It's another thing to make the active choice to host your wedding in a location that requires all your guests to travel and to do so because the location is your priority.   

    There's a big difference between my BIL's wedding that as 500 miles away from us in his wife's hometown and my coworker getting married in Jamaica because he likes it there. 
    But there shouldn't be a big difference in the expectation of the guests, is the point.
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    scribe95 said:

    I think saying a couple should entertain and host for an entire weekend for a DW is an entirely new concept and I don't agree at all. 

    This was kinda my point like 15 pages back. So now couples who have a true DW are required to host a pre reception for all OOT guests?

    And yet couples whose wedding requires 80%-95% of guests to travel are *not* required to host a pre reception for all OOT guests because the couple never physically got off their asses and moved anywhere. . .but basically *all* their guests did, just as in a DW scenario.

    I think it's ridiculous and presumptuous to expect couples in either scenario to host a pre reception. If they can afford it and *choose* to host a pre reception, it's a very nice gesture. But it's not required.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    SP29Jen4948[Deleted User]lightningsnow
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    MegEn1 said:

    Sorry. Roughly 75% of people are not 'local' to our area (about 1 hour from site). Of those 75%, the majority are within a 3 hour drive of the location, though some are coming from beyond that. 


    Honestly I was super excited not to have a brunch because a lot of these people I don't even know and I really just wanted to spend time with my OOT family. But now all this has me worried! 
    You're fine. You don't *need* to host any other meals or events on top of your actual reception. . Especially if you can't afford to do so.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    Jen4948
  • You all are giving me panic attacks over here.

    Both my FI and I have family and friends that live all over The States.  None live anywhere near us, and basically anywhere we chose to host the wedding would require 99% of the guest list to travel (like plane travel, not an hour in the car travel).

    We ultimately decided to have the wedding in my hometown in Northern Florida, as it has meaning to both of us (I was born there obvs, and my FI lived there as well for several years when he was young).  It's local to my Mom, but everyone else is going to have to fly in.  We thought this would be preferable to having it near us, because more people would enjoy a trip to sunny Florida vs. where we currently live.

    It's not like we wanted to have a destination wedding, there just really wasn't anyway around it.

    Are we really being rude if we can't afford to host everyone for diner the night before?  We were thinking of having light drinks and dessert at my moms house the night before, mostly so people could meet each other, but there is simply no way we can afford to rent out a second venue and host another dinner.

    We are hosting dinner and an open bar for the reception and that's where basically all of the money for the wedding has gone.

    I guess I'm just not really sure what else we could have done, so to find out now that I'm being rude to my guests...I don't know what I should do.  I'll be meeting to majority of these people for the first time at the wedding, the last thing I want to do is be rude or do anything to make a bad impression.  help?
  • You all are giving me panic attacks over here.

    Both my FI and I have family and friends that live all over The States.  None live anywhere near us, and basically anywhere we chose to host the wedding would require 99% of the guest list to travel (like plane travel, not an hour in the car travel).

    We ultimately decided to have the wedding in my hometown in Northern Florida, as it has meaning to both of us (I was born there obvs, and my FI lived there as well for several years when he was young).  It's local to my Mom, but everyone else is going to have to fly in.  We thought this would be preferable to having it near us, because more people would enjoy a trip to sunny Florida vs. where we currently live.

    It's not like we wanted to have a destination wedding, there just really wasn't anyway around it.

    Are we really being rude if we can't afford to host everyone for diner the night before?  We were thinking of having light drinks and dessert at my moms house the night before, mostly so people could meet each other, but there is simply no way we can afford to rent out a second venue and host another dinner.

    We are hosting dinner and an open bar for the reception and that's where basically all of the money for the wedding has gone.

    I guess I'm just not really sure what else we could have done, so to find out now that I'm being rude to my guests...I don't know what I should do.  I'll be meeting to majority of these people for the first time at the wedding, the last thing I want to do is be rude or do anything to make a bad impression.  help?

    You're fine, you are not being rude.
    Anniversary
    [Deleted User]SP29

  • 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.


    ^^^This. Also as PPs said, the RD list is determined by the host. We are having a DW and the RD list is WP members and their +1s, and immediate family and their +1s. That will be nearly 40 guests as it is. The restaurant only seats 50. FFIL is paying and so it was his call. Most of our guests aren't arriving until the day of anyway.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards