Wedding Etiquette or Something Along Those Lines

Ketzel said:

If you want to hear brides debate the issue, there's a fairly hilarious debate here at the knot.com. The official answer is "No, it's rude and tacky." The comments have the brides who want to/have done it all in a twist. "But the ceremony is the most important part! That's an honor to be invited to!"

Click to expand...

This is what I remember. And if I recall, it also had a bit to do with the parents paying for the wedding. So because the parents paid for the wedding, they have more of a say on who gets invited. And this is where the numbers start ballooning. These are the parents' friends, but they still get invited. So the compromise is that the ceremony is where everyone goes, and the reception is where the guests are cut down to more the couples' friends and family, not acquaintances.

This is another good reason for the bridal couple to pay for their own wedding.

Cella said:

...I can't be the only one who feels like the reception is kinda the prize for sitting through the ceremony.

Click to expand...

LOL, I feel the same way. And I don't know if that's really unreasonable, to be honest. I think a big purpose of the reception is to give your guests a good time to show appreciation for their presence.

I find this bizarre. I don't get the point of inviting people to the ceremony but not the reception. The people getting married don't usually have time to see or talk to guests immediately before and after the ceremony, and the guests have limited opportunity to interact with each other, too. So what's the benefit of having people at the ceremony but not the reception? If you want to save money, just invite fewer people.

I have heard of people doing the reverse--having a small, private ceremony followed by a party--and that makes a lot more sense to me. I would consider doing that if I get married, since I would want a small courthouse ceremony.

But inviting someone to the ceremony but not the reception feels like a recipe for disaster, especially when the reception immediately follows the ceremony. It's too easy for guests to feel excluded. I also think that if you don't invite the same group of people at both the ceremony and reception, it's best to be clear about that and preferably provide reasoning that doesn't make it seem like you're snubbing people. But at the very least, I think it's rude not to let people know what they're attending, because people do tend to assume that a wedding will be a ceremony followed by a reception.

Yeah, the point of the reception is meant to be a party to celebrate with your friends and family. How do you invite people to watch you do the thing and then not to celebrate it?

The other way makes logical sense. A relative of mine did a small destination wedding, invited a literal handful of immediate family, and sent out letters saying the wedding was here at this time, they didn't want to ask people to travel, so they'd be hosting a reception at home a month or so later so everyone could celebrate with them.

I fell into a hole of crazy on the wedding site - there were some similar questions (some crazier - one asked how to word the invitations to make clear that the reception "guests" were meant to pay their own dinner bills, not give gifts to 'cover their plates,' which would be impossibly rude enough, but literally like, cash bar extended to the entire meal.). A bunch of ppl suggested a cake-and-punch reception following a non-mealtime ceremony as an alternative or in addition to a later, more elaborate thing, but warned the latter option (the dual reception) was still fucked up.

That'd seem a decent option, if you want to have a lot of people but don't want to spend to feed them a whole meal. Have it at an off-meal time and do cake and light beverages. Of course then you don't get your dream reception for 400, I'm guessing, but...

Perhaps a different perspective may provide a little more information? It's not unheard of, and it's practiced a lot where I am.

Sometimes, you're invited to the wedding, but not the banquet (it's truly a banquet here, not a reception of finger food). Sometimes, it's the other way around.

The invitation itself states quite clearly which function you're invited to. Usually, there are some people who're going that you know. You compare notes. And it's accepted that not everyone will be invited to all the functions.

On the other hand, if you're invited and you don't know anyone else at the functions, and the bride / groom knows that, my experience has been that they usually ask if you're okay with going to all the functions, or if you only want to go to the ceremony (where you don't have to mingle).

Anyway. Regardless of whether I attend the ceremony, or the banquet, or both, the gift thing is easier for me: bring money in a red envelope. Give it to either the bride or the groom -- whoever invited me. They'll handle it from there.

Overall, though, I don't find anything rude about the described situation. I just find it highly disorganised and nowhere near considerate of the guests. Because it's the bride's / groom's big day doesn't excuse conceit.

I guess the two sets of invitation and its practice are a cultural thing.

chompers said:

I would have preferred that too. And being the bride, ALL eyes are on you. It's more about the bride than the groom. But I come from a big family and I know people would have been insulted if they were left out of the ceremony.

I think this is a generational thing, not needing to invite everyone to the reception too. I seem to recall that was the advice given to me back when I was getting married, if you couldn't afford it. As in advice from those bridal sites and experts.

Click to expand...

The etiquette is actually the reverse. It's ok to have a small private ceremony and a larger reception. But excluding ceremony invitees from the reception is rude. (As is inviting people to the shower and then excluding them from the wedding.)

The proper thing to do is to first determine who should be at your wedding. Then have the reception you can afford for that number of people. Perhaps it will only be tea, cake and sandwiches in the backyard, but there is nothing in the world vulgar about that.

Alas, today too many brides plan their "dream" princess wedding and then decide which friends and family they can afford to squeeze in.

Lavern, you were a lady and a trooper, and I salute you. But I also would not have blamed you if you returned the gift in this instance.

-- Cassanda, who was engaged once and very concerned with doing it properly and not princess-y.

ETA:

Per Miss Manners, when someone wrote in with this question:

You have encountered a Curmudgeon Alert. That is when the pleasure of catching a new form of rudeness is diluted with the realization it replaced a rudeness hallowed by tradition.

Miss Manners is afraid that it is true that people once invited guests to a wedding ceremony only, enclosing reception cards for the people with whom they wished to celebrate as well. She does not believe that the fact of this being an old-fashioned custom cancels out its rudeness.

It is also true that there is a new custom of guests who are invited to both skipping the ceremony, as they are more interested in the party than the marriage. This being a current custom does not cancel out its rudeness.

However, there is an old custom of holding a private ceremony and inviting guests only to the reception. In the past or in the present, Miss Manners finds that acceptable.

Click to expand...

I nearly always have a bit of a problem when people insist that etiquette rules have changed or are "generational." Sure, it might now be proper to allow one's ankles to peek beneath a dress. Such rules do sometimes shift. However, changes to rules that pertain to people's feelings (which is, at bottom, what etiquette is supposed to be about) are another matter. Just about anyone in Lavern's position is going to feel slighted, to a greater or lesser degree, and that's why what the bride did in her situation is rude.

[slight derail on related subject] Similarly, I'm always being told that my views on RSVPs are "old-fashioned" and that nowadays it's perfectly proper to give a maybe until you figure out whether you might not have something better to do or might feel like doing something else at the last minute. Actually, no. Your hosts, who are taking the time and trouble (and money) to entertain you, still need to figure out how much food to buy and prepare, or what numbers to give the caterer or restaurant. That's why it always is, and always will be, rude not to RSVP promptly, and to stick to your RSVP unless you have a bona fide emergency (in which case you call, unless trapped under a heap of rubble, out of reach of your cell phone). [end derail]

Hope you get a thank-you note on nice stationary.

My great grandmother had a word for this--grommisch. Don't know exactly how to spell it. It might be Czech. It might be German. It might just be our family but it means grabby in the worst sort of way. The best part of grommisch is that it is usually applied to people who think they have some class but the whole well mannered world knows differently. --s6

Gringa said:

Hope you get a thank-you note on nice stationary.

Click to expand...

Hah! She'll be lucky to get a mass email thank you.

MM

Lavern08 said:

...Bride wasn't that young - She's 38...

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

I feel like part of good manners is also being gracious when someone else makes a mistake (which you were). But this does sound to me like just selfish entitlement. I hope you at least made sure your gift was hideous!

http://wedding.theknot.com/wedding-...ng/articles/the-worst-wedding-gifts-ever.aspx

It was so rude to not let folks know clearly what was up!


But as someone who has wanted to see the wedding of some people I know, I wish they didn't think they had to invite me to a party and feed me, too. I'd just like to see the wedding, yep. They are pretty! I wonder what the bride wore, etc. I know I don't know them that well, but if the place is big enough, I'd like to see the wedding, sure

I could see a custom of having a big ceremony, where folks don't bring gifts and you go to it like you go to church, basically. Then the celebration would be for folks closer to the couple, because it's a party or dinner, and it could get rowdy and personal And yes, because the couple has to feed everyone, and that's so expensive!

But that's thinking about it as a guest not wanting the couple to have to feed and entertain me to include me. I don't want to be left out just because I'm not close enough to them for them to want to shell out the big bucks on my personal behalf A little wedding favor would be great, thanks!

Lavern08 said:

...for your input and feedback.

In conclusion:

Bride wasn't that young - She's 38

If her Mom was alive, she'd move heaven and earth to see that everyone who was invited to the wedding was also invited to join in the celebration at the reception

Hubby couldn't make it - He had to work - He thought it was "crazy" that after I'd gone to the trouble of clearing my calendar, getting a new sequined top, and picking out the perfect gift, that I didn't get to go to the reception

I did give their gift to a friend to take to the reception.

Side Bar:
I should have known something was up when there was no RSVP or reception location noted on the invitation...I just thought it was a mistake on the part of whoever designed/printed the invitations.

Click to expand...

She's 38? Oh, hell to the no. I thought this was gonna be like a 23-year-old whose excuse was ignorance. Not that every 23-year-old would be rude, obviously, or ignorant of proper etiquette. There are plenty who are very well-mannered and who'd never do such a thing, but it's semi-plausible to not have been told or know and not have the life experience to realize (though not plausible to not research).

Someone 'old enough to know better,' to have been around weddings, etc., has no damn excuse for that behaviour whatsoever.

Gringa said:

Hope you get a thank-you note on nice stationary.

Click to expand...

Snerk. She'll get it delivered by flying pig.

backslashbaby said:

It was so rude to not let folks know clearly what was up!


But as someone who has wanted to see the wedding of some people I know, I wish they didn't think they had to invite me to a party and feed me, too. I'd just like to see the wedding, yep. They are pretty! I wonder what the bride wore, etc. I know I don't know them that well, but if the place is big enough, I'd like to see the wedding, sure

I could see a custom of having a big ceremony, where folks don't bring gifts and you go to it like you go to church, basically. Then the celebration would be for folks closer to the couple, because it's a party or dinner, and it could get rowdy and personal And yes, because the couple has to feed everyone, and that's so expensive!

But that's thinking about it as a guest not wanting the couple to have to feed and entertain me to include me. I don't want to be left out just because I'm not close enough to them for them to want to shell out the big bucks on my personal behalf A little wedding favor would be great, thanks!

Click to expand...

Hang around a Catholic (and possibly other denomination's) church. Wedding masses are usually open to the public.

jennontheisland said:

Every wedding I've been to has a gift table at the reception, not the service. I'd say no reception, no gift. It may have been intended this way, but not indicated clearly enough on the invites.

Social customs change and evolve; weddings in particular have changed over time. She may not look back in chagrin. This could be the new way of dealing with the whole "big expensive wedding" issue. You still get the big expensive wedding and everyone sees you in your dress etc, but you don't have the expense of feeding and entertaining them. Show only, no dinner.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Beyond cost is availability. Churches are big and plentiful, with a lot of seats and don't cost all that much. The reception is where big expenditures come in and so dealing with that, they may be pressed to keep the reception small and low-key with a limited number of invitations to that event.

One way of getting around this is having the guests also pay for the reception. The old tradition here is with the hat that gets passed around and contributions are made in that manner.

My Dad told me how it was done sometimes in his group back in the day, which has clearly changed, but it's interesting. If you just got the wedding announcement, you could show up for the big ceremony but you wouldn't dare go to the reception. If you got the invitation that included information about the reception, you go to that, too.

So no gift required, either, just to see the show

I'm with Miss Manners on this one. Whether it's done or has been done in the past does not make something proper.

I would never invite people to the ceremony only and not to the reception. If I were invited that way, I might attend, but would certainly not bring a gift.

I would happily have a small ceremony and invite people to the reception, and if I were invited, I would attend and bring a gift. I did that with my son's graduation. We had limited tickets for the ceremony itself, but we invited everyone who had ever known him to the party afterwards.

Honestly? First of all, if you're not invited to the reception as well as the wedding itself, that sounds like she wanted you around as little as possible - at that point, if I were you, I would have left and returned the gift or kept it myself.
Also, I don't think it's a good idea to pay a lot of money on a gift unless the person is very, very close to you and vice-versa. The cost of gifts can create a feeling of inadequacy, owing, etc. between people and even sour relationships, so it's important to know exactly where you stand with one another. I once drew a picture, not even a masterpiece, to cheer someone up that I had a crush on and a few Whatsapp chats with. A few hours later, without so much as a "thanks", he blocked me. Gifts where the value exceeds that of the relationship, are dangerous and expose you to hurt feelings.

It sounds to me like you weren't the most welcome, and you arrived assuming otherwise and invested accordingly. I would feel humiliated and look for new friends. Either she wants you throughout the whole thing, or you're just invited out of politeness - and you are better and deserve better than a courtesy invite. You bring her a gift and she even begrudges you the food of the reception!

Sorry to be so blunt, but that's what it sounds like to me. Especially: pay attention how you refer to her. Not once did you use "friend". I think you had an inkling that your relationship isn't worth high-end gifts, but hoped to be wrong. I get that. It happens to me, too. We all hope that all our relationships are meaningful and cherished by both sides. But tread carefully when there is no solid evidence of such cherishing from the other side.

It's not rude to do this but it is very rude to do so and not let people know. Best to have a small wedding and small reception if you can't afford anything else.

"Rude" is too polite. That's beyond rude.

You're classier than I am.

I would've taken the gift with me.

Just wow. I would have been sorely tempted to keep the gift, too.

Wait. In what universe do you not want Lavern at your party?!

heyjude said:

Wait. In what universe do you not want Lavern at your party?!

Click to expand...

In one where you're too insecure to bear awesomeness that might just out-awesome you on your special day

I think a lot of this (what I consider) self-centered stuff comes from all the pressure to have huge, expensive, elegant weddings. People buy into it the same way they do the rest of the commercial stuff, whether it's an expensive car, house, or handbag. Not that I'm immune to all that myself but imo this is too far.

A wedding isn't a Hollywood production, it's wanting the people in your life to share in a celebration of starting a life together. If money is tight, I think it's so much classier when the reception is just afternoon cake and punch in the church basement but everyone is invited, or the whole thing is a small intimate affair with only immediate families and best friends, etc. There are many ways to have an affordable wedding without making some of your guests feel like second class participants. This seems to me like a Bridezilla or flat out money grab. I hope they get their priorities straighter than this for the marriage.

tjwriter said:

Incredibly tacky. To be honest, I didn't need everyone there to witness my vows to my husband, but I did want people to celebrate with us afterward. I really wish we had eloped and then come back for a big ol' reception after.

Click to expand...

Hubby and I didn't elope, but we did have a very private, beautiful wedding with only immediate family invited, and the owners of the house/backyard we were using.

Two weeks later, we threw a huge party - pig roast, beer keg, horseshoes, everyone brought a side dish or dessert, bouncy house and wading pool for the kids...yes, it may have been a slightly redneck party, but everyone had a blast.

We did it this way because we didn't want to spend money on a huge wedding, but we wanted to celebrate with all our friends. The most important people were at the ceremony, but everyone got to party.

chompers said:

I think this is a generational thing, not needing to invite everyone to the reception too. I seem to recall that was the advice given to me back when I was getting married, if you couldn't afford it. As in advice from those bridal sites and experts.

Click to expand...

ap123 said:

Wow. I never heard of this, and it definitely does seem like a tacky play to increase the number of wedding gifts.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of it either. I never would have thought about it...it seems very conniving to me.

Ketzel said:

Yes, this comment was my favorite:

"Well I have 600 people on the guest list right now and I can only seat 400 at the reception. so some people are not gonna get invited to the reception. Its not rude, its tough times and I think they will understand. Obviously I would love for everyone to be there but i simply can't afford that many people."

Of course, honey. I'm sure that reception for 400 is going to be a fine example of bridal austerity! But before you are completely comfortable with how not-rude your decision is, do you mind explaining how you are going to choose the 200 unlucky folks who aren't getting to go to the reception? And are you willing to pony up that explanation to them in advance? To their faces? Just something to think about, dear.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just...I really hate people sometimes.

regdog said:

Bride and Groom-Rude
Lavern and Hubby-Classy

Click to expand...

This a million times!

Love you, Verny.