(Closed) Reception Location Dilemma…

posted 9 years ago in Reception
  • poll:
    Castle (with caterer) : (5 votes)
    21 %
    Church (with caterer) : (3 votes)
    13 %
    Castle (with family friend caterer) : (14 votes)
    58 %
    Church (with family friend caterer and many rentals) : (2 votes)
    8 %
  • Post # 3
    715 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: February 2010

    um. Castle? But for completely superficial reasons. Can you imagine saying “I got married in a castle”. Yes I think so. and go with the catering friend. It makes it more personal. And cheaper! Though, is she any good?

    Post # 4
    4382 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: June 2010 - Ceremony - First United Methodist Church; Reception - My parents' house!


    Post # 6
    6597 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: August 2010

    Oh i voted before I read your last post!

    I thought family friend caterer would be a guest that was also working at your wedding and thats why I said go for the caterer but if I could I would change my vote!!!!!!

    But OMG I am jealous I want to get married in a castle!

    Post # 7
    853 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: September 2009

    the castle sounds excellent but what sort of wedding will you want to have? traditional / fantasy or other? how much would rentals and decor to do up the church cost? i get the idea all that’s included in the castle already so the all-in price difference may not be that great

    Post # 9
    445 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: October 2009

    Is your WHOLE budget $15K or just your reception budget?  If you choose the castle and the caterer, you’re already over!

    Can you look at another option that’s cool like the CASTLE but less money? 

    Post # 10
    5823 posts
    Bee Keeper

    I think that whatever you decide will work.  A castle would be awesome, but it would have the most meaning to you.  Your guests will not think more or less of you if you decide one way or the other.  My guests loved my venue but I don’t think that was what they’ll remember most.  Whatever you decide to do, they’ll love it because it’s your ceremony!

    Post # 11
    4480 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: March 2010 - Calamigos Ranch

    The church seems to be getting the short shrift! I definitely think that your budget, at that headcount, would preclude the $7,200 fee to use the castle. Half of your budget should generally go to the reception, and the castle would require *at minimum* 2/3 of your budget. Is there an in-between venue you can think of? Wedding expenses tend to add up quickly, and unless you’re prepared to go *way* over, I don’t think you should even consider the castle.

    Post # 12
    1037 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: May 2010 - Carlouel Yacht Club

    This is your big day, I’d say go for the dream! If it fits into your budget with having the family friend do the catering, why the heck not???

    Post # 13
    290 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: June 2009

    I voted church, just because it seems nuts to blown half of your budget on just the venue. But it is really about what is most important to you. If location is, and you think you can make it work with your numbers, then go for it!

    Post # 14
    1455 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: December 1969

    I think that over 7 grand for the castle without even factoring in food is going to put you over. Use the church- reception venue and food ATE up our budget, so think of it like you’re saving 7 grand- you can use that towards luxe details you couldn’t afford at the castle, like great linens, more flowers, etc.

    The topic ‘Reception Location Dilemma…’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors