Post # 1
Let’s assume that you are a reasonably close friend or family member of an engaged couple. They are planning to have a small reception for whatever reason; perhaps they have a limited budget, or perhaps they don’t feel comfortable throwing a large party.
Would you prefer to be invited to the ceremony only or would you prefer not to be invited at all? How would travel affect your answer? Let’s assume that you are reasonably close to the couple and that you know they are not trying to be gift grabbers.
Please feel free to comment with where you are from and your local/social customs to provide some context for your answer!
Post # 2
Southern midwest us bee. I think its rude and I wouldn’t appreciate an invite to a ceremony and not a reception. I’d prefer to not be invited at all. I think the only exception is if an entire church is openly invited to a ceremony because it’s in their church but they’re not receiving formal invites so the couple obviously isn’t expected to host the whole church at the reception.
ETA: I bet it would blow up in the couple’s face anyways because I almost guarantee people invited to the ceremony and not the reception would still show up at the reception. It would get around there is a reception and people would naturally assume they’re invited.
Post # 3
therefore : Let’s assume that you are a reasonably close friend or family member of an engaged couple.
If I’m close to the couple and I’m not invited to the reception then who is invited?
Post # 4
They are perfectly entitled to have an intimate reception IF they also have an intimate ceremony. No matter how close I am to the couple, there’s not a chance that I am traveling to witness their ceremony, if I’m not invited to the reception. Chances are I also wouldn’t attend if the ceremony is local, but there is a faint chance I would, depending on when and where the ceremony was held.
Post # 6
I voted no invite. the only exception would be, like I said in my comment on the other thread, is if it were an open invitation to an entire church congregation.
Post # 7
There’s no way I’d travel to a ceremony only. I might go if I were local but it would really depend on what else I had going on. I understand budgets and guest lists. I went through it. I don’t need the consolation ceremony only invite.
Post # 8
Good catch! Maybe just the couple’s parents/siblings/a best friend each?
Post # 9
There is no decent classy way to create a caste system among your invited guests.
People who claim to be shy? You’re more the center of attention at a ceremony than the reception – you can always forego first dance and cake cutting- you can’t forego actually saying vows and getting married.
People who cite finances? There are inexpensive ways to host a lot of people and still be a good host – cake and punch receptions at an off meal time is a good example.
Just want a small reception? Cool. But that means a small ceremony, too.
Weddings are luxuries but most people have finite resources and sometimes that means hard choices and not getting everything you want. The hard decisions should not come at the expense of being a good host to your guests. Guests will mostly understand limited finances or space or whatever meaning not being invited at all. It is a lot harder to swallow when you shove their have-not second class status in their face by pointing out the people who do make the cut. It is just bad manners. Would you walk into a work meeting with a box of doughnuts and tell half of the meeting participants that you only want to eat doughnuts with the other half so you didn’t buy enough? Would you invite people to your home and only offer half of them a beverage? The rules for being a gracious person don’t suddenly change because this occasion costs you more money.
Post # 10
I don’t think either is acceptable really, especially if travel is involved. I know with traditional church weddings the ceremony is open to anyone to attend, but that’s different to being specifically sent an invitation. I have never recieved an invite to only one part before. If I did get one I would attend if it was local but I wouldn’t travel.
Post # 11
I wouldn’t be offended by a cake and punch reception for everyone followed by an “after party” for close family or something. But, no offense, sitting through a long (possibly religious) ceremony is not exactly super fun. Sometimes they’re tear-jerking and nice, but sometimes they’re just longggg. But we make it through them to socialize and have snacks afterwards, haha.
Post # 12
I would go so long as it didn’t require me to take time off work, drive more than like 45 minutes, and I didn’t already have something planned that day/night.
I’m from the PNW, evwrh wedding I’ve been to/been in have been done the traditional way where whoever is at the ceremony is invited to the reception. I’m the only one I know who has some small ceremony but reception so I assume the traditional way is the norm over here.
Post # 13
“Let’s assume that you are reasonably close to the couple and that you know they are not trying to be gift grabbers.
” — Gift grabby is the only reason that makes sense to do it this way though. So even if I had previously thought they weren’t greedy, this would cause me to change my opinion of them. They are inviting me to an occasion where it is customary for me to give them stuff, but then they are excluding me from the part where they give me hospitality for coming to celebrate them and give them stuff. Not cool.
Post # 14
A ceremony only invitation is rude. It’s not considered polite or acceptable.