Author Topic: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...  (Read 10448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Adelaide

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 869
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2012, 01:00:27 PM »
I've never heard of anyone doing this. (I'm from the Southern U.S.) I'd definitely feel uncomfortable and I wouldn't think of doing it at my wedding. And as the poster above me said, the I'd hate the waiting factor.

Tia2

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2861
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2012, 02:22:56 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

However, I was taught  that if you invite someone to one part of the festivities, you invite them to all parts and still feel that it is inconsiderate to do it any other way.

I'm in the UK and this is absolutely not what I was taught.  It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule that you can add people at each stage, but not deduct them. 

It started out because you had to get married in the home parish and the churches were often small. 

It is perfectly acceptable to have (for example) 40 people to the ceremony, 60 people to the meal and 250 people to the evening reception.  It is not acceptable to take 20 people to the meal and then have everyone to the reception.

If this did happen at weddings you attended, it is just as rude in the UK as it is in the US.  If it happened to me, I wouldn't say anything, but I'd be thinking plenty (and probably not return for the evening if I felt I had to attend the ceremony).

Girlie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 502
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2012, 02:28:09 PM »
I have to say, we considered doing it for, like, 2 seconds when we were planning my wedding (in the southern U.S.). However, we realized early on that it would be horrible for anyone to feel left out or like they weren't important or that they somehow didn't "qualify" for a nice dinner, so we just cut the guest list instead.

Not arguing customs, but in the U.S., it IS considered rude to label your guests as A list or B list. It's almost impossible to NOT have a B list if you're having a larger wedding, but your timing in sending out invites and following up with non-responders to RSVPs should be such that no one could guess who had been on which list.

The idea that being on the B list should then be rubbed into a guest's face... That's the worst. :(

sparksals

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 17262
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2012, 02:44:24 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

However, I was taught  that if you invite someone to one part of the festivities, you invite them to all parts and still feel that it is inconsiderate to do it any other way.

It is the same in parts of Canada.  It is very common to invite people to the dance after. 

This topic has come up many times here and the consensus has been this is a regional thing.

It's good to be Queen

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 817
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2012, 04:35:51 PM »
When I was growing up it was not that uncommon to have a wedding mass in the morning followed by the wedding breakfast and then a formal reception in the evening.  I think it was an ethnic thing and no one I know still does this (probably WAY too expensive!)  Usually kids were invited to the mass and the breakfast, but not the evening reception - which was fine, but it was considered rude not to invite all adult guests to all three events.

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 27848
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2012, 04:52:31 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

I'm not sure why, because it clearly does make a very distinct line between "the people who are really important to be around me on my happy day" and "the people I'll have at my wedding, if it doesn't cost me much".

Do guests reflect this in the level of gifts they give? Do they feel that as "dance only" guests they need only give a token gift?
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7613
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2012, 05:17:48 PM »
I have seen a variation on that for some weddings in the Midwest, but usually only for small weddings where there is no 'dancing reception'.  It goes like this:   Everyone is invited to the wedding.  Everyone at the wedding is invited to stay for an "hor dourves only or cake and punch" reception (usually held in the church basement or multipurpose room).  Afterward everyone leaves.

The immediate family and very super close friends are then invited to a meal at either one of the couple's parents' homes or at a restaurant reasonably nearby. 

It's not really a matter of  A and B lists.  Yet there is a difference in the accommodations for those closest to the couple.  The dinner part of the celebration is not mentioned to those not invited.  No one not especially close to the couple expects to be invited to any meals and no one's feelings are hurt. 

MummySweet

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 546
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2012, 05:23:16 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

However, I was taught  that if you invite someone to one part of the festivities, you invite them to all parts and still feel that it is inconsiderate to do it any other way.

I'm in the UK and this is absolutely not what I was taught.  It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule that you can add people at each stage, but not deduct them. 

It started out because you had to get married in the home parish and the churches were often small. 

It is perfectly acceptable to have (for example) 40 people to the ceremony, 60 people to the meal and 250 people to the evening reception.  It is not acceptable to take 20 people to the meal and then have everyone to the reception.

If this did happen at weddings you attended, it is just as rude in the UK as it is in the US.  If it happened to me, I wouldn't say anything, but I'd be thinking plenty (and probably not return for the evening if I felt I had to attend the ceremony).

The situation that I described actually happened several times.  We would receive an invitation to the wedding and enclosure cards for either both the meal and the evening reception or just the evening reception.    I don't recall ever receiving just an invitation to the evening reception (without one to the ceremony).     I'm glad to know that the practice wasn't as widespread as I had thought. 

Tia2

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2861
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2012, 05:37:55 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

I'm not sure why, because it clearly does make a very distinct line between "the people who are really important to be around me on my happy day" and "the people I'll have at my wedding, if it doesn't cost me much".

Do guests reflect this in the level of gifts they give? Do they feel that as "dance only" guests they need only give a token gift?

Generally, this would be true - the evening reception is often simply a big party to which you invite pretty much anyone you don't actively dislike. In the UK, it is almost always a cash bar with a few nibbles at most.  The last one I was invited to was for someone I worked with and never socialised with outside of work.  I donated the equivalent of around $20 to the work gift and it never occurred to me to get anything else.

It isn't that expensive - the cost of the room and DJ/band since the guests pay for refreshment.

At the above wedding, the bride and groom were still issuing verbal invitations a few days before the wedding as they thought of more people.  The proper wedding invitations had gone out at a reasonable time (to cover the ceremony and meal).  Of course, this is more casual than many weddings, but nobody saw their actions as incorrect.  Of course, as the evening guests give a lesser or even no gift, it isn't seen as trolling for gifts either.

It seems to me that if this had been an American weddings where people have to be invited to all stages, I'd just have been left off the guest list entirely, which wouldn't have surprised me in that situation.  I went to be polite, had a few drinks and left fairly early.

GrammarNerd

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 519
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2012, 06:03:44 PM »
OP here...

The invitation specified the wedding and the dance.  Yes, the wedding was in the afternoon and the dance was at about 8:00 at night.  My boyfriend at the time had commitments during the day, as did I, so we made plans to go to just the dance, especially since there was that several-hour gap in between and the two parts of the event were in different cities (neither of which was where I lived).  I think there was probably a separate enclosure card with the specifics of the dinner, if you were invited. I didn't get one of those. 

I *thought* we were close enough friends where I would have been invited to everything, so when there was no dinner invitation, I guess I just thought they weren't having one or were having a very private family-only dinner.  (And nobody would start a dance before 8 p.m., so I figured they just did their own thing until it was a 'proper' time to start a dance.) 

The uncomfortable part was arriving there and finding that the party was in full swing....that is, the reception/dinner part of the party.  They hadn't started the dance yet, which meant that yes, the lights were on, the tables were still set up, and people were still milling around after eating.  Since the dance hadn't started, I felt like we were crashing the party, because it was obvious that even though we arrived at about the time we were invited, the celebration had already been going on for a while.  Add to that some level of embarrassment from me, when I (somewhat) dragged my boyfriend to this friend's wedding and then was kind of slapped in the face that we didn't get invited to the dinner.  I felt kind of B-listy and out of place; embarrassed that 'oh, guess I'm not such a good friend after all.  Huh.'.  Maybe if I'd noticed a bunch of other people coming in at the same time as us (fellow dance-only invitees), then it would have been better, but it appeared that I was the only one.  Sure, people said 'hi', but they were already in groups by then.  Just try to imagine arriving at a party at the time you were invited, to find out that it had been going on for a few hours already.  It was just....uncomfortable.

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2430
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2012, 07:27:21 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

However, I was taught  that if you invite someone to one part of the festivities, you invite them to all parts and still feel that it is inconsiderate to do it any other way.

I don't think it's common to be invited to the ceremony and the evening reception but not the wedding breakfast.  The weddings I've been to have gone along the lines of one group (family/close friends) for the ceremony, wedding breakfast and evening reception with buffet and another group just for the evening reception and buffet.

I've never seen an occasion where there was a wedding held early enough to be followed by a breakfast, then an evening (I am assuming post-dinner?) reception. That's just a huge gap!
"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12184
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2012, 07:43:11 PM »
In the UK it is very common to invite people to the ceremony and an "evening reception" (dancing, drinks and nibbles), but to not invite them to the wedding breakfast/lunch/dinner (full meal, toasts, etc.) that occurs shortly after the ceremony.    During the years I lived there, I found that people accepted this as a norm, and didn't view it as an "A" list, "B" list situation.   

However, I was taught  that if you invite someone to one part of the festivities, you invite them to all parts and still feel that it is inconsiderate to do it any other way.

I don't think it's common to be invited to the ceremony and the evening reception but not the wedding breakfast.  The weddings I've been to have gone along the lines of one group (family/close friends) for the ceremony, wedding breakfast and evening reception with buffet and another group just for the evening reception and buffet.

I've never seen an occasion where there was a wedding held early enough to be followed by a breakfast, then an evening (I am assuming post-dinner?) reception. That's just a huge gap!


I believe that in GB the wedding "breakfast" is really more like an early lunch or brunch - taking place around 12 noon.  Most guests likely would have had their real breakfast hours ago.  Some Church of England clergy prefer morning weddings, so this kind of fits.

Carpathia

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2012, 07:58:33 PM »
Every wedding I've been to in the UK has usually had additional guests in the evening for the buffet and dancing. It's usually people like work colleagues and friends-of-friends and acquaintances. I've never heard anyone say they consider it rude.

I think it is regional. As a PP mentioned, most people I know would be quite taken-aback at the idea that wedding party members pay for their own dresses/tux hire and also the concept of wedding showers which I think are perfectly usual in many parts of the USA.

LifeOnPluto

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6193
    • Blog
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2012, 01:51:58 AM »
This would generally be considered rude in my neck of the woods (Australia). I'd feel insulted if I was only invited to the "dancing" part too.

I think the ratios also make a difference. If the dinner part was only for say, the immediate families and wedding party, with another 100 people invited to the dancing afterwards, it would feel less rude.

However, if 60 guests were invited for a proper dinner, and another 10 guests were only invited to the dancing afterwards, it would seem quite rude.

mechtilde

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5525
Re: Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2012, 02:41:56 AM »
I'm in the UK, and although I've been to plenty of evening only receptions, I didn't feel terribly comfortable with doing that when I got married.
NE England