Two levels of wedding hosting...proper or not? Just curious...

[heartmug]

I went to a wedding this summer where the couple did just that.  They had an afternoon church cermony, some cookies and various drinks (coffee, tea, etc.) afterwards and then my invitation said to come to "XYZ location at 7 p.m. for a dance and cake."

I got there and there were long tables with coats on the backs of most chairs.  Crumbs on the tables.  Other signs of a meal.  About 10  of us walked in.  One woman had something in her shoe so immediately sat down at the first available chair and pullled off her shoe.  A guest came up and said "That is where I am sitting."

I was so uncomfortable I left after less than an hour.

[SpikeMichigan]

 I always thought it was OK to invite more people to the evening part - UK here - considering especially the size of many churches that are used for weddings. Like someone said earlier, its OK to add but not subtract people?

    I've seen some promote the idea of COGS - ceremony only guests - and am really put off by that, I think I read someone ask - what are the cogs going to do afterwards, go to a different bar on their own?

[Sharnita]

I always thought it was OK to invite more people to the evening part - UK here - considering especially the size of many churches that are used for weddings. Like someone said earlier, its OK to add but not subtract people?

    I've seen some promote the idea of COGS - ceremony only guests - and am really put off by that, I think I read someone ask - what are the cogs going to do afterwards, go to a different bar on their own?

Personally I do find the ceremony meaningful so inmost cases I would not be thrilled to be invited to the reception but not the ceremony.

However the original question is asking whether it is OK to invite group A to the ceremony and dinner and dancing while group B get invited to the ceremony and dancing or maybe just dancing, emphasis on leaving them out of dinner.

[SpikeMichigan]

Personally I do find the ceremony meaningful so inmost cases I would not be thrilled to be invited to the reception but not the ceremony.

However the original question is asking whether it is OK to invite group A to the ceremony and dinner and dancing while group B get invited to the ceremony and dancing or maybe just dancing, emphasis on leaving them out of dinner.

        Ah, gotcha. Honestly, in the few weddings I've been to, this has never come up. Dinner and dancing often seem to come as a pack at the ones I've seen. I wouldn't be bothered at being left out of dinner specifically, but I guess some might.

 Out of curiosity, as you mentioned your take on ceremonies, would you be OK with being invited to JUST the ceremony?

[Sharnita]

I guess it would depend on why.  If for some reason I could only be away for a few hours - away from kids/somebody I was taking care of, The ceremony is probably the part I would try to attend.  Now, if the religion required a closed ceremony I would respect that. 

[redcat]

Actually I was once invited to the wedding and the dance, but not the intervening meal.  Only I didn't realise that, I'd never come across that situation, and turned up at the meal, looking around, wondering where everyone I knew was.  The best man had to explain the misunderstanding, which must have been horrible for him, and I left.  Didn't come back for the dance.  I was really embarrassed, and actually quite annoyed.  All the celebrations were a few towns away, so I don't know where they thought we were going to go in the intervening time.

[SpikeMichigan]

 

All the celebrations were a few towns away, so I don't know where they thought we were going to go in the intervening time.   

   That's probably the biggest issue with it, now I think about it - if you divide your guests, you may well inconvenience some who have travelled a long way.

  Probably much easier and less risky to just have one list of guests invited to everything. I'd probably do that - I say, though I'm very unlikely to be getting married any time soon!

[Horace]

I'm in the UK and have actually received an invite to a wedding like this next year.  The couple are in their mid 20s and are only having close family (parents, grandparents and siblings) at the wedding breakfast after the ceremony but then we're all invited back for the reception in the evening. I'm not bothered because I know they don't have a lot of money and it means we can go to the pub and have a few drinks.  I'm just happy to be invited to the wedding itself so I can see them get married.

The way I see it, I'd rather they saved their money to buy themselves a house then paid for a meal for me when I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself.  I also won't find it rude that there's a cash bar at their reception, that's just what I'm used to.  They may have put some money behind the bar for a drink or two per person but I've got no problem paying for myself.

I think that so-called rudeness is something that depends on your upbringing.  I find it very strange that bridesmaids in the US have to pay for their own outfits as well as all the other expenses associated with a wedding.  However I don't think that it is "rude" in the strictest sense of the word, but merely different.  Just because something is not the norm for your country or culture does not automatically rude.  Maybe some other people in the UK would find the wedding invitation I've received to be rude but I truly don't.  Everyone has their own individual opinion and one person's behaviour could be seen to be rude by someone else were you to scrutinise it for long enough.

[Nibsey]

I think the reason its not considered rude (at least in Ireland) is because there is a hierarchy to a certain extent. So I'm much closer to my best friend than my uncle that I see once a year. But if it came down to a choice between inviting my best friend and my uncle it would be seen as disrespectful to pick my best friend. So for example, at a recent wedding of my cousin who I have never spoken to in my entire life, I was invited to the meal, whereas work colleagues who she seemed fairly friendly with were only at the afters.

So being invited to the afters doesn't indicate perceived closeness in the relationship but moreso the actual social relationship. So neighbours, work colleagues, parents friends and acquaintances are invited to the afters. While I may be closer to my neighbours than certain family members, it's understood that within my 'clan', I have an obligation to invite certain people before others.

[Wolfgirl]

Also UK here.

IME at least, there is a distinction between inviting a group of additional guests ONLY to the evening party (often work colleagues), and what the OP describes, where a group is invited to ceremony and then to the dancing with a gap of several in the middle. The former is really very common in the uk; the only wedding out of the 12 I attended in the last 2 years to NOT have additional evening guests was being held in a farmhouse on top of a mountain in Wales, so transport made that impossible!

However I was invited to 2 weddigns where we were expected to do as the OP did. I was not very happy about this and I do think it’s perhaps a bit rude. I tend to think that everyone has acquaintances who they would like to party with but are not super close, so extra evening guests is fine. However I tend to think that if you consider me a close enough friend to want me to witness your actual wedding ceremony, surely I am close enough to merit feeding?!
 
With both of theseweddings, I did attend, but felt slighted TBH. Still had a good time, as we went to the pub and caught up with other friends. The B&G in both cases tried to soften the blow by providing lists of nearby restaurants, but that’s not really the point!

Like one PP who went to the meal by mistak, with the first such wedding, I almost didn't realise that I wasn't invited to the meal itself, and I actually called to let then known I was a vegetarian. Then the groom had to explain that I wasn't actaully invited to that part; he was embarassed, I was mortified, and apologetic/secretly irked, bit of a mess!  

[pharmagal]

Like previous posters, in NZ - or at least the part of NZ I'm from, it's common to invite everyone to the ceremony, then have a breakfast for close family and friends then a dance with most drinks and supper and desert provided.

When we got married our ceremony was in a friend of my mothers garden, very small, so it was immediate family and partners of the bridesmaids/groomsmen only.  We had a breakfast for the same group (about 25 people in total) then we hosted the dance afterwards.  And to be honest, we got married on a fairly small budget but the dance with most alcohol and all the food, the band etc paid for by us was about 80% of our budget.  The wedding dance was the main event for us and everyone else.  I couldn't tell you now who gave what, and I had no expectations that anyone would give us gifts of any type.  Those who chose to received thank you notes, all were thanked on the night for making the effort to be there and share it with us.

Every place, country, culture does things differently.  If it's the norm for that region, (and it's not illegal or immoral) then there's nothing wrong with it.  If it's not something that is done in your circle/area then yes, people will get their feelings hurt.

[a]

I’m from a culture where it definitely is not the done thing to invite people only to part of the day.

However, I have zero problem with it. To me it is natural that I’m not ‘best friends’ with all my friends, and completely understandable that not all my friends might be able to invite me to the full monty. If I’m invited to an ‘afters’, I’m glad that they thought about me and wanted to have me there and I will come if I can.

I can see that there can be situations where a person might be hurt not to be invited to everything (and the onus is definitely on the inviting couple to always make sure that all invitees know the plan), but I struggle to understand some comments indicating that they would *always* feel hurt/feel like the “B-team” not to be invited to the whole thing; even if it is to a wedding for people they don’t know that well. Why not just feel happy to be included at all 

[Cheapie]

After reading all the posts here, one aspect of the 'UK weddings' stood out to me.  The 'afters' (as some posters refered to them), generally included both dancing and a food buffet. 

In the US, a wedding typically includes the ceremony, a meal, then a dance with possible bar service, open or cash.  Once the meal is over, generally no more food is provided.  Now, this is not to say that all weddings are held this way.  This is just from my experience as a guest, from what I have read and from what others have told me.  So in the US, to be invited to the ceremony and the 'afters' only could possibly result in getting to attend a dance and pay for your own drinks if the HC is having a cash bar.  Now, a gift is never to be expected, but I think most would agree that a wedding is like a birthday ... a gift is generally always given.  This is how being invited to only a wedding dance, in the US, comes across as the HC trying for more gifts, without being equally hospitable to all invited guests. And of course, the guests that are not invited to the meal would have to find a place to eat and foot the bill themselves.

I would probably turn down an invitation like the above, if I were to ever receive one ... in the US.  If I lived in the UK, it appears that a buffet of sorts is provided at the dance/afters and I think I would 'do as the Romans do', attend, and have no problem with it since it is the cultural norm and a nice little buffet is more than enought to keep my engine revved for some dancing and socializing.

[LifeOnPluto]

Another factor that strikes me is that you don't "mix and match" different groups. (UK eHellions, correct me if I'm wrong on this).

What I mean is, the dinner part might include family and close friends, with co-workers and neighbours being "added" to the dancing part. Thus, the groups are kept separate. But you don't say "Oh, I'm close to Uncle Bob, so I'll invite him to the dinner. But I'm not as close to Uncle Jim, so I'll only invite him to the dancing. And I get on well with Mary from work, so she can come to the dinner. But I don't chat as much to Susie and Jenny at work, so they'll only be getting an invite for the dancing." etc.

[Cellaatje]

I'm from the Netherlands myself. And around here, or at least with respect to the weddings I attended to, it's very common to invite people to just a part of the day.

For example, with my wedding, I invited family and close friends for the whole day, which was a lunch, the ceremony itself, a dinner and the party afterwards.
However, co-workers, acquantances etc were only invited to the ceremony and the party afterwards. The ceremony is open for everyone to attend, so you generally put the time and location on the invitation, so everyone who wishes can attend.

In turn, I have been invited to be a 'day guest' (as we call it) to weddings of families and close friends, but I'm also invited to come to just the reception or the party, depending on the layout of the day.

As far as I know this set-up is not considered rude around here, but then again, I cannot speak for the whole country, of course