I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. Are you saying that making a choice is not making a choice? That somehow choosing to have the wedding you want, that excludes certain people doesn't mean that you've prioritized that wedding over the people? How can it not mean that?
Because maybe the wedding isn't about the guests but about the couple who are marrying.
Pod! I normally agree with Art, but it sounds like Art is saying that a couple cannot have the wedding they want or make it about them. There is nothing wrong with that. We see it all the time.
Ack. I'm rather offended that people are reading me in that way.
I have said, over and again, that the HC are free to make whatever choices they wish in their wedding. But I'm also saying that those choices do
send a message about the relative priorities in the HC's lives. It's not possible to make choices without those choices having some kind of consequence. The choice to have a wedding on a mountaintop may mean that wheelchair-bound Aunt Mildred can't attend. The HC is perfectly fine to decide to have the mountaintop wedding, but that means, like it or not, that the mountaintop wedding is more important than Mildred's attendance. How can it not be? If Mildred's attendance were more important than the mountaintop, then they'd pick a different venue.I'm not saying that the HC are wrong for making whatever decision that they make.
I really wish people would stop reading that into what I've written. They are free to choose the location/date/whatever over the attendance of family or friends. What I am
saying is that sends a clear message that the location/date/whatever is more important to the HC than the attendance of those family or friends. It's a simple statement of fact with no moral judgment about the appropriateness of that decision. The decision is going to be "right" or "wrong" only in the context of a particular wedding.
This is no different than any other decision a HC might make that would include or exclude people. Someone is fine to choose a small venue that means they can't include first cousins, or to choose a large venue and include the cousins. Either choice is correct in etiquette. But each choice indicates which is more important to the HC, the venue or the cousins.
Again, I'm rather amused at the irony here. If someone came here and said "I'm planning on a beach wedding at noon in mid summer with no shade, no seating and no water available," they would be excoriated for not thinking of their guests; it's happened multiple times over the years. But in this thread, the HC can, it seems, make whatever decisions they want to make without any consequence at all. Would someone please explain how this thread is different?
I think some of the comments seem to indicate that a marrying couple needs to choose things just for family. What if someone cannot afford to have a wedding with everyone, isn't that allowed? I think people should have the weddings they want and can afford so if a Thursday suits their budget people can either go or turn it down.
I absolutely agree with you. All I'm doing is pointing out that having the wedding they want may mean excluding people and that indicates that the wedding that the HC want is more important to them than the attendance of those people. Saying "I want a skydiving wedding and want all of my family to attend" simply isn't possible. The HC have to choose one or the other. That choice says which is more important, the skydiving or the family attendance. That's all.
I want a new car, and I want a nice vacation. I can't afford both. I choose the car because the car is more important to me, now, than the vacation is
. The wedding choices are no different. We make choices based on the relative importance of the options. Either that or we flip a coin.