Author Topic: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?  (Read 14333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RingTailedLemur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Rudeness is a small person's imitation of power.
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2013, 04:46:22 PM »
As someone who may be planning a wedding in the not-distant future, this thread is a bit frightening. While I know I'd never plan an event on a Thursday and definitely would not have anything resembling a cabin in the mix, it also wouldn't occur to me to plan a weekend of events. And what ideas I have had are no doubt inconvenient for someone in ways I may not anticipate. I would hate to think that my idea of a meaningful and fun celebration were taken by a relative or friend as a message that I don't care about their presence.

Well, there's the rehearsal and subsequent dinner, the day of the wedding and, in some cases, a wedding breakfast the morning after the wedding. That's a pretty full weekend to me.
In my experience, the only people attending the rehearsal and rehearsal dinner are the wedding party. I've never known anyone ot have a wedding breakfast either.

The wedding breakfast is the meal taken with guests after the ceremony.
Oh, I see. I took the words "the morning after the wedding" to mean that it was the morning THE NEXT DAY after the wedding, not the same day.  Apparently everything happens in the morning? No evening weddings? Or do you call the meal at an evening wedding a wedding breakfast?

The first meal after the ceremony, no matter the time of day, is called the "breakfast".


RingTailedLemur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Rudeness is a small person's imitation of power.
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2013, 04:47:19 PM »
Yeah, I'm in the UK.

Most weddings take place in the daytime here, usually afternoon.

Interestingly, it has only recently become legal to have wedding ceremonies outside daytime hours.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3651
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2013, 04:50:15 PM »
Yeah, I'm in the UK.

Most weddings take place in the daytime here, usually afternoon.

Interestingly, it has only recently become legal to have wedding ceremonies outside daytime hours.

In the weddings I've experienced (in the US, obviously), the couple spends all day getting ready, gets married at 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and spends the rest of the night partying.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


TootsNYC

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 31774
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2013, 04:58:23 PM »
The first meal after the ceremony, no matter the time of day, is called the "breakfast".

This is U.K. terminology.

It is NOT U.S. terminology.


RingTailedLemur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Rudeness is a small person's imitation of power.
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2013, 05:01:54 PM »
The first meal after the ceremony, no matter the time of day, is called the "breakfast".

This is U.K. terminology.

It is NOT U.S. terminology.

I'm just saying what I know.  I didn't know terminology was different across the pond.

Calistoga

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 401
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #80 on: April 08, 2013, 05:07:48 PM »
We call our meals breakfast, lunch, and dinner depending on the time of day, no matter what kind of special event we have that day. We may have a "Late lunch" or an "Early dinner" etc, but the time of day is the determining factor there.

Wedding meals in the U.S are all over the board. I've seen wedding breakfasts AND dinners on the same day, or no "wedding meal" at all.

Snowy Owl

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1207
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #81 on: April 08, 2013, 05:29:51 PM »
The first meal after the ceremony, no matter the time of day, is called the "breakfast".

This is U.K. terminology.

It is NOT U.S. terminology.


I'm just saying what I know.  I didn't know terminology was different across the pond.

Agreed with RTL as regards the UK.  Most of the time breakfast is what you eat in the morning but in wedding terms the meal you have to celebrate after the ceremony is the wedding breakfast.  As I understand it, the reason is because people used to have communion at the ceremony and it wasn't permitted to eat before communion so you were literally breaking your fast after the ceremony. 

Most people don't now have communion (or a church wedding at all) but the name lingers. I'm going to a wedding this summer and the ceremony is mid-afternoon, then photos then reception with the formal sit-down meal at 7pm.  It's still called the wedding breakfast. 

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Surianne

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 10905
    • Prince ShimmerShine Moondream's Blogging Adventure
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #82 on: April 08, 2013, 06:42:57 PM »
I'm loving the info about UK vs. US terminology -- very interesting.  I'm in Canada and weddings tend to be in the late afternoon or early evening (4pm-6pm) and then there's a reception dinner afterward. 

I've known of (but not been to) weddings with a "wedding breakfast" the next day, and it's been a pay-your-own-way meal at breakfast or brunch time for everyone to get together the day after the wedding.  No one I know likes them, because they're often too early for hangovers and too expensive for the quality of breakfast food you get  :D

LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4205
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #83 on: April 08, 2013, 09:58:58 PM »
There's something that's been bothering me, so I went back to MammaVan3's first post:

The STD cards!  Ours was addressed to Moma and Pappa (wrong spelling of my name, no last name), at the wrong street number. These people are not kids; he's almost 40. If I hadn't bee outside when the mailman came so he could check with me, we probably wouldn't have gotten it.

*inviteseller

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
  • I am Queen Mommy
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #84 on: April 08, 2013, 10:51:36 PM »
LadyL..I think their is difference in hosting a wedding as opposed to holding say a dinner party.  The wedding is first and only for people to come together and celebrate one of life's biggest milestones and it should be done the way the couple chooses.  If you choose to have a catered sit down dinner for 200 or have it in front of a lake with just a few friends, it is what the couple thinks is what says the most about themselves.  Again, because the the in laws felt our wedding was more about what the family wanted than what we wanted (small and fun as opposed to her invited the world mentality), we gave up and went to a JP.  It is nice if you can make sure a date or location  works for immediate family, but trying to put together a wedding that is going to appease everyone's tastes and schedules would be such a nightmare, and I personally feel it would take away from the intent of the event.  And I think it is so presumptuous to lay blame on the HC in the OP by saying they are making a statement.  What they are doing is planning the wedding in the way they find meaningful/convenient/economical or whatever and to take them to task for being rude or clueless or even to question their level of love for anyone, without even having talked to them (remember, this is now from a STD card and family gossip) is not showing them the love she professes.

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12339
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #85 on: April 08, 2013, 11:00:09 PM »

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.



I agree completely.  I don't think that the HC has any kind of hidden message here, but they have clearly made a choice.

While no date is always going to be convenient for even in-town guests - some will be more convenient than others.  Choosing a mid-week date in a more inaccessible location and accomodations without plumbing facilities will mean that some guests will reluctantly have to reply "no".  And that does not make the HC rude or bad people - but they also cannot declare that they want as many guests as possible at their special day.  (I'm being hypothetical, I'm aware that the HC in the OP did not say that).  The location is clearly the priority for them.

My DS #1 and his fiancee were briefly considering a destination wedding, but were intending on inviting only me, her mom, and his brother. They did not want to have invited guests reluctantly replying "yes"  even in the scenario that the date/cost was inconvenient for them.  (Yes, I know that an invitation is not a summons, but lots of people will think that they really do need to make the effort).  They did change their minds, and the wedding will be local - they decided that they really want more of their nearest-and-dearest to be present.

LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4205
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #86 on: April 08, 2013, 11:17:34 PM »
You have mis-spelled my name, and have left off my last name.

I must bring linens and cooking paraphernalia to your wedding site....

Venus193

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 16120
  • Backstage passes are wonderful things!
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2013, 06:55:16 AM »
I have often wondered whether destination weddings aren't often elopements to avoid family drama.  That isn't necessarily the case with this example, but I would certainly recommend it to a couple who are under pressure from either set of parents to have a wedding the parents want for them rather than the one they want for themselves.

Their actions aren't rude, although a non-weekend date (other than during the typical Christmas vacation period) will definitely trim the list of attending guests.

daen

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 889
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #88 on: April 09, 2013, 10:42:47 AM »
I have often wondered whether destination weddings aren't often elopements to avoid family drama.  That isn't necessarily the case with this example, but I would certainly recommend it to a couple who are under pressure from either set of parents to have a wedding the parents want for them rather than the one they want for themselves.

One of my friends did exactly that. Well, almost exactly. He and his bride took off for the weekend, got married by a JP, spent the night in a nice B&B, almost got snowed in but didn't, and were back at work on Monday.

However, they "eloped" with the blessing of both sets of parents, because a) his mother was dealing with medical issues that would have made travel impossible and b) her family's circle followed some very strong ethnic traditions that would have made a small wedding impossible - it was either elope or invite 400 people - and c) they had limited time and resources.

There was a small reception in his parent's home town for his childhood friends and family a few weeks later, which was lovely. There were also plans in the works for a full-scale celebration of the wedding in Bride'sHomeCountry for the following year, but I never heard how it went.

White Lotus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
Re: S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?
« Reply #89 on: April 09, 2013, 01:13:21 PM »
Parks are often booked way in advance, often as soon as reservations open, which can be a year early, which may be why the en-suite cabins were booked.  My guess is the Thursday in September is as close as they could get to a weekend with reasonable weather.  I go with the idea the couple want a personalized yet budget approach, and I think it sounds like fun for those who can reasonably attend.  I also think there is some cluelessness because people who are flying can't reasonably haul full camping gear with them.  I would bet there are HomeAway, airbnb, and similar options available.  If I could get the time off and had the money, I would look at those, or possibly renting a RV (I don't know if it is boat access only.)  I would call somebody and ask, starting with the HC, but including the park itself.  The people who work there probably get this question all the time.  If I wanted to go, and could do so reasonably.  If not, I'd decline.  And not worry about it.
Yes, every choice establishes a priority, because it will inconvenience someone and someone else won't be able to attend, but I don't think that is rude, unless it is directed at a specific person.