S/O of The Postponing the Wedding thread - What's the message here?

[Spring Water on Sundays]

Here's how I see it:

Perhaps a HC has a very important, meaningful reason for choosing a specific date and venue. Also perhaps, they see the ceremony as private and personal so it is simply not important or meaningful for them to be surrounded by well-wishers during their marriage ceremony. However, as a nod to the importance some loved ones may place on witnessing the actual ceremony, they are still sending out invitations to give those people the opportunity to attend if they choose.

In the above scenario, I don't believe there is any sort of obligation for the HC to make concessions on this important and meaningful venue and date in deference to the importance and meaning others may place on witnessing the ceremony. It's natural for people who place importance on witnessing the ceremony to interpret this choice as the HC not caring about them/their relationship and possibly feeling hurt. It is difficult, as humans, to separate what we find important and meaningful from the idea that others don't feel the same and it's easy to take it personally (i.e. "It was meaningful to me that people I love witness me get married but it's not meaningful to them that I witness them get married. Therefore, they must not value our relationship the way I do.")

So basically, some people place great importance on witnessing the marriage ceremony of people they love. But a HC choosing something different based on what *they* find important doesn't necessarily speak to how they feel about their relationships with their loved ones.

[bah12]

Late to the thread and didn't get through all the comments, but I don't think that the HC are consciously sending messages that they don't care if their guests attend or not...but, I do think they are sending a message. And that message is that the location is their priority.  I don't think they are being rude to have the wedding they want as long as they can accept that a wedding that is inconvenient for guests will likely have fewer guests.  A destination wedding like this is usually more about the place than the people in attendance, which is perfectly ok.  It would be rude of them to insist that all their friends and family attend but not rude for them to invite those that they know may like to attend and accept the very real posibility that most of them won't be able to.

In the OP's position, I would just make a decision about would or wouldn't be doable for my family and go from there.  I wouldn't waste time wondering if the invitation was any kind of slight or had hidden messages.  I think it's ok to be disappointed that a wedding you'd like to attend isn't convenient to attend, but I wouldn't communicate that to the HC outside of "I'm so sorry that we aren't able to be there.  I would have loved to witness you get married!" 

[turnip]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I mean, why not just rent the high school gym, order a bunch of pizzas to be delivered, wear your Sunday best, and invite every single relative and friend you can name _and_ offer to pay their travel and hotel expenses during their stay if they can't afford them?  We would have certainly had more guests had we decided to do that.   But we did want a pretty location, nice clothes, and a sit-down dinner.    You can make what judgement you like about our priorities based on that - but it just seems like a hard standard to hold. 

[Cami]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I mean, why not just rent the high school gym, order a bunch of pizzas to be delivered, wear your Sunday best, and invite every single relative and friend you can name _and_ offer to pay their travel and hotel expenses during their stay if they can't afford them?  We would have certainly had more guests had we decided to do that.   But we did want a pretty location, nice clothes, and a sit-down dinner.    You can make what judgement you like about our priorities based on that - but it just seems like a hard standard to hold.

But first, you have to do a survey and determine which time, date and location will work best for the majority of your guests. And since asking people to wear nice clothes might be an undue burden because they don't want to wear anything that isn't "comfy", just tell them to wear their pajamas and we can have a gigantic sleep over in a church parish hall with pizza, popcorn, ice cream and watch movies on the tv. That way everyone is "comfy" and you could probably afford to invite everyone you've ever met. Also, plan on having a "make-up day" party for those who couldn't attend in the location of their choice. After all -- isn't that how one sends a message that guests' wishes are a priority -- bring the party to them.

[turnip]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I mean, why not just rent the high school gym, order a bunch of pizzas to be delivered, wear your Sunday best, and invite every single relative and friend you can name _and_ offer to pay their travel and hotel expenses during their stay if they can't afford them?  We would have certainly had more guests had we decided to do that.   But we did want a pretty location, nice clothes, and a sit-down dinner.    You can make what judgement you like about our priorities based on that - but it just seems like a hard standard to hold.

But first, you have to do a survey and determine which time, date and location will work best for the majority of your guests. And since asking people to wear nice clothes might be an undue burden because they don't want to wear anything that isn't "comfy", just tell them to wear their pajamas and we can have a gigantic sleep over in a church parish hall with pizza, popcorn, ice cream and watch movies on the tv. That way everyone is "comfy" and you could probably afford to invite everyone you've ever met. Also, plan on having a "make-up day" party for those who couldn't attend in the location of their choice. After all -- isn't that how one sends a message that guests' wishes are a priority -- bring the party to them.

I have to admit, that sounds kind of awesome     Maybe for my second wedding!

[LadyL]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I think it depends on what level you mean. The main priority LordL and I had for our venue was that it be a historical building since we both love history. Other than that, we managed to secure a place that is very close to the majority of our guests (20 minutes or less driving distance), close to major public transportation, has parking, has reasonable hotel accommodations nearby,  can fit all our family and close friends, is wheelchair accessible, etc. When we were choosing the date we ran it by both sides of our families to make sure there wasn't a major conflict (i.e. milestone birthday that many people were travelling elsewhere to celebrate). I would say that if there was an even more fabulous venue that didn't have all those things, we would probably have picked the less fabulous place so that more people could make it. But then again, we are only having a "big" wedding because we care about having our families there - in theory we would both love to elope at the courthouse and be done but we see our wedding as a community event moreso than an event just about us. I've come to realize this is a minority viewpoint.

[turnip]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I think it depends on what level you mean. The main priority LordL and I had for our venue was that it be a historical building since we both love history. Other than that, we managed to secure a place that is very close to the majority of our guests (20 minutes or less driving distance), close to major public transportation, has parking, has reasonable hotel accommodations nearby,  can fit all our family and close friends, is wheelchair accessible, etc. When we were choosing the date we ran it by both sides of our families to make sure there wasn't a major conflict (i.e. milestone birthday that many people were travelling elsewhere to celebrate). I would say that if there was an even more fabulous venue that didn't have all those things, we would probably have picked the less fabulous place so that more people could make it. But then again, we are only having a "big" wedding because we care about having our families there - in theory we would both love to elope at the courthouse and be done but we see our wedding as a community event moreso than an event just about us. I've come to realize this is a minority viewpoint.

I think that is unkind.  It's about balancing different priorities, not deciding that a wedding is 'just about us'.   

[bah12]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I mean, why not just rent the high school gym, order a bunch of pizzas to be delivered, wear your Sunday best, and invite every single relative and friend you can name _and_ offer to pay their travel and hotel expenses during their stay if they can't afford them?  We would have certainly had more guests had we decided to do that.   But we did want a pretty location, nice clothes, and a sit-down dinner.    You can make what judgement you like about our priorities based on that - but it just seems like a hard standard to hold.

I'm not sure what you're getting at or what standard you're referring to.  Of course when planning a wedding a couple makes a whole host of decisions and compromises and priorities come into play with how all that plays out.  It's not judgement so much as it is natural inferrment based on decisions that have to be made.

Like I said, I think a couple needs to plan the wedding they want and are not rude to do so.  At the same time, guests have the option of not attending if the location, date, time, etc are not convenient for them.  And I tend to side more with the HC in situations like this.  I think it's more important, in general, for them to choose the location and dates that are important to them, then accommodate every single person on their guest list.   For certain people, I'd definitely put in more effort, but at the end of the day, the HC are what matters most, IMO. 

In this case, they chose a destination wedding and that's great for them.  In doing that, they prioritize the destination over the need to have everyone on their guest list attend.  I'm all for that.  I think the OP decides if she can or can't go and RSVPs accordingly.  Etiquette-wise, the HC is totally in the clear.  And, unless they start pressuring their guests to attend or complaining that not enough people are attending,  they remain that way. 

[Eeep!]

For me, the whole thing hinges on the couple's expectations regardint attendance. As far as I can tell, the OP hasn't weighed in on that particular issue specifically.  If the couple is indeed fine with people not attending because of the circumstances of the wedding they planned than I think they are OK.  But if they are going to be mortally offended because people choose not to attend, then they are rude. 

And I do understand what Art is saying - there is really no escaping that what you do does send messages.  But the people receiving the messages' own perceptions will color what message they receive.  If I otherwise think my nephew is a thoughtful caring guy, I will likely color my response to his invitation with that. But if I feel like he can't even be bothered to spell my name right than I'm likely going to view the invitation through that lense. 

[bah12]

For me, the whole thing hinges on the couple's expectations regardint attendance. As far as I can tell, the OP hasn't weighed in on that particular issue specifically.  If the couple is indeed fine with people not attending because of the circumstances of the wedding they planned than I think they are OK.  But if they are going to be mortally offended because people choose not to attend, then they are rude. 

And I do understand what Art is saying - there is really no escaping that what you do does send messages.  But the people receiving the messages' own perceptions will color what message they receive.  If I otherwise think my nephew is a thoughtful caring guy, I will likely color my response to his invitation with that. But if I feel like he can't even be bothered to spell my name right than I'm likely going to view the invitation through that lense.

I'm guessing the nephew/cousin probably wasn't the one that addressed the invitations.  In every wedding I've been a part of (including my own), for some reason that duty fell on the bride.  And not to excuse her that she didn't have some obligation to double check spellings and make sure everything was right, but if I were the OP, I wouldn't assume that my cousin, that I am otherwise really close to, is suddenly trying to covertly send me some message about our relationship through a wedding invitation.  Destination wedding probably had nothing to do with the OP and whether or not she could attend and the mispelling of the name may have been nothing more than a mistake....even if a careless one.   

[#borecore]

This thread is funny to me because I approached my wedding knowing everything I did would send a message to someone, and I'd probably offend a few. So far, though, I think our message of, "We love you but we're on a strict budget" has come through clearly and our guests have understood that things like having it during the school year (to reduce headcount, but also to avoid Texas summer heat!), hosting at our tiny place of worship and a backyard, having it where we live instead of somewhere inconvenient to us, and printing nontraditional, 1 page front-and-back  invitations were NOT meant as snubs.

If anyone is hurt by my low-budget wedding, I will be disappointed. But I don't feel I have anything to apologize for -- yet.

[TootsNYC]

it is what the couple thinks is what says the most about themselves.

But then, there is a message and that could be seen to be, "we aren't the people who go to great lengths to accommodate or include family."

Which might be accurate and STILL not be in any way a snub or an indicator that they don't care about you.

(remember that I'm personally not a fan of getting upset about this issue)

[LadyL]

And that message is that the location is their priority. 

I just keep feeling like every couple at some level prioritizes the details of their wedding above their guest list.

I think it depends on what level you mean. The main priority LordL and I had for our venue was that it be a historical building since we both love history. Other than that, we managed to secure a place that is very close to the majority of our guests (20 minutes or less driving distance), close to major public transportation, has parking, has reasonable hotel accommodations nearby,  can fit all our family and close friends, is wheelchair accessible, etc. When we were choosing the date we ran it by both sides of our families to make sure there wasn't a major conflict (i.e. milestone birthday that many people were travelling elsewhere to celebrate). I would say that if there was an even more fabulous venue that didn't have all those things, we would probably have picked the less fabulous place so that more people could make it. But then again, we are only having a "big" wedding because we care about having our families there - in theory we would both love to elope at the courthouse and be done but we see our wedding as a community event moreso than an event just about us. I've come to realize this is a minority viewpoint.

I think that is unkind.  It's about balancing different priorities, not deciding that a wedding is 'just about us'.

Maybe I should have phrased it "primarily about us" instead of saying "just." I meant to provide a contrasting perspective to ones like these:

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.

Because maybe the wedding isn't about the guests but about the couple who are marrying.

I agree.  I wanted my guests to have a nice time, but when I planned my wedding I focussed on what I and Mr Lemur wanted.

[*inviteseller]

There is no way to plan a wedding without offending someone.  I was invited to my step brothers small formal wedding, some other relatives were not.  It was not a snub...we are extremely close, the others just talk with him at family events but nothing else, but because they were step relatives, it should have been automatic invites.   My wedding was a JP event..my inlaws were hurt they were not invited (and MIL was the reason we did it this way) because in their family, shin digs are supposed to be huge blow outs with everyone sharing even the smallest shred of DNA must be invited and that wasn't what we wanted to go into debt over.  My BF's wedding had offended relatives because it was adults only (and yes, someone still brought their kid) because in their weddings, they allowed kids.  Just because you do things a certain way, certainly does not mean everyone does it that way.  And there are 2 different families to take into consideration.  I get the OP feels hurt because she has never seen a wedding like this before in the family, where it seems to be a weekend family affair that they are comfortable with, but maybe this couple isn't comfortable doing it that way.  Again, I think instead of burning up the phone lines with other family members discussing how this wedding isn't how they do things, she needs to call her nephew, congratulate him, and say to him that you are having trouble finding accommodations, can he suggest something?  And do it without sounding put out that the HC is planning their wedding their way. 

[gellchom]

I'm frustrated by the all-or-nothing tone of many of the posts.  A wedding does not have to be "all about the guests, accommodating every possible desire and need" on the one hand or "all about he bride and groom and what is meaningful to them" on the other.

Nor does something need to be intended as a snub or or a personal rejection or a passive-aggressive statement of "I'm inviting you because I have to/want a gift, but I don't really want you to come, so I'm going to make it really difficult" in order to be a "message."  As several posters said, and as I believe the OP meant, a "message" doesn't only mean one deliberately intended to be sent by the hosts.  It can also be, as they pointed out, simply the inevitable result of making a choice.  The location and time were more important to them than the convenience, and likely attendance, of the guests.  That isn't "wrong."  There may be EXCELLENT, unselfish reasons for those preferences, as some posters have suggested, but the bottom line is still the same: time and place over guests.

And it doesn't mean it is wrong or rude, and I don't think anyone said it was.  And it doesn't mean that people get offended, even if they are disappointed.  (Nor did the OP say she was "offended," if memory serves.)

Conversely, the hosts are deluding themselves if they think that no one is going to see it that way.  They don't get to decide how others are allowed to feel about their choices.  It's just as wrong to have the viewpoint of "But it's Ourrrrr Daaaaay!!!" as it is to have the viewpoint of "You have to do it for the faaaaaamily!"  You make your choices, the same as anyone must.  And then you own them; you don't excoriate people whom they disappoint or hurt.

LadyL, I hear you.  While it is true that a wedding isn't the same as a dinner party, which is SOLELY about the guests' entertainment and comfort, it's still true that the hospitality obligations of hosts don't entirely fly out the window just because it is a wedding.  This kind of thing is an unfortunate byproduct of the trend for HCs to host their own weddings; it can be tricky to be both the guests of honor and the hosts.  My daughter has always dreamed of a winter wedding, but summer it will be, because that is the most convenient time for her fiance's parents to get time off work (they must come from overseas).  I am proud of her for making that considerate choice.

Now, of course it's true that it's virtually impossible to make plans that are the most convenient for everyone.  (For example, the schoolteachers and students in our family are going to be un-thrilled at another Labor Day weekend wedding.)  And we are talking about things like dates and venues, not something like agreeing to get married in an unacceptable religious tradition or having 500 people instead of 10 or waiting two extra years or something -- that is a different matter.  But I do think it's smart as well as considerate to try the best you can to accommodate your nearest and dearest -- such as giving up your preferred season in favor of the groom's parents' work vacation time and moving the festivities off the mountaintop so that Grandma can attend.