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

[Bookgirl]

There is no problem with flying across the country to attend the wedding; it's where they live and an area we have been looking forward to visiting. 

One thing that's been bothering me is that this is being referred to as a "destination" wedding but it's not.  Not for the HC anyway.  It's where they live.  Yes, it's across the country from most of the groom's family (what about the bride's family?) but it's where the couple lives *now*.  A destination wedding, at least to me, is one where the HC has to travel to get to along with their guests.  Yes, it's in a national park and I'm sure they don't actually live in the national park but it's still local to them. 

When we got married, we had to travel about a half hour to get to our location and some of my family had to travel an hour.  My in laws had to travel several hours.  That doesn't mean that we had a destination wedding and I don't think any of my family would think that we had one either.  And yes, I realize that across the country is completely different than a couple of hours but I still don't think the HC having a wedding at a location near their home makes it a destination wedding.

I think I'm the one that started using that term and I called it that because the OP said that the wedding is in a State Park on an island.  Where I seriously doubt they live.  I didn't see the OP say that this wedding is near their home...but if it is, then that makes the "message" that they are purposely excluding their relatives even crazier.  If they are planning a wedding convenient to where they live, then the message is more likely "we are planning a wedding that is near us.  It makes no sense for us to plan and coordinate a wedding near the grooms family because it's too far to do that effectively."  Not "We refuse to plan a wedding far away from us because we don't want the grooms family to come.  We'll invite them, but will make it difficult for them to attend."

The part I quoted from Mammavan3 is where it is stated that the HC live in the same area as the venue. It was mentioned on page 2, not in the OP.  I read the OP the same way everyone else did, as if it were truly a destination wedding but it turns out that it's not. 

[Mikayla]

Do you not talk to and dance with the other guests at the weddings you've attended?

OP, I'm late to this, but wanted to add something specific related to wedding-as-family-reunion. 

I think it's absolutely fine for the HC or the hosts of the event to want a reunion, and it's fine for them to invite accordingly.  Where it becomes problematic is the expectation of guests that either they, or other family members, should be invited to create the family reunion.  If anything, it's the opposite.  I know I've read at least one credible source saying that weddings aren't family reunions.

You mentioned in an update that this would have been the first time the newest generation was all together at one event.  If you feel so strongly about that, and since money isn't a problem, there's nothing stopping you from organizing one.  I don't mean this in a snarky way, either.   It's a legit idea if you're wanting everyone together at the same time, and it's much more stress free than hoping upcoming brides see it the same way.

[*inviteseller]

As far as a wedding being a family reunion, that seems selfish when one side decides how the HC will have their wedding.  This is the joining of 2 individuals with 2 families.  If Mammavan3's family wants this wedding to be a way for the newest generation to be introduced, what about the brides family?  Should they just sit back and feel like outsiders as it turns into the grooms families party?  Or should they also plan a family reunion, so instead of a day to celebrate the marriage of the couple, it is all about meeting new babies and catching up with great aunt myrtle ?  And if I were the couple and caught wind of the discussions
being bandied about among the family about how the wedding was not being done the way the family expects (much less the comments about being gift grabby & how others think a monetary gift that all the sibling get for their marriage should be spent), I would be cutting the guest list down.  I would not want to inconvenience anyone who feels that my wedding was being done wrong.

[Just Lori]

Here's the thing - if I were having a small, intimate wedding, I would invite only those that I reasonably expected to come.  Yes, there might be an invitation sent to a relative across the globe on the off-chance that I thought she might make it, but I wouldn't invite more people than I expected to be able to accommodate.

I hear a lot of people saying this couple wanted a small, intimate wedding.  That's fine, but it sounds like they've invited a lot of extended family to this small, intimate wedding, without ensuring that there are appropriate, comfortable accommodations available.  I do believe it's unrealistic to expect out-of-town guests to travel to with cooking and camping gear, unless your particular circle is made up of outdoor types and camping aficionados.

There is nothing wrong with a small, intimate wedding.  But you don't invite people with the expectation that they'll say no.  And when you do invite someone, you should be able to offer them reasonable options for accommodation.  I may love the heat of the summer, but I wouldn't invite guests to an outside wedding in July unless I knew there was plenty of shade options and water available.  You have to consider your guests' comfort.

[*inviteseller]

They may want a small intimate affair, hence the date and location, but are feeling pressured to invite people because that is how OP's daughter did it, and how the groom's brother did it.  This, obviously hits a nerve with me, because thanks to the non stop pressure and PA stuff from MIL, we did not get the wedding we wanted, instead we ended up doing it (nicely) at a JP with no parents (I couldn't ask mine and not his).  Because they had always had the big family reunion weddings on his side, we were expected to also and when we said no, it would be small (100 people tops but we were planning on cutting that down).  She, no matter how many times we explained that we were paying for it, said "well, this is how my family celebrates any occasion and you will just have to ask your father for the money.(her initial list had over 200 people!)  I also received money from my dad, the same amount he gave my sister but we were using that for our relocation to another state for his job.  I think the OP is making assumptions without speaking to the HC, altho they are under no obligation to explain why they want to have their wedding this way.  Also, as far as making it about your guests...yes, there should be decent food & drink for the guests and the couple should make a point of speaking to each guest throughout the reception, but as far as making sure the guests have accommodations they find up to their individual tastes, I think all the couple is responsible for is giving suggestions for places to stay in the area and leaving it up to the invitees to decide what works for them. 
And as far as their registry, just because they have one doesn't make it mandatory to buy off of it.  A lot of times with registries, employees work with the couple and convince them that they just have to have the $200 silver chafing dish, or the $500 tea service, so they put it on, knowing darn well they aren't getting it.

[Eeep!]

Here's the thing - if I were having a small, intimate wedding, I would invite only those that I reasonably expected to come.  Yes, there might be an invitation sent to a relative across the globe on the off-chance that I thought she might make it, but I wouldn't invite more people than I expected to be able to accommodate.

I hear a lot of people saying this couple wanted a small, intimate wedding.  That's fine, but it sounds like they've invited a lot of extended family to this small, intimate wedding, without ensuring that there are appropriate, comfortable accommodations available.  I do believe it's unrealistic to expect out-of-town guests to travel to with cooking and camping gear, unless your particular circle is made up of outdoor types and camping aficionados.

There is nothing wrong with a small, intimate wedding.  But you don't invite people with the expectation that they'll say no.  And when you do invite someone, you should be able to offer them reasonable options for accommodation.  I may love the heat of the summer, but I wouldn't invite guests to an outside wedding in July unless I knew there was plenty of shade options and water available.  You have to consider your guests' comfort.

This is how I feel too. I'm actually quite surprised that some people seem to think they it's ok to just throw whatever wedding YOU want without any regards to logistics of how your guests will be able to attend. Perhaps I am picturing the location as more remote than it is but if it is somewhere where the distance will require people to stay there than I do find it is a bit much to expect your guests to bring their own linens when going to what appears to be an otherwise normal wedding. Now perhaps the B&G are really planning on having a more rustic/camping type wedding. But if this is true, they have a website and should be able to make that nice and clear. I get that it can be hard if you want to have a different wedding than is the norm in your family. They puts a lot of added pressure on you. But I personally think you are doing your guests and yourself a disservice to not acknowledge that fact. (Although I have been wondering if the whole first name only on the invites was a bungled attempt to show it was more casual?).

I'm curious - and I truly am not trying to be snarky - would people really think that it's ok to throw your wedding somewhere where there is a limited amount of accommodations - say on an island - and just invite however many people you want without ensuring there would be somewhere for them to actually stay? I would like to think that the rule should be that if there are only accommodations for 45 people than you only invite that many (maybe a percentage more allowing for declines. But not even sure on that.) Or do you just invite however many people and figure they can decline if it doesn't work out?

I know the OPs situation isn't that extreme, but where is the line? Is it really ok to set your wedding somewhere atypical and then just expect your guests to fend for themselves in finding accommodations? I personally think that expecting your guests to either share bathroom facilities ( and it sounds like even those are limited) or cull through a list of b&bs, during a high season, hoping to find somewhere to stay us a bit much. What if they can't find somewhere? What then?   
 

[RingTailedLemur]

Every wedding I have been to outside my area has required that I find a B&B.  I've done it for people's birthday parties, anniversary parties etc as well.  I don't see the problem.

An invitation is not a summons, if guests don't want to attend that type of event they can decline.

[Calistoga]

This is how I feel too. I'm actually quite surprised that some people seem to think they it's ok to just throw whatever wedding YOU want without any regards to logistics of how your guests will be able to attend. Perhaps I am picturing the location as more remote than it is but if it is somewhere where the distance will require people to stay there than I do find it is a bit much to expect your guests to bring their own linens when going to what appears to be an otherwise normal wedding. Now perhaps the B&G are really planning on having a more rustic/camping type wedding. But if this is true, they have a website and should be able to make that nice and clear. I get that it can be hard if you want to have a different wedding than is the norm in your family. They puts a lot of added pressure on you. But I personally think you are doing your guests and yourself a disservice to not acknowledge that fact. (Although I have been wondering if the whole first name only on the invites was a bungled attempt to show it was more casual?).

I think so long as you let your guests know well in advance that your wedding will be a little unusual in that regard, you have the right to throw whatever wedding you want.  If they have to bring linens, tell them before the RSVP date so that they know exactly what they're signing up for.  The other important factor is that you understand and gracefully accept that some people may not want to come to a wedding that requires a zip line to get to your ceremony and sleeping in a drainage ditch. You can invite people to whatever you want, but don't be surprised/hurt/offended when they say no.

I'm curious - and I truly am not trying to be snarky - would people really think that it's ok to throw your wedding somewhere where there is a limited amount of accommodations - say on an island - and just invite however many people you want without ensuring there would be somewhere for them to actually stay? I would like to think that the rule should be that if there are only accommodations for 45 people than you only invite that many (maybe a percentage more allowing for declines. But not even sure on that.) Or do you just invite however many people and figure they can decline if it doesn't work out?

If you know ahead of time that you can only accommodate X amount of people, only invite X amount of people. In a situation where your guest list is determined by the space you are using, you send your invites, get RSVPs, maybe send some more invites to people who were farther down the list, but at no point should you be actively inviting more people than you can accommodate. That's just asking for trouble.[/quote]

I know the OPs situation isn't that extreme, but where is the line? Is it really ok to set your wedding somewhere atypical and then just expect your guests to fend for themselves in finding accommodations? I personally think that expecting your guests to either share bathroom facilities ( and it sounds like even those are limited) or cull through a list of b&bs, during a high season, hoping to find somewhere to stay us a bit much. What if they can't find somewhere? What then?   

I think it depends on the size of the city your in. We got married in Memphis, so there were TONS of hotels around for our fairly small guest list to stay at. If you're having your wedding in a town that only has a few small hotels available, let people know well in advance. I don't think you need to find their rooms for them, but a nice heads up that TinyTown only has 2 hotels is polite.

 

[bah12]

About the accommodations:  The OP said that there are 7 cabins with bathrooms (and I am assuming others without) that require guests to bring linens.  The 7 with bathrooms are already booked and therefore not even an option, so I'm not sure why she's worried about the cabins and what they do and don't come with.  She also said there were B&Bs in the area.  She just hasn't gotten any information on where they are located and was expecting that the HC would block rooms somewhere...she hasn't received word that they've done that.

As someone mentioned, and I missed, this is in an area where the HC live.  So, it's probably logical to conclude that they have friends (and maybe even the bride's family) in the area that will be attending their wedding.  So, the cabins might actually be a perfect and affordable option for them.  For those that are flying (the grooms family), they can stay at another hotel.

And I'll give it to the OP that having that information or having a block of rooms reserved somewhere is nice.  And maybe the HC will still do this...they haven't even sent the invites yet...this is just info on a STD card and a yet to be completed wedding website.  But, even if we assume that they don't do anything else as far as information on where to stay, I don't understand why people planning to attend can't get on the internet and do their own research...maybe even call the HC and ask for recommendations.  It's nice to have that all laid out for guests, but is it required?  I don't think so.

Yes, it's great when a couple can consider everything that their guests may want/like to see for their wedding, but it's nearly impossible to do so. The OP is a cousin.  I doubt that she's on top of the list of people that have priority in preferences for this wedding.  And she shouldn't be.  She has no idea (as far as I can tell) if the HC hasn't already considered their closest family and friends (and I still say they don't have to as long as they can accept "no" as an RSVP).

As for the small, intimate affair.  It's totally possible to have a large wedding in a remote location. I don't think people are saying that it's obvious they want a small wedding when it's unclear how many people they invited, but that the choices they are making will likely result in a smaller wedding than if they had made choices that made it convenient for the families to have a reunion.    What I don't think is happening is that they want a small/intimate wedding, but are inviting everyone and then purposely making choices so that they won't attend, but will send gifts. I think this is a ridiculous and uncharitable accusation, especially since it's based only on the limited information on a STD card.  And I also think that it's likely they are not looking at turning their wedding into a family reunion, regardless of how many family members they did invite.