What do you consider a "destination" wedding?

[cattlekid]

We chose our wedding location based on the fact that we had been living in the area for years. 

DH's family was all local to us except for a couple of folks who we invited who were out of country and would have had extensive travel regardless of US domestic location.  My family is flung all over the contiguous US.  There was no place that we could have the wedding that would not have involved travel for a large percentage of the invited guests. 

We chose our local area as our existing church that we had been attending was close to the local airport.  Our residence is located in a major metropolitan area that could have served as a vacation destination for anyone who chose to spend a couple of extra days.  Honestly, we looked at it this way as well:  those of my family members who could not have easily traveled are all local to our area as well.  Other members of my family that had to travel were in better position (health, finances, etc.) to do so.   

I concur with others in that I don't feel like I had a "destination" wedding.  I can't say I have ever been invited to a destination wedding either.  The only wedding we treated as a "destination" wedding was when my cousin got married in Carson City, Nevada (where she and her fiance were residing) and it was close enough to Lake Tahoe to tack on a couple of extra days as vacation before we went to the wedding.

[Lynn2000]

I've never actually been to one, or been invited to one, or NOT been invited to one because it was a destination wedding (as far as I know). So I really don't have any firsthand experience with them either. Both sides of my family (mom's and dad's) favor the "all extended family" BWW where the location is expected to serve the needs of the large number of guests, ranging from infants to elderly. In the hypothetical future I would like to have a very small, casual wedding instead, which I'm sure would shock people and hurt their feelings, unfortunately. I can't imagine the reaction if someone said they were going off to the Caribbean with just four people--I'm not sure if they would be shocked and hurt, or if somehow it would be so exotic as to make them shrug and go, "Well, I couldn't have traveled there anyway, so c'est la vie." Whereas in my hypothetical case, I would probably just be getting married in my hometown, and they would all be going, "But you're just a few minutes away! Why can't we come?" 

[Two Ravens]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

[lowspark]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

Sure. But you know, having a destination wedding isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depending on the situation, it might be the very best thing for that couple and their invited guests. It isn't always a case of Grandma not being able to travel or people not wanting to spend the money.

I think that we are, as a group, sort of leaning toward "destination wedding" having a bad connotation and I think that's just not always true.

[Lynn2000]

Yeah, I know I don't think destination weddings are inherently rude. I usually think of a small group of close, happy people on a beach somewhere, with the blue ocean behind them. It just sounds weird when you say "everyone travels to a place we have no connection to." That makes it sound like there was a perfectly good alternative that didn't involve people traveling, that the HC is turning their noses up at because it's "boring" or something--no matter the extra effort and expense to their guests.

And often, that's just not the case. Maybe a lot of people were going to have to travel no matter what. And, at least if it's a tourist or vacation-friendly destination, there's probably an ample supply of hotel rooms and restaurants with an airport nearby. I think it would actually be less considerate to insist everyone travel to my hometown of 5000 people for my wedding--there's one Motel 6 and I think a bed & breakfast, and for food they can choose between Pizza Hut and Hardee's. And the nearest major airport is three hours away.

[Sophia]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

Personally, I think this falls under the Vegas Exception.  Central location with families on opposite coasts.  But, if the fond memories were of Cozumel, then no, it is a Destination Wedding. 

[VorFemme]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

Personally, I think this falls under the Vegas Exception.  Central location with families on opposite coasts.  But, if the fond memories were of Cozumel, then no, it is a Destination Wedding. 

I like this "Vegas Exception" - a more-or-less-central location with relatively easy access, LOTS of potential places to get rooms, lots to do as entertainment if various people want to make a long weekend (or even a week) out of their stay, and (if you are all living in the USA) no passport needed.  For those coming from out of the country - there are websites to help find a place to stay, places to eat, advice on what to wear for various times of the year, and options on how much to spend....and cars readily available to rent.  (We've been there.)

There might be a lot of other places that could be a non-destination wedding even though they are popular with tourists and have easy access by highway or airport - whether or not any of the family live there - but if you want to get married at a theme park which requires everyone to pay to get in - then it is a "Destination Wedding" - even if 90% of the family lives in that area.  Because if it weren't a destination wedding, then the ticket to get into the theme park would be optional for the day before or the day after...not required to attend the wedding and/or reception.

[Sterling]

For me it is a destination wedding if the location isn't where the bride and groom live or where one of their families live. 

My wedding i consider to be a destination wedding even though the town it was held in was only an hour from where we live.  We still had to stay in a hotel the night before so to me it counted.  It was definitely a destination for our family and a lot of the friends.  Other than my mother and sister none of my family lives in the same state and none of his.  Plus we have friends from all over the country that we invited.  Most people traveled at least 6 hours to be there.

However if we had married in the town we live in I wouldn't have considered it a destination.

[Two Ravens]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

Personally, I think this falls under the Vegas Exception.  Central location with families on opposite coasts.  But, if the fond memories were of Cozumel, then no, it is a Destination Wedding.

Why would Cozumel no count as an exception? Because it's a popular vacation destination? So is Branson, MO, for a certain crowd. If it was Orlando, Fl, or San Padre Island, TX, would it also be a destination wedding?

[VorFemme]

Simplest way to define a "destination wedding" is "some place I would NOT be going to at all if it weren't for the happy couple having decided to get married there".

Doesn't matter if it is Hawaii, Disney-XXXXX, a castle in Scotland, a historic church in (anyplace, really), or the side of a mountain - if it is NOT where I would pick to go at that time - then it is a "destination wedding".

I might decide to go to Hawaii, Disney-XXXXX, or the other places on a vacation - but I would be in charge of when I went, what I did, and what I might wear while doing it.  It's doing it purely & simply as a wedding "guest/audience" that makes it a destination wedding.

Because while I'm at the wedding, reception, breakfast, shower, whatever else is going on - I am not "having my vacation", I am resting up for the next wedding event.  Or after the last wedding event before going home...,

[Two Ravens]

Simplest way to define a "destination wedding" is "some place I would NOT be going to at all if it weren't for the happy couple having decided to get married there".

Doesn't matter if it is Hawaii, Disney-XXXXX, a castle in Scotland, a historic church in (anyplace, really), or the side of a mountain - if it is NOT where I would pick to go at that time - then it is a "destination wedding".

I might decide to go to Hawaii, Disney-XXXXX, or the other places on a vacation - but I would be in charge of when I went, what I did, and what I might wear while doing it.  It's doing it purely & simply as a wedding "guest/audience" that makes it a destination wedding.

Because while I'm at the wedding, reception, breakfast, shower, whatever else is going on - I am not "having my vacation", I am resting up for the next wedding event.  Or after the last wedding event before going home...,

But if your niece who lived in NY married a guy from Kansas and decided to get married there , would that not fall under your criteria for a destination wedding? Even if every man in his family had gotten married In the same church?

I don't think I ever would have gone to Marysville, KS, if my husbands cousin hadn't married a guy from there. But that doesn't make it a destination wedding.

[lowspark]

Well, but, wouldn't any place you have to travel to fall under that category of "some place I would NOT be going to at all if it weren't for the happy couple having decided to get married there"?

For example, if the groom were a friend who was from the place where I live but the bride was from Columbus, Ohio and that's where they are having the wedding, well, Columbus isn't some place I'd be going to except that this is where they've decided to get married. But since the bride is from there, I don't see it as a destination wedding at all.

(or what Two Ravens posted as I was typing.  )

[lowspark]

It is strange.

Consider, we have Mark from LA and Sandy from Boston. They meet while at school at the University of Kansas. So, they could have their wedding in LA, Boston or Kansas, and not be considered to have a destination wedding. But if they decide to get married in Branson, MO, where they both have fond memories of vacations, then it would be a destination wedding.

Personally, I think this falls under the Vegas Exception.  Central location with families on opposite coasts.  But, if the fond memories were of Cozumel, then no, it is a Destination Wedding.

Why would Cozumel no count as an exception? Because it's a popular vacation destination? So is Branson, MO, for a certain crowd. If it was Orlando, Fl, or San Padre Island, TX, would it also be a destination wedding?

I'm not Sophia but what I read from her post is that it's an exception because it's centrally located between the two families on opposite coasts but that Cozumel isn't centrally located -- it's in a totally different direction.

I don't necessarily agree with that. As I said above, once it becomes as much about the location of the wedding as it is about the wedding itself, to me, that makes it a destination wedding. I don't see a wedding in one of the HC's home town or where they might be living now as being about the location.

But even picking a central location such as Branson would make it about the location if you're picking it specifically for the central location and the fond memories, and thus, it would be, in my eyes, a destination wedding.

[turnip]

This is an area I have no interest in overthinking things - it's a destination wedding if the HC describes it as a destination wedding.  My friends who got married in Costa Rica had a destination wedding, they'd happily describe it that way to anyone who asked.   If the HC consider it just a wedding because they do or did or wish to live there or it has some other special significance to them, then I'm not going to override their description.

[Mikayla]

Well, but, wouldn't any place you have to travel to fall under that category of "some place I would NOT be going to at all if it weren't for the happy couple having decided to get married there"?

For example, if the groom were a friend who was from the place where I live but the bride was from Columbus, Ohio and that's where they are having the wedding, well, Columbus isn't some place I'd be going to except that this is where they've decided to get married. But since the bride is from there, I don't see it as a destination wedding at all.

(or what Two Ravens posted as I was typing.  )

I agree with both of you.  In the old days, when couples were from the same city, and the extended family was living in that metro area, it was easy to define destination.  Both clans live in Chicago but the wedding is in Miami Beach?  Ok, destination.  And there is/was a negative connotation attached.

Today, people are so scattered that it seems many destination weddings are unavoidable, yet the negative connotation still exists.   If most guests have to get on a plane to travel to a wedding, what difference does it make if it's 2 hours vs 3.5?   

The last 2 weddings I've been invited to the couple planned it in the their current city, which was nowhere near either family and many friends.  Nobody would call this a destination wedding, yet either hometown would have been less problematic for a good chunk of guests.