FAO: Ericka

[Leslie]

X-No-Archive:

Ericka,

This is completely OT, but I know you will know the answer to it. :-)

A friend of mine is getting married in November (2nd wedding). She's
inviting about 125 people to the wedding.

She wanted to have a big reception--dancing, music, dinner, wine. Now
she sees that the whole wedding will end up costing $12,000 and with a
kid about to start college, etc., they cannot afford it.

She knows she could cut the guest list, but it's important to her to
have all her friends at the wedding--the most important thing, after
all. So what she's thinking about doing is having a basement reception
of the cake, punch, and mints type, and then, later in the evening,
having just the family and closest friends (about 50 people, 40 of whom
are family) to a restaurant for a sit-down meal that she will pay for.

My thought was that as long as she's not rushing out of the church hall
to get to the other reception, and that since it's mostly family, and
she isn't going to be publicizing it, this should be okay. What do you
think?

Leslie

[Ericka Kammerer]

Leslie wrote:
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Ericka,
>
> This is completely OT, but I know you will know the answer to it. :-)
>
> A friend of mine is getting married in November (2nd wedding). She's
> inviting about 125 people to the wedding.
>
> She wanted to have a big reception--dancing, music, dinner, wine. Now
> she sees that the whole wedding will end up costing $12,000 and with a
> kid about to start college, etc., they cannot afford it.
>
> She knows she could cut the guest list, but it's important to her to
> have all her friends at the wedding--the most important thing, after
> all. So what she's thinking about doing is having a basement reception
> of the cake, punch, and mints type, and then, later in the evening,
> having just the family and closest friends (about 50 people, 40 of whom
> are family) to a restaurant for a sit-down meal that she will pay for.
>
> My thought was that as long as she's not rushing out of the church hall
> to get to the other reception, and that since it's mostly family, and
> she isn't going to be publicizing it, this should be okay. What do you
> think?

Yes, it's okay as long as she keeps the private party
relatively quiet (those invited to the punch and cake reception
only shouldn't be regaled with tales of the later party), and
as long as there's not a sense of the first group being second
class citizens (and it doesn't sound like that's an issue at
all). Technically, it's never inappropriate to do this, but
there are less tactful ways of doing it, if you see what I
mean. If you have this huge, fancy blow-out in the evening
and invite not only your nearest and dearest, but also the
"VIPs" in the community, it may be technically okay but it
does send a certain message ;-) What your friend is trying
to do is not only proper, but very charming and understandable.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Leslie]

Thanks, Ericka!

Leslie

[[email protected]]

Leslie wrote:
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Ericka,
>
> This is completely OT, but I know you will know the answer to it. :-)
>
> A friend of mine is getting married in November (2nd wedding). She's
> inviting about 125 people to the wedding.
>
> She wanted to have a big reception--dancing, music, dinner, wine. Now
> she sees that the whole wedding will end up costing $12,000 and with a
> kid about to start college, etc., they cannot afford it.
>
> She knows she could cut the guest list, but it's important to her to
> have all her friends at the wedding--the most important thing, after
> all. So what she's thinking about doing is having a basement reception
> of the cake, punch, and mints type, and then, later in the evening,
> having just the family and closest friends (about 50 people, 40 of whom
> are family) to a restaurant for a sit-down meal that she will pay for.
>
> My thought was that as long as she's not rushing out of the church hall
> to get to the other reception, and that since it's mostly family, and
> she isn't going to be publicizing it, this should be okay. What do you
> think?
>
> Leslie

I'm not Ericka but I have a suggestion. Have a "rehersal" dinner the
night before the wedding for the family and close friends. On the day
of the wedding have just the basement reception. A rehersal dinner
with just family and close friends is a tradition so no one will feel
left out. If I were the bride, I'd be too stressed about someone
slipping and talking about the later private party.

[Quillspirit]

Our wedding budget was nill, but we managed to pull it off - 50 or so
guests, all the food that could be eaten... total cost: less than $300.
We did a BBQ reception, and a friend of the family made our cake (She
is a professional decorator).

For music, rent a karaoke machine. Out of that many people, somebody
should have some talent. :)

Don't forget to put out a Money Tree for your friend, and gently remind
people to make it grow... our tree yielded about $700. :)

Peace,
Shawn
www.Readingparents.com





Leslie wrote:
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Ericka,
>
> This is completely OT, but I know you will know the answer to it. :-)
>
> A friend of mine is getting married in November (2nd wedding). She's
> inviting about 125 people to the wedding.
>
> She wanted to have a big reception--dancing, music, dinner, wine. Now
> she sees that the whole wedding will end up costing $12,000 and with a
> kid about to start college, etc., they cannot afford it.
>
> She knows she could cut the guest list, but it's important to her to
> have all her friends at the wedding--the most important thing, after
> all. So what she's thinking about doing is having a basement reception
> of the cake, punch, and mints type, and then, later in the evening,
> having just the family and closest friends (about 50 people, 40 of whom
> are family) to a restaurant for a sit-down meal that she will pay for.
>
> My thought was that as long as she's not rushing out of the church hall
> to get to the other reception, and that since it's mostly family, and
> she isn't going to be publicizing it, this should be okay. What do you
> think?
>
> Leslie

[cjra]

Leslie wrote:
> X-No-Archive:
>
> Ericka,
>
> This is completely OT, but I know you will know the answer to it. :-)
>
> A friend of mine is getting married in November (2nd wedding). She's
> inviting about 125 people to the wedding.
>
> She wanted to have a big reception--dancing, music, dinner, wine. Now
> she sees that the whole wedding will end up costing $12,000 and with a
> kid about to start college, etc., they cannot afford it.
>
> She knows she could cut the guest list, but it's important to her to
> have all her friends at the wedding--the most important thing, after
> all. So what she's thinking about doing is having a basement reception
> of the cake, punch, and mints type, and then, later in the evening,
> having just the family and closest friends (about 50 people, 40 of whom
> are family) to a restaurant for a sit-down meal that she will pay for.
>
> My thought was that as long as she's not rushing out of the church hall
> to get to the other reception, and that since it's mostly family, and
> she isn't going to be publicizing it, this should be okay. What do you
> think?
>
> Leslie

Butting in - FWIW this is the norm in France and Switzerland (and maybe
other European countries too, I only know those two). It's called the
'vin de honore' or something like that, and is basically a
champagne/wine/cake deal immediately following the ceremony with
everyone invited, then in the evening is the formal, but much smaller
dinner.

[Anne Rogers]

it feels wierd that this is even asked, in the UK it is considered very
normal to have a two stage reception, and actually it's the bit in the
middle that is the smaller group which is really odd. Fortunately the only
time this happened to us, i.e. being invited to a wedding around lunch time,
then a reception at 8pm, it was in our home town. Personally I think it's
not on doing things that way round and you can almost always choose a
cheaper option or a different venue to allow more people, for example the
one we were not at the main reception for, we had actually looked at for our
own wedding, but decided against it as it was the most expensive hotel in
town!
It was about the first thing I said when we even thought about our wedding,
everyone is invited to everything. The only slight abberation on that was
that as we got married at the church we attend, we did let people know they
were welcome to join us at the service and some did, but that was literally
a brief note as part of the order of service the week before.

Anne

[Anne Rogers]

> Butting in - FWIW this is the norm in France and Switzerland (and maybe
> other European countries too, I only know those two). It's called the
> 'vin de honore' or something like that, and is basically a
> champagne/wine/cake deal immediately following the ceremony with
> everyone invited, then in the evening is the formal, but much smaller
> dinner.

not normal in England, the perverse opposite (described elsewhere) is far
too normal for my likeing, to the extent that hotels have pricing schemes
based on it.

Anne

[Anne Rogers]

>
> I am totally confused by this and your next reply. You said the 2-stage
> reception is normal? or not? And what bit in the middle where you
> referring to?

2-stages is normal, but not in the order you described, so I was saying the
particular custom in CH and FR isn't normal, but it just so happens that
what is common is also 2 stages. Also in the UK there is almost never a
requirement for a separate civil and religious ceremony, even for non
conformists, like us.

hope that explains things, I really hate what currently seems to be common
here, I can see reasons why a 2 stage thing might be appropriate, but it
really rubs your face in it when there is a 6hr gap and you arrive at a
hotel where the first bit is still finishing and have to wait outside.

Anne
>
> Just for clarity - what I described goes like this:
>
> Ceremony - all, or most invited, (if it's only a civil service in the
> town hall, there may be space limitations. In both countries a civil
> ceremony is required regardless whether a religious ceremony takes
> place)
>
> Vin de Honore (sp?) - all invited
>
> Dinner - smaller group
>
>
> We didn't have a separate vin de honore in CH, we just invited all to
> all, but it was practical for us to do that, well, except there were
> too many people for the town hall, but oh well. We did however have a
> separate religious ceremony in the US, followed by a typical US
> reception.
>

[Ericka Kammerer]

Quillspirit wrote:

> Don't forget to put out a Money Tree for your friend, and gently remind
> people to make it grow... our tree yielded about $700. :)

Please don't. For families where this is a long standing
tradition, and all the guests are familiar with and expecting
it, it's not a big deal, but otherwise it's a pretty major
faux pas. You don't charge your guests for hospitality.
People are well aware that they can give money if they so
choose. They don't need someone to shake them down. And
it sure as heck isn't appropriate for a friend to step in
and decide to do such a thing on the bride and groom's
behalf without their permission. I'd have been livid if
anyone treated my guests that way.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

cjra wrote:
> Anne Rogers wrote:
>>> Butting in - FWIW this is the norm in France and Switzerland (and maybe
>>> other European countries too, I only know those two). It's called the
>>> 'vin de honore' or something like that, and is basically a
>>> champagne/wine/cake deal immediately following the ceremony with
>>> everyone invited, then in the evening is the formal, but much smaller
>>> dinner.
>> not normal in England, the perverse opposite (described elsewhere) is far
>> too normal for my likeing, to the extent that hotels have pricing schemes
>> based on it.
>>
>> Anne
>
> I am totally confused by this and your next reply. You said the 2-stage
> reception is normal? or not? And what bit in the middle where you
> referring to?
>
> Just for clarity - what I described goes like this:
>
> Ceremony - all, or most invited, (if it's only a civil service in the
> town hall, there may be space limitations. In both countries a civil
> ceremony is required regardless whether a religious ceremony takes
> place)

IIRC, what Anne is talking about is that in the UK
it is fairly common to have an earlier wedding, followed by
a meal to which a small group of people is invited, followed
by an evening reception to which a large crowd is invited
for dancing. So, in other words, what she's saying is that
instead of wedding/large reception/small dinner they have
wedding/small dinner/large reception.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[cjra]

Anne Rogers wrote:
> >
> > I am totally confused by this and your next reply. You said the 2-stage
> > reception is normal? or not? And what bit in the middle where you
> > referring to?
>
> 2-stages is normal, but not in the order you described, so I was saying the
> particular custom in CH and FR isn't normal, but it just so happens that
> what is common is also 2 stages. Also in the UK there is almost never a
> requirement for a separate civil and religious ceremony, even for non
> conformists, like us.

Yeah, the UK has its own interesting rules for ceremonies ;-) (I was
nearly married there in 2000)

>
> hope that explains things, I really hate what currently seems to be common
> here, I can see reasons why a 2 stage thing might be appropriate, but it
> really rubs your face in it when there is a 6hr gap and you arrive at a
> hotel where the first bit is still finishing and have to wait outside.

Ok, I understand now. I've heard of that, and I think the weddings in
Ireland I went to were technically like that, except it was more like
10pm, these people weren't invited to the ceremony. It was friends of
friends who'd been told to feel free to show up for the dancing/party
if they felt like it...people not particularly close to the couple so
wouldn't expect to be invited to their wedding, but new them from
parties w/mutual friends. That sort of thing.

[lucy-lu]

Anne Rogers wrote:
> it feels wierd that this is even asked, in the UK it is considered very
> normal to have a two stage reception, and actually it's the bit in the
> middle that is the smaller group which is really odd. Fortunately the only
> time this happened to us, i.e. being invited to a wedding around lunch time,
> then a reception at 8pm, it was in our home town. Personally I think it's
> not on doing things that way round and you can almost always choose a
> cheaper option or a different venue to allow more people, for example the
> one we were not at the main reception for, we had actually looked at for our
> own wedding, but decided against it as it was the most expensive hotel in
> town!
> It was about the first thing I said when we even thought about our wedding,
> everyone is invited to everything. The only slight abberation on that was
> that as we got married at the church we attend, we did let people know they
> were welcome to join us at the service and some did, but that was literally
> a brief note as part of the order of service the week before.
>
> Anne
>
The whole 2 stage bit seems odd to me tbh. I can't imagine inviting all
my guests to the wedding, telling 75% of them to entertain themselves
while the ones I liked best had a meal with me, and then invite them
back again when it suits me for a reception!

I've been married twice. The first time, I had a "big white wedding",
with 100+ guests. We got married at 3pm, then went for photos, and then
to the hall, where we had a buffet meal (I couldn't be doing with
vegetarians, diabetics, fussy eaters etc), followed by the disco. I
can't imagine what 80-90 of those people would have done had I said,
well, thanks for coming, see you in about 4 hours...

This time, we had a much smaller wedding with about 30 guests. Given as
I was 7 months pregnant, we were conscious to keep costs down. My
maternity wedding dress came off eBay, some friends paid towards the
civil ceremony as part of our wedding present. I ordered a bunch of
flowers off my catalogue, and arranged them myself, and Rob wore a
normal suit, that I bought a new shirt and tie for. As a reception, we
went to my SIL's hotel, where they had a bar. We all bought our own
drinks,and if people wanted food, they ordered that (we did explain in
advance that we were saving for the baby and wouldn't be providing
meals). You know what? This wedding was far better - it was so relaxed,
we only had the people there that we really wanted (not the ones you
think you'd "better" invite). My first wedding cost in excess of £6000.
I'd reckon the second cost us about £180 at most. Oh, and we had a night
in a hotel as a mini-honeymoon, also given to us as a wedding present.
Best yet - all my guests stayed together the whole day :)

A ramble, I know, I just always feel sorry for those that have been
invited, bring presents etc, and then are excluded for the meal, but
brought back for the reception. Where do they go?!

Lucy

[cjra]

lucy-lu wrote:

>
> A ramble, I know, I just always feel sorry for those that have been
> invited, bring presents etc, and then are excluded for the meal, but
> brought back for the reception. Where do they go?!


Just FYI, in case it's not obvious - that *isn't* what the OP described
(nor what I described for FR and CH).