Help!? Inviting people to Reception only

[galvana]

My fiancee and I are struggling with our guest lists in trying to trim them down to accomodate the church we are getting married at. We are getting married in a very small venue (150ppl max) but our guest lists tip a total of about 200ish. We don''t "want" to exclude anyone but just simply can''t fit more than 150 in the very small church. The reception is big enough for everyone (holds 300) and there are no problems there but we want to know what your thoughts are around doing invites to the reception only for a certain number of guests to accomodate the capacity limit.

Is that too tacky or is that ok? We don''t want to cut anyone and if we do to accomodate a matching ceremony/reception qty then a chunk of people we really want to share this day with won''t get to see us at all.

If we CAN do seperate invites, some reception only and some for both,
how do we word them? how do we word the reception only ones?

Any insight or opinions would be appreciated. Thanks everyone in advance for your help.

 

[teapot]

There is another post about inviting people to the after ceremony festivities (\"Is this rude?\") and the general consensus is that it will offend people. I would not worry about the church. It has been my experience that more people show up to the reception than the ceremony. If you are expecting 200+ people but the church only accommodates 150, as long as you have seating for your grandparents, parents and wedding party, you should be fine.

 

[galvana]

I saw that post but our situation is different rom theirs (wierd though how we both posted at the same time)

but we WANT to have everyone there, the church is just too small. I spoke to the venue where the chapel is and the fire codes only allow 150 guests max inside. Its an old, old church at an historic site.

There would not even be enough standing room for everyone so if we just invite all, some will have to stand outside (in July) and I would hate this.

Does anyone think inviting to just reception because of this would be ok??

 

[neatfreak]

Honestly? No, I don't think it's ok. I would find another ceremony location or trim the guest list.

 

[meresal]

FI and I were deciding between a gorgeous chapel that held 150 and my church that holds apprx 2500. We wanted everyone at the wedding so we went with the bigger church. To be honest, it never even crossed my mind to do separate invitations.

 

[galvana]

I have been stressing over this since we started going through our lists again. for the longest time FI said "dont worry about it, and people can stand outside", most people dont go to ceremony anyway," etc etc.

I would DIE< if i pulled up in the limo and people were standing outside - in the heat cuz they could not fit in the church.
I have asked many people about this and they all tell me not to worry so then i started searching online.
I did a search on the knot and that is where i saw the idea for seperate invitations.

http://wedding.theknot.com/wedding-questions/wedding-guest-list-advice/qa/invite-wedding-guests-to-party-not-ceremony.aspx

and then i figured i would post here and see what you guys thought

 

[cara]

The old etiquette rules allow inviting people to the reception but not the ceremony... for exactly the situation you are in (small church), as well as the situation where the ceremony is very small/private/remote or days/weeks/months prior to the reception. So what you propose is permitted! The key to carrying it off without offending people, I believe, is to draw a reasonable line between the church invitees and the reception-only people.

It might be best to figure out a logical subset to invite to the ceremony rather than just inviting as many as will fit and then leaving the stragglers feeling like B-listers. I might suggest that local people who are not close family/friends would be the most likely to not mind being reception-only invitees. For example, if I were flying to your wedding, I would want to be invited to the ceremony as well. If I were a coworker invited to the reception only, but other coworkers were invited to the ceremony as well, this might be a bit awkward or confusing to me. So just be reasonable in grouping people into reception only or both.

The wording is "request the pleasure of your company at a reception in honor of the marriage of..." Or some other phrasing inviting people to a reception but not the wedding: "invite you to celebrate the marriage of ... at a reception on..."

You could make the reception invitation fancy and then include a separate card in some envelopes inviting people to the ceremony as well.

 

[diamondringlover]

I had to do this, I had a triple wedding with me and my 2 sisters and the church was small, so we decided on 2 different invitatons and then we printed something up explaining why (that is was a triple wedding and the church was small) we didnt have to many people grumble. The church was still very crowded there were people standing everywhere including the media

This was almost 25 years ago so I dont remember all the details, lol.

 

[havernell]

Have you considered guest yield? If you invite 200 people, not all 200 will be able to come. Usually 15% or so of invited guests can't make it. So, in your case, inviting 200 would likely yield around 170. I know that's still over 150, but using the 15% yield rule, if you can cut your guest list down to around 180, you should yield right about 150. Cutting 20 people should be easier (hopefully) than having to cut 50...

I know you don't *want* to cut people, but I think you kind of created the situation of having to cut the guest list when you chose a church that can only fit 150 when you knew you wanted to invite well over that number. Most brides and grooms have to cut the guest list- it's just one of the stresses of wedding planning. One more thought- do you have to stick with that church or could you try to find one that can seat more people? Clearly, I am in the camp that thinks a reception-only invitation is uncouth, so I would do anything possible to avoid that. Good luck coming up with a solution that works for you!

 

[BigDiamonds]

FWIW, I wouldn''t be bothered at all if I was not invited to the ceremony, as long as I didn''t feel like a total B-lister. It''s like not getting invited to a friend''s wedding, but then you find out it was only immediate family...it''s just how it goes sometimes. I think there is a tactful way to do it so that you minimize the chances of people being offended. Of course, you should definitely way the personalities and priorities of the people you''re inviting - will they be hurt, regardless of what you say? If so, then you should probably change venues or trim the list.

 

[honey22]

Date: 1/5/2009 2:42:15 PM
Author: teapot
There is another post about inviting people to the after ceremony festivities (''Is this rude?'') and the general consensus is that it will offend people. I would not worry about the church. It has been my experience that more people show up to the reception than the ceremony. If you are expecting 200+ people but the church only accommodates 150, as long as you have seating for your grandparents, parents and wedding party, you should be fine.

I am shocked to think people would consider coming to the reception but not the ceremony. I believe it''s common in the US though.

I know that in Australia, you wouldn''t really be welcome at the reception if you simply bailed on the ceremony. The reception is a party thrown for the guests and couple to celebrate their ceremony, it would be rude to just rock up at the party without being there to see the ceremony.

Anyhoo, rant over, it''s an entirely different situation here. I wouldn''t invite people to the reception only. You either want them there to celebrate the day with you or not. I see that you only have a few options though. Find another church that can accommodate the entire guest list. Or could you discuss with the church the option of having a marquee or something set up outside with a live screen maybe? I know it''s not a perfect solution and it would look rather wierd, but I think it''s nicer than inviting people to the reception only. As a guest I would feel offended, the whole day should be about your guests sharing in your marrige - to me that means the ceremony and the wedding itself, the reception should be secondary to this on the list of importance.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/5/2009 10:55:21 PM
Author: havernell
Have you considered guest yield? If you invite 200 people, not all 200 will be able to come. Usually 15% or so of invited guests can''t make it. So, in your case, inviting 200 would likely yield around 170. I know that''s still over 150, but using the 15% yield rule, if you can cut your guest list down to around 180, you should yield right about 150. Cutting 20 people should be easier (hopefully) than having to cut 50...


I know you don''t *want* to cut people, but I think you kind of created the situation of having to cut the guest list when you chose a church that can only fit 150 when you knew you wanted to invite well over that number. Most brides and grooms have to cut the guest list- it''s just one of the stresses of wedding planning. One more thought- do you have to stick with that church or could you try to find one that can seat more people? Clearly, I am in the camp that thinks a reception-only invitation is uncouth, so I would do anything possible to avoid that. Good luck coming up with a solution that works for you!

Ditto! The hardest part of wedding planning was cutting down on the list, it had to be done. How about you cut 5, your FI cut 5 and your parents, both sets cut 5, some will end up cutting 6 and some 4 because of couples, but it might be an easier way to tackle it. Do remember that some people will come late and others will RSVP and then not show. There are a ton of threads already on here about how many people (percentages0 will show under different circumstances. IMHO, a separate non-ceremony invite would just show a lack of discipline and be a great deal of work for a small number of invites. Spendy too.

 

[galvana]

Ya im not sure what to do, I did a ton of searches last night on line and found many wedding articles that said it is "ok" to have reception only invites (if the circumstances are like mine).
But then some people are totally against it.

FI and I are going to look at the list and see who would be on the reception only invites and talk it through.

thanks for all your thoughts, as opposite as they are - keep them coming!

 

[cara]

Date: 1/6/2009 4:55:31 AM
Author: honey22
Date:[/b] 1/5/2009 2:42:15 PM

I am shocked to think people would consider coming to the reception but not the ceremony. I believe it''s common in the US though.

I know that in Australia, you wouldn''t really be welcome at the reception if you simply bailed on the ceremony. The reception is a party thrown for the guests and couple to celebrate their ceremony, it would be rude to just rock up at the party without being there to see the ceremony.

As a guest I would feel offended, the whole day should be about your guests sharing in your marrige - to me that means the ceremony and the wedding itself, the reception should be secondary to this on the list of importance.

honey22- Similarly in the US, if one is a guest invited to both the ceremony and reception (on the same day), one should not skip the ceremony and go to the party without a good excuse - though I am sure that some people do this or would be inclined to skip the ceremony if permitted. As a host, one is not supposed to invite people to the ceremony but not the reception, as that smacks of sending the message that some one is good enough to be invited to the ceremony but not good enough for the hosts to spend money entertaining them.

But it *is permitted* to invite people only to the reception, and not the ceremony. There are many reasons why one would have a smaller list for the ceremony - perhaps the ceremony was much earlier than the reception for some reason (legal or practical), or was held in a small church with some meaning to the bridal couple, or perhaps the couple wanted a small family-only ceremony but wanted to celebrate with a larger crowd. One is allowed to invite more people to the celebration than the ceremony itself.

Iloveprincesses- To make people not feel bad about being excluded from the ceremony, it would help to have some logical explanation for the smaller cut of people invited to the church. I think inviting 150 people to the both and then another 50 to only the reception is going to be hard to defend or avoid hurting people''s feelings, even if it is technically permitted. But if you make some more reasonable distinction (family, OOTers, and close close friends to the ceremony, everyone else is reception only) then you are in a more reasonable position. Some may not understand, but you are not going to please everyone in any wedding.

And, make sure you are making a good estimate on attendance before inviting folks. If you are inviting a lot of out-of-towners, you may get a lot of declines and would be safe inviting 200 to your church that holds only 150. Conversely, if the vast majority of your guests are local and known quantities, you may get more acceptances than the standard estimates of 80%. And don''t forget that some people will presumably be standing up with you and your FI! And if you end up only 10 or so people over capacity, I''m sure some folks woln''t mind standing in the back or sides, but 50 over is too many.

 

[musey]

Date: 1/6/2009 4:55:31 AM
Author: honey22

Date: 1/5/2009 2:42:15 PM
Author: teapot

There is another post about inviting people to the after ceremony festivities (''Is this rude?'') and the general consensus is that it will offend people. I would not worry about the church. It has been my experience that more people show up to the reception than the ceremony. If you are expecting 200+ people but the church only accommodates 150, as long as you have seating for your grandparents, parents and wedding party, you should be fine.

I am shocked to think people would consider coming to the reception but not the ceremony. I believe it''s common in the US though.

I know that in Australia, you wouldn''t really be welcome at the reception if you simply bailed on the ceremony. The reception is a party thrown for the guests and couple to celebrate their ceremony, it would be rude to just rock up at the party without being there to see the ceremony.

Anyhoo, rant over, it''s an entirely different situation here. I wouldn''t invite people to the reception only. You either want them there to celebrate the day with you or not. I see that you only have a few options though. Find another church that can accommodate the entire guest list. Or could you discuss with the church the option of having a marquee or something set up outside with a live screen maybe? I know it''s not a perfect solution and it would look rather wierd, but I think it''s nicer than inviting people to the reception only. As a guest I would feel offended, the whole day should be about your guests sharing in your marrige - to me that means the ceremony and the wedding itself, the reception should be secondary to this on the list of importance.

I guess... though have the same outlook on it as you. I would have been bothered, possibly offended, if someone had come to our reception but not the ceremony. If I''d noticed, that is

 

[musey]

I forgot to weigh in on the topic itself

200 invited for a 150-capacity church may not actually be a problem in the end... especially if you have a significant portion of out-of-town guests. We had a 90% OOT invite list and a about a 60% rate of attendance (100% for in-town guests, though). That would put you under capacity.

Obviously you can't count on that, though.

I would suggest doing what we did. Instead of having to work backwards, scrap the guest list (keep a copy, but don't look at it anymore). Then come of with your rules of invitation - such as "Family extended to cousins", "No plus ones if we haven't met them", and "All college roommates". Make your list ONLY based on those rules. Then when you're done with that list, you can cross-reference it with your old list and see who's missing. Only add the people that you think "Ohhhh, I would be heartbroken if Sandy Smith weren't there!" for.

You can use the same idea to trim the list with rules like "If we haven't spoken to them in the past year, they're out" and/or "No one that we wouldn't be sad not to share our day with".

You may be surprised how quickly the list shrinks. We nixed almost 30 people just with "no one we wouldn't be sad not to share our day with." For friends and non-obligatory invites, if we had to think twice about whether we truly wanted them there, they were out.

 

[galvana]

Thank you to everyone who chimed in on this one! FI and I worked on the lists last night and we are down to
161 total to invite to the CHAPEL!
YAY!
So EVEN if we get 100% yes responses (which is rare) - there will only be 11 people standing.....!
YAY!

sound good ??

 

[KatyWI]

Congrats!!!

Getting the guest list down to 100 people from 120 before we even send out the invites has been our biggest challenge... I can''t imagine trying to cut 50!

 

[havernell]

Date: 1/7/2009 11:19:48 AM
Author: iloveprincesscuts
Thank you to everyone who chimed in on this one! FI and I worked on the lists last night and we are down to

161 total to invite to the CHAPEL!

YAY!

But you are still inviting the full 200+ to the reception?

 

[fieryred33143]

Since you asked, I think its tacky.

Cut down the list or find another venue.

 

[galvana]

To Clarify - we got the TOTAL guest list down to 161, we are NOT doing seperate invites, so all 161 will be invited to BOTH the reception and ceremony!
thats why i said yay!

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2009 1:04:36 PM
Author: iloveprincesscuts
To Clarify - we got the TOTAL guest list down to 161, we are NOT doing seperate invites, so all 161 will be invited to BOTH the reception and ceremony!
thats why i said yay!

Congratualtions!! A feat indeed!!

 

[havernell]

Date: 1/7/2009 1:04:36 PM
Author: iloveprincesscuts
To Clarify - we got the TOTAL guest list down to 161, we are NOT doing seperate invites, so all 161 will be invited to BOTH the reception and ceremony!

thats why i said yay!

That''s fantastic! Congratulations for getting through that guest list hurdle!! The guest list has been our number one wedding headache. Sounds like you and your FI handled it well in the end.

 

[honey22]

Wow, well done. That couldn''t have been an easy task. But it will makes things a lot easier logistically and also fiancially. All those extra mouths you don''t have to feed!!!

 

[bee*]

Yay glad you got it sorted!

 

[musey]

Yay, good job!