Weird to have two receptions?

[iota15]

I''m not even engaged yet, but BF and I have been seriously considering this hypothetical. I''d like to hear your thoughts though.

We want a small wedding. In fact, BF would love to elope but I would like to have an actual wedding reception. We''re also an interracial couple from two ethnicities that love mega-weddings (for where we live, think 300-500 people, multi-day weddings being around "the norm" from his side, and about 200-300 in attendance for my side). So what do you think of this?

Wedding ceremony - everyone and their dog is invited.
Wedding reception that night - the small intimate gathering we envisioned (close friends and immediate family only)
Wedding reception the next night - large extended family, family friends, maybe coworkers at a banquet hall/restaurant

We intend to pay for all of this on our own but as my mother points out, the second reception will likely pay for itself (cash gifts also being the norm).

 

[Haven]

Hi iota!

I think the timing is a little bit unconventional for those guests who would attend the ceremony on one day and the reception the next, but you know your loved ones best--would they be down for that? If so, go for it!

I think two receptions sounds like a blast!

 

[JulieN]

I think it should be the other way around: large reception first, small intimate reception later.

 

[SAPHIRINA]

We are likely to have THREE receptions. We are having a semi-destination wedding (the city where my mother lives). Some of my friends and family will have to fly in (from overseas), others are local to the city.

FI''s family, on the other hand, all lives in the Midwest, so many of them will not be able to make it to our wedding (some hate to travel, others can''t afford to, etc.). His parents want to pay for us to have a reception at FI''s hometown sometime after we come back from the honeymoon. They also want us to wear our wedding attire (not sure how I feel about that yet). FI and I didn''t agree to anything yet, but, if a lot of his friends and family won''t be able to make it to our wedding, we''ll most likely agree to the second reception.

The third reception will take place in my home country, where the majority of my family is. Most of them will not be able to get visas to come to the US, so my father will organize a reception for us there a few months after the wedding.

So, no, I don''t think it''s weird at all, if that''s what you and FI both want!

 

[caribqueen]

I think it sounds like a great idea. Why not? I can relate coming from a family and culture where in our home country, weddings were pretty much considered village events so people would come whether invited or not and they''d end up being huge affairs.

I think I would also keep the order you have with the small intimate reception before the large one. In my opinion, if you have the large gathering first and then a small one after, those people would''ve already attended the bigger one with everyone so I wouldn''t see the point of the small one. (I hope that made sense)

 

[beltane]

I think it sounds wonderful! I come from a faith community where a lot of the wedding ceremonies take place during the week, so the couple gets married, has a small dinner reception that evening... and then when the weekend comes that''s when they have the big blowout reception.

I have also been to a few wedding where the ceremony and dinner were small and intimate, and then later a whole bunch of people were additionally invited for the party/reception. That''s how my brother got married: ceremony at church, intimate dinner at a restaurant, then off to huge party at a hall with tons more people.

 

[purselover]

Honestly I''d be more than a little taken aback if I was invited to the ceremony one day and then the reception the following day, especially if I knew they were having a reception that night for those "closer" to them.

However if this is the norm for your families they may not be offended, I would definitely make sure everyone invited to one of the receptions is invited to the ceremony though.

I also understand cash gifts being the norm (as it was for my wedding) but please don''t invite everyone assuming they will essentially pay for themselves there''s no way to predict for sure what you''ll receive.

 

[zipzapgirl]

I think it might be weird to have everyone dress up and go to the wedding and then dress up again the next day for the reception. Just seems like you lose momentum, if you know what I mean. After my wedding I was so pumped on adrenaline, I just wanted to party and dance it off, you know?

Is there some reason why you wouldn''t consider the intimate dinner followed by the party, or even make the intimate dinner the rehearsal dinner the night before? Just seems like it avoids lots of questions and confusion by the guests.

 

[beltane]

Date: 4/14/2010 9:55:31 AM
Author: zipzapgirl
or even make the intimate dinner the rehearsal dinner the night before?

That''s a really great idea!

 

[iota15]

Thing is, I want to dance and party with my friends and siblings that night... and not meet and greet the third uncle, twice removed from the groom''s side.

I can honestly go without the second reception. It is an "add-on" but I''d like to try my best not to make attendees feel that way. And no, it wouldn''t be the norm to split the wedding and reception - at least for my side. But it seems like a little too much to have an intimate dinner and then a huge ballroom of people on the same night. When I go to these massive weddings, I always feel like the bride''s going to pass out from smiling and shaking hands with all these distance relatives.

If possible, and I will try to be ruthless about the guest list (which I understand is hard), we''re hoping maybe 20-35 people at best for the first reception.

 

[sillyberry]

I''m not crazy about the idea, to be honest. I understand (and share) the impulse to just have an intimate affair, but in that case I think you should just have the intimate affair that you and your FH want. You mention dancing/partying with your closest friends, so it does''t sound like your would be doing a small dinner but rather two whole receptions. As a guest I would be much more understanding of not getting an invite because the couple wanted a small wedding than I would going to a wedding with the knowledge that I was only welcome at the B team event the next day.

Could you do a small wedding/reception, and then another weekend have a big blowout where everyone is invited?

I''m sure whatever you choose will be done gracefully and tactfully, but to me this sounds like a whole lot of hurt feelings just waiting to happen.

 

[KittyGolightly]

Date: 4/14/2010 4:16:46 PM
Author: sillyberry
I''m not crazy about the idea, to be honest. I understand (and share) the impulse to just have an intimate affair, but in that case I think you should just have the intimate affair that you and your FH want. You mention dancing/partying with your closest friends, so it does''t sound like your would be doing a small dinner but rather two whole receptions. As a guest I would be much more understanding of not getting an invite because the couple wanted a small wedding than I would going to a wedding with the knowledge that I was only welcome at the B team event the next day.

Could you do a small wedding/reception, and then another weekend have a big blowout where everyone is invited?

I''m sure whatever you choose will be done gracefully and tactfully, but to me this sounds like a whole lot of hurt feelings just waiting to happen.

Ditto to all this.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 4/14/2010 12:54:16 AM
Author: JulieN
I think it should be the other way around: large reception first, small intimate reception later.

ditto - it seems too awkward for all your guests to come to a wedding ceremony one day and have to come back the following day for a reception - but only you know your guest list and what would work.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

I agree with others that its a bit unconventional to have the wedding one day and the main reception the next with the intimate gathering in between.

My friend went to a wedding where the ceremony was in the morning, they had a lunch for all invited to the ceremony and then the close family and friends were invited out onto a boat to cruise on the river for drinks and canapes in the evening. She said it was a wonderful day.

You could always have an early ceremony, large function for all guests that wrapped up by 6pm and then do something intimate with your close family and friends.

 

[ilovesparkles]

Date: 4/13/2010 11:47:34 PM
Author: Haven
Hi iota!


I think the timing is a little bit unconventional for those guests who would attend the ceremony on one day and the reception the next, but you know your loved ones best--would they be down for that? If so, go for it!


I think two receptions sounds like a blast!

I second this thought! You could even do a brunch the morning after with your small group to make the whole event more streamline so that anyone who is planning to leave town the day after may do so. We are having 2 receptions. One after the wedding with the smaller group of those invited (in my hometown 400 miles away), and a second, larger one where we live now in his hometown for everyone we didn't invite.