Three questions of etiquette

[j4]

1. Is there any non-offensive way to say to people (who have misinterpreted our probably-confusing invitations-and-website nonsense and RSVPd to say they will be pleased to come to the wedding) "I'm sorry but the invite was only to the reception (because the actual wedding is v small)"? I just feel as though any way of saying it feels really horrible but we honestly can't fit everybody in. :-(

2. Is it even worse to ask this on my LJ where a) inevitably some people reading this will not have been invited to either (all other things being equal, this would still be a world-readable journal and the venue would still be finite) and b) everybody will think "oh noes are they talking about me?".

3. Might it be better to just shoot myself now?

Comments

[venta.livejournal.com]

I gather the reverse was sometimes done

Not "sometimes done", I believe, but the norm. My mother was recently telling me how confused she is by this invitation-to-reception-but-not-wedding idea. In her day (ie marrying 40 years ago) it was unheard of - but very, very common to invite someone to the wedding but not to the reception.

I think this was as you say largely because the wedding part is free, but the reception must be paid for per-head. It also makes more sense if most of your guests are local and can easily pop to the church (church weddings were still very much the norm) for half an hour.

Modulo constraints on space, I'm not sure what people's reasons are for inviting someone to the reception but not the wedding.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

I imagine that the reasons are that it's not 40 years ago, and inviting someone to the wedding but not the reception would be appalingly rude.

[nja.livejournal.com]

I've been to "three tier" dos - wedding ceremony, wedding breakfast (why breakfast?), evening informal party. It's not unusual in my experience for people to be invited to the first and third, but for there not to be enough places (i.e. not enough of a catering budget) for everyone to attend the second.

I may be wrong, but I think at least in churches and registry offices, any member of the public is entitled to turn up to a wedding, invited or not. ( And other venues apparently - see this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/feb/21/monarchy.claredyer)).

[j4.livejournal.com]

(why breakfast?)

Because you'd've been fasting before the wedding, and you're breaking your fast. HTH HAND HORSE.

I think weddings used to tend to be earlier, too. I didn't want to get married in the morning because I think it's technically illegal to get married while asleep.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'd see it like that - some friends of mine recently married in a huge church and, knowing the congregation, invited anyone around to come to the actual ceremony. I don't believe that anyone regarded that as rude.

Besides, just saying "it's rude" doesn't really explain why it has come to be regarded as such, which was what I would be interested in.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

40 years ago, most weddings were church weddings (I think), and churches can be quite large venues (the parish church I used to go to would hold 200-300 people), so it was far easier to invite lots of people to the ceremony, and only 30-40 people to the reception in a scout hut somewhere. Now registry offices tend to be quite small, so the inverse is true.

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

Modulo constraints on space, I'm not sure what people's reasons are for inviting someone to the reception but not the wedding.

The actual wedding is, for at least some people, more a legal formula than a ceremony-as-such; the reception is a party to celebrate. If you view it in that light, you may actively not want to invite people to the boring legal bit, while still wanting them at the fun party afterwards. (In addition, as you say, to space issues.)

j4: what everyone else has said. I thought the invite was perfectly clear, and must remember to actually RSVP.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Modulo constraints on space, I'm not sure what people's reasons are for inviting someone to the reception but not the wedding.

It really is just space! There is far more choice of venues-where-you-can-have-a-party than there is of venues-licensed-for-marriage, and the latter cost a lot to hire, and the bigger the venue, the greater the cost (obviously). Even the smallish room at the registry office is not cheap (well I don't think it's cheap but then I don't really know what I'd expect) on a Saturday. If money (and hence space) was no object, we'd be very happy for everybody who wants to be there to come along. (Okay, there are one or two people who I wouldn't exactly be happy for them to be there, but if space wasn't an issue then I wouldn't stop them coming along.)

And yes, if we were getting married in a church then there'd probably be room for a gazillion people; no idea what it costs (if anything -- can you charge people to go to church?). I would have been willing (albeit with some reservations) to get married in church; Owen is a staunch atheist and (entirely reasonably) wasn't prepared to compromise on that.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can charge for use of a church like that. I think there's a flat wedding fee, which is the same regardless of the size of the venue.

Then again, having never organised a wedding, I may be talking through my hat.