Asking guests to travel for a no party wedding?

That sounds like a lovely wedding. An hour is fine to travel.

40 or so years ago most weddings in England consisted of a ceremony and meal. Guests might go on to a pub afterwards but often the bride and groom had left. I went to several where I had overnight stays. Scottish weddings had dancing as standard. Don't know about Irish or Welsh.

I thought you were going to say travelling abroad! An hour is nothing, I've travelled further for much less important things. So not at all as far as I'm concerned.

I'd be more agitated at the moving venues. It feels like the guests comfort etc isn't really being considered. A lot of ballsing about waiting on other people etc.

We chose to keep things close and handy for the guests. Their ease and comfort, possible inconvenience factored very highly in our decisions.

The lack of party as you put it isn't a problem, can take or leave that part.

I do have really bad chronic pain, exhaustion etc, and would very much struggle so that's a view from my blurry eyes.

We had a resturant reception but no dancing, dancing is not mandatory

But to me there is nothing wrong with asking anyone anything but I think it is rude to expect anything

So a 'no sorry can't make it' should be fine for any event

I would be very happy to attend a wedding like this. I might not stay but just drive and go home afterwards. I wouldn't miss the loud disco at all, it's hard to speak to people as I can never hear what they're saying.

True, but years ago fewer people would be invited who lived outside the local area.

I’ve travelled several hours for similar. Happy to for people I’m close to, wouldn’t bother for someone I wasn’t so close with unless I combined it with something else (like meeting up with old friends, especially if they are also invited).

Different people are going to have different opinions on whether it’s worth it to them, but it’s a decision they can make. It’s not rude to invite them. More people will probably turn down the invite than if it was a bigger event, if you’re the bride and that will upset you, or if you can’t really afford the uncertainty, then keep it small.

Lack of dancing sounds like a big plus to me.

Years ago most weddings were like this. A church or registry office ceremony then a meal or buffet at a hotel or church hall. Then the bride and groom were sent off on their Honeymoon. If they were driving the car would have old shoes and tin cans attached to it, and ‘Just Married’ written in lipstick on the boot.

Sounds great. If people want to go o t hey can go to the pub.

I fucken hate wedding evening events. Live drinking a chatting with friends/new people. Hate loud music and the dance police. Especially the god awful ceilidhs that have been at the last few weddings I've been to or some dreadful local band murdering their way through a a selection of wedding hits.

Sounds great. Really don't enjoy music too loud to chat, and people trying to force me to dance. A civilised meal is a much nicer celebration.

I'd definitely travel for a no party wedding. A meal and socialising sounds absolutely perfect. I'd much prefer this to a DJ, dancing and entertainment...if you can call it that! I wish more people would do this, I hate it when you can't chat to people, as the music is too loud.

Personally I would much prefer a nice meal and a chance to chat following a wedding than a wild, all-nighter (but I am old!).

I'd love that. Quite honestly I hate the dancing element of weddings. I dont dance and I hate having to shout to have a conversation.

A nice meal followed by sitting on chatting and a few drinks sounds perfect

Well I think the title was misleading. An hour is hardly "travel", not like you need accommodation and there's a meal as well. Doesn't sound that bad!

Ours was even more basic and afterwards everyone said they had a fantastic time. Do what your happy with not other people

I think it sounds great! I hate the hundreds of people/DJ thing because as a guest, you don’t know half of them (they’re the happy couples friends) , the music takes over everything because it’s so loud and even if you want to talk to people it’s usually difficult to have a conversation.

I would definitely go to a wedding like that.

It doesn't sound ideal, and although one hour travel time isn't huge, it sounds a drag to then have another 30 mins travel to go for dinner (and perhaps taxis to and from dinner because of drinking alcohol). Three hours travel plus the cost of a hotel, basically to go to a 'very basic' dinner? I'd probably only go if the B&G were family or v. close friends. It all sounds like an odd sort of compromise wedding plan. I'd agree, either have a small local thing, no travelling, or make it worth the travel/hotel cost for a bigger and more fun event.

I hate dancing and drunken weddings that go on and on all day and night.

I think this sounds perfect and not unreasonable at all.

Anyone having a problem with attending a meal and register office is an arsehole anyway.

Sounds great. I'd definitely go but probably wouldn't stay overnight.

I went to a work colleague's wedding, many moons ago.
Registry office wedding.
Roughly 6 people there - including bride and groom.
I was one of the witnesses.
Came out of the registry office.
Bride said to "guests", "thanks for coming. I'm off to do my shopping now".
She went to Asda.
The End.

Not even a cup of coffee.

Yours sounds amazing in comparison op.

I'm all for low key and laid back.

This. I certainly don’t need dancing. Or it wouldn’t make any difference to whether I travelled to someone’s wedding or not. I’ve gone to weddings on another continent that lasted for days, and taken shorthaul flights to weddings that involved a 20-minute ceremony and lunch.

As long as people are aware it's a mela and a chat afterwards, it's fine. Not everyone is that bothered about dancing- it's not integral to the event. As long as the invites state the reception is a meal and a socialise then people know what to expect.

Perfect.