To think if you have an all day wedding you should have food before 9pm?

[Buffetblues]

We've been invited to a wedding in August the invitation said that, despite the ceremony being at 1.30pm, there will be no food until the buffet at about 9pm?

AIBU to think that if you want to cut catering costs on your wedding day, you don't get married so early? It's seems really selfish to me to have an all day wedding with no food but I'd be quite happy if the service had been at say 4pm?

My jaw is on the floor, OP, at your 'friends'. I wouldn't go, and I'd probably feel relieved to not be friends with them any more.

Just thought I'd chip in a bit with regard to two-tier weddings/day and evening guest lists :
Traditionally, you married from your parents' house (you still lived with them, your fiancé lived with his parents - OK, I'm an old git, but that was how it was all those years ago) and your parents were the ones footing the bill. So, the guest list for the sit-down-meal reception was the people that THEY wanted to invite. Great Auntie Ethel et al, who you last saw when you were 6. Your parents' best friends, who invited them to the weddings of their children. Favourite neighbours and work pals. As a pretence that you had any say in anything, bride and groom were allowed to invite their friends to an evening do (dancing to Fat Boab's Disco and a buffet of sausage rolls and cheese sandwiches). So today's weddings, even though paid for by the bride and groom themselves, still have that historical hangover.

I'd go and stay sober and keep going out for snacks. Just to watch it all unfold

But am really glad you've decided not to bother.

WhereYouLeftIt How these customs develop is very interesting. It is also interesting to me that some of these same historical conditions existed in the US (the bride's parents paying and making the guest decisions in days of yore), but that the two-tiered system did not develop here.

I wonder if the time of day has anything to do with it. If I remember correctly, at one time weddings in the UK could not legally be after a certain hour. If the wedding is at noon, there is a whole day to be planned for. Most of the weddings I have attended in the US have been late afternoon or early evening weddings so that the only celebration/party was at night. And I think that may stem in some part from the fact that before air conditioning, summer weddings in the US (especially in the South where I am from) had to be at night because of the heat.

You need to go missing at some point and have a pub lunch.

BB For a 'compare and contrast', check this thread out - think may be the final piece of perspective mirror you need vis your friend's idea of what a wedding is/what it's all about/what makes a day special even if IS on tight budget...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parties_celebrations/1748738-Tips-for-a-cheap-wedding?msgid=38908681#38908681

Just to explain the whole wedding cake thing, yes it is rather odd, but all the venues we tried do not allow you to serve the cake as pudding. I guess it's just another way for them to make money, and they are usually ok with it being served up with the buffet.

It's not unusual, most of my friends came up against the same problem. I would have loved to serve my cake as pudding, would have saved us a few hundred...

Buffet, I realise you're pretty upset about this wedding, have you considered/asked the following:

Were they given any other time options to get married? We HAD to get married at 12:30 as there were no other slots left that Saturday

Did the couple face a lot of family pleasing? My family were pretty insistent that we invited extended family, some of whom I hadn't seen for years, and mil had an invite list as long as her arm of friends they considered family.

Parents really wanted us to have 'a nice venue' and acted pretty hurt when we talked about running off, or having a small wedding and a big party in the night.

The bride has warned you about the food gap, is she a tad embarrassed and hoping some of her guests will bring snacks as they could not afford the 'wedding breakfast'?

Have you had a conversation with them voicing your concerns?

Do you actually like the couple?

If they were given a 4pm time slot option, no family pressure and are oblivious to your concerns, and well actually you don't really like them, no point in going.

Btw I think the 2 tier system developed as weddings are so freaking expensive you'd need to take out a mortgage to pay for all your guests to come all day ( and yes we did our own flowers, friend made our cake, didn't hire a car, made our own invites, place cards etc).

Assuming, of course, that someone was holding a gun to their heads forcing them to get married on that particular day in August. And that there were no alternative reception venues in the area that would give them more flexible catering options.

Just to add to what Whereyouleftit said - think about the royal wedding, that's the more traditional way to do it- so the meal and day reception happens straight after the wedding, but then there'd be a couple of hours break and then an evening ball/party which is a separate event (normally with separate clothes). The evening one would be the 'big' do. Weddings normally happened in the morning, then the wedding breakfast would be more like a lunch, the evening party not being a rolling on of a whole day event.

Also re the cake - traditionally you served that in the evening, but your wedding 'meal' had been lunch. Also slices would be posted to people who were unable to go to the wedding, and most people took the cake away to have at home. There's lots of old wives tales relating to wedding cake, I believe one was unmarried woman should eat half a slice they were given before bed, putting the other half under their pillow and they'd dream of their own wedding day and groom.

At all the weddings I went to as a child in the 70s you went home for a few hours after the wedding breakfast and got changed for the evening party. That doesn't work now as most people have friends and family living all over the place, but everybody wants the day and evening part. It makes the whole thing so long.

Even if cost and timings were a problem for the couple, there are hundreds of ways they can have a wedding that doesn't involve pissed, starving guests.

The reason they've told you it's such a long wait is exactly so you can sort yourself out with a picnic or a stop off at a restaurant on the way. If they weren't happy for you to do that they wouldn't have mentioned it as no point.

Honestly ghoul that really isn't their intention. The details were given to ensure people filled up before they go to the church and they think people will happily mill around and chat from about 4pm until the band start and the food is served in the evening.

I can see that they might find the time flies as they will know everyone but we'll only know some people and will be bored stiff as far as I can see.

The entire thing sounds awful. It will be the longest day ever.

There have been a number of variants on the two-tier approach developing in previous years, though, which usually seem to involve guests being treated less and less like guests and more like extras in the 'special day' of the happy couple who have to work things out to meet the bride and groom's specifications.

For example, it seems increasingly common for people to be told that they are invited to the ceremony, but not to the formal wedding breakfast straight afterwards which is for a very small number of select guests only (usually 'for cost reasons' again ) but that they are then invited to the evening do. So people now go to the ceremony, then have to work out where there is a nearby pub they can go to to eat at their own expense, then come back for the evening do - lots of reference to this in this thread, as well as elsewhere on MN, show that this has become an established pattern. Now I get all the stuff about weddings being expensive, but it still seems to be that this is basically expecting people to put themselves out around you, and also that it puts into place lots of layers of distinction between different groups of guests. I would much rather have a more inexpensive meal for everyone than serve top class fillet steak but have only immediate family there and send the rest to the pub to buy their own lunch, but clearly many people think the opposite. And to do this with people who're travelling is really rude - I have a friend who was invited to a wedding at the other end of the country on this basis. If you want people to drive for 6 hours to your do, at least stand them lunch!

Much as I dislike the 'go away for lunch and come back' model that's emerged, the situation described here by the OP seems even worse. At least allow people to get food themselves, if you aren't going to feed them! Although the notion of 'allowing' should really be challenged. If people stop off at a pub on the way, what are the couple going to do? Not let anyone in who was a day guest but who arrives after 4pm smelling of fries and onion rings? That won't keep their precious numbers up.

My advice to you OP is to go (to please us all ) and get as many people on board to meet you at a convenient eaterie for an 'alternative' wedding breakfast before you carry on to the 'real' reception.

The reason they've told you it's such a long wait is exactly so you can sort yourself out with a picnic or a stop off at a restaurant on the way. If they weren't happy for you to do that they wouldn't have mentioned it as no point.

But it's still inexcusable for a bride and groom to expect people to make their own arrangements for food at an all day wedding.

They could have had one all day party, a pot luck lunch, a cheaper menu, fewer guests etc etc. I think that telling guests they'll starve til 9 unless they bring food is a very unwelcoming start to a wedding!

Quite honestly, if the bride(zilla) is as bad as all this, easiest answer is don't go and why are you even friends with such a person?!

I would overlook certain aspects of a wedding for people I like, but make an excuse up not to go if I really didn't like the couple.

This begs the question, should you attend the wedding of somebody you actually don't like?

If you are close enough to them to want to go to their wedding if there was food laid on, then you should go anyway, get food on the way to the reception and whinge about the arrangements with the other guests.

if you are not close enough to them to want to go to their wedding anyway, decline the invitation.

but I don't think disapproving of someone's bonkers wedding arrangements is reason enough to decline on its own if you would otherwise go.

Loads of posts since I last looked at this thead but flowery has summed up my view - if you want to go, go and take food, if not just decline the invite.

I'm surprised at the strength of feeling on this thread, is it really such a big deal to get so worked up about?

Reminds me of DH's cousin's wedding in Ireland. Big 200 guest affair. Ceremony was around 1, so we had to leave the house at 12, so the llatest we could eat brunch was 11.30. Fortunately my SiL had a young baby and had rung the venue to enquire about times and was told that it was dinner around 6-7 ish, so we took sandwiches. The bride and groom went off for their pictures on the beach while the guests lurked around... and lurked around... The time for dinner came and went... Apparently it was deliberately delayed for some sports match on tv. Only biscuits and coffee avaliable to stop the guests eating eachother. By the time the dinner was finished (bland, over boiled) we politely stayed for the first dance before heading home exhausted.
It didn't help that I didn't know the couple, but despite being with my close ILs and getting to meet some extended family it was the most tedious, dull and impersonal wedding I've been to.

iIt was a valuable learning experience for my wedding the following year where guests were briefed on timings, advised of a llocal place to eat before the ceremony (many were travelling, so thought an early local lunch would help) and lots of nibbles and refreshments to keep them going at the reception. The only complaint I ever heard was there was too much good food to manage. Beats starvation!

I see what you're saying flowery and iberolass and in the grand scheme of things it's not worth getting overly stressed about it.

I actually think I would have been happier about it all if we'd just tunred up for the day and seen what happened. What irrates me so much is the fact it is all so pre-planned and it's clear the bride and groom can see it is going to be a problem but have chosen to inform the guests in advance rather than doing something about preventing the issue from occuring.

I also think that it's going to be virtually impossible to tell them why I'm so pissed off without ruining their day as the arrangement are made now. If they go ahead as planned people will talk about this wedding for all the wrong reasons but I won't have to be the miserable git who moaned about it so I might take the cowards way out and accidently book a holiday over the weekend of the wedding.

I do agree that it's not acceptable and they are being selfish, but I don't think I'd ditch a friend I'd known since the age of 6 over their wedding arrangements. I'd certainly moan about it plenty but I would still go, grabbing a crafty McDs on the way and being late to the reception.

But if you were on the verge of ditching her anyway, and were umming and ahhing about whether to go before knowing the arrangements, then maybe it is a ditching thing.

I've been getting so wound up becuase of the arrangements so it really is only that that has prompted these feelings. I think I'm going to keep my distance and see how things work out but, as I said, get out of the wedding by going on holiday.

For those who asked if this was the only wedding slot available or was there family pressure on the timings- to my knowledge there was not. This is exactly what they wanted. The wedding has been in the planning for almost 2 years so there has been stacks of time to ensure the timings are as good as they could have been. I knew about a lot of it but seeing it in black and white when I got my invite on Saturday just annoyed me as its so self centred.

A friend of mine through work has commented to me as they are so surprised to have been invited because they are not really close and haven't seen the couple for ages. As I had a vague recollection of the bride telling me when they booked the venue about a year ago that it was a fixed price buffet I have put 2 and 2 together (maybe unfairly but I doubt it) and assumed it is because the food will cost them the same no matter what the numbers but it is unlikely any guests will come to the wedding without a present.

It was the cash request that tipped me over the edge- it really could have been summarised by saying we can't afford to pay for more than one meal but we want an all day wedding and would like you to give us cash as a reward for allowing you to be a part of our big day.

That's interesting whereyouleftit I never saw the evening do like that before. It does make sense and I think if it's a big group of people and positioned as a very different sort of event it wouldn't bother me...
(the way it did when we were one of only 3 couples - no exaggerating - invited to attend an evening event...I felt like a huge idiot entering waiting outside for plates to be cleared for the meal...no one believes me but it's true...)

I posted on that other thread about how to keep costs down...I agree with not blowing a fortune on a wedding but I think it's really important to get a sense check with some ideas as to what extent you've lost sight of the guests.