To think it's polite to not do all of this when planning a wedding

[hibbledibble]

When couples plan a wedding, it seems like often there is little thought given to how easy it will be for guests to attend.

There are three things which can make it difficult for guests to attend a wedding:

1. having it in the middle of nowhere (so guests need to travel, and book one or two nights of accomodation as a minimum)
2. having it on a weekday, especially in the middle of the week (so guests need to use annual leave, or take unpaid leave)
3. not inviting children (childcare costs and logistics)

Doing one or two of the above is forgivable, but aibu for thinking it's really inconsiderate to do all three?

My first wedding, I wanted a civil ceremony in a stately home. The room only took 50 people so we looked into a wedding nanny to entertain the kids for the 30 min service. Despite this, we still managed to upset some family members who wanted their kids at our ceremony so we decided to have a church service so that everyone could attend. We had it on a Saturday to accommodate everyone and had it close to hotels. Turns out it wasn't the best day of my life and I was still paying the wedding off after we were divorced!

2nd wedding, we had 30 people there, rural, small manor house, everyone who stayed either stayed in the house or in local B&Bs, only had our closest friends and parents, no extended family (they were the ones that caused the issues a the first one). It meant we could offer a free bar, talk to everyone and it felt much more personal. Best day ever.

Moral of the story. The bride and groom should absolutely do what they want to make their day perfect for them. It is their day, for them, not their guests.

I think this issue has only arisen when the regulations changed about where you could get married. When you could only get married at a registry office or church they were usually in central locations.

I still manintain that if you want all the guests you have invited to attend your wedding you do have to take into consideration how easy it will be for them.

This thread has actually helped me make my mind up about our upcoming wedding.

Seeing all the grief we could get, a tiny wedding abroad with immediate family sounds perfect

No YANBU! This happened to us last year during May half term (bride was a teacher), received our invite 6 weeks before the wedding... at a big fancy venue, on a Monday! Kids not invited, had to go to MIL two hours away as the childminder doesn't work during half term. Wedding was an hour away from home literally in the middle of nowhere, all guests got lost. Had to book annual leave for the day (annual leave was precious last year so couldn't afford to take more than one days leave) and then the Bride got the hump because not many guests wanted to stay over (£100+ a night and most had to go back to work on the Tuesday). Was a very flat wedding as people were clock watching to go pick up kids/ get home for work the next day, nobody really had a drink and I think there was a lot fewer guests than anticipated because of all if the inconveniences and the late invitations. Each to their own but I wouldn't have been happy with it as my wedding day.

And your second paragraph is undoubtedly true lonicera, whether anyone wants to complain about it or not. If guests are enough of a part of the day for you to want some there, you will decrease the chances of attendance by making it harder for them, and would be well advised not to delude yourself otherwise. That's just how it works. Ask the Sunday night empty reception bride from upthread.

This doesn't mean that some people don't invite guests they don't actually want there, or that there aren't guests who can unproblematically attend a Wednesday lunchtime child free reception up the clunge end of nowhere, or that some couples won't care if their mid week reception is quiet because people are working next day. It just means people are more likely to attend an event if it's easier for them to do so.

Tricky one.

The weekday thing I never understand because not everyone works Monday-Friday and there is simply not a day of the week that would suit everyone. I used to work weekends and have had to book 3 days off in order to attend a wedding. It’s just one of those things.

It’s up to the bride and groom to decide if they want children but if they don’t, they have to accept that people may not be able to attend due to a lack of childcare. I think it’s only inconsiderate if they kick up a fuss because such and such can’t attend because of this.

Please remember that a wedding invite is just that: an invite, not a summons. If youre not happy to be there, the couple probably won’t want you there anyway so politely decline and go about your day.

Bride got the hump because not many guests wanted to stay over (£100+ a night and most had to go back to work on the Tuesday)

Again, the myth that people don’t get arsey if other people don’t fall in with Bridezilla demands on their time and money.

I agree reflect.
People say 'oh couples should do what's right for them and the guests can choose whether to come or not' but then couples take it as a slight if people don't attend and get annoyed if people 'leave early'.

I also still can't get past 'well it saved us £2000/30000 to marry midweek at the awkward venue we wanted so we have no regrets'. That's true, but what that actually means is 'we want our guests to sub our wedding by incurring additional nights accommodation and losing a day or 2 pay to make our day happen. We didn't want to pay the extra couple of thousand but still wanted a dream day so spread the costs out over our guests'

It isnt as simple as this.

1. define in the middle of nowhere. Lots of people have friends & family from all over, you can't please everyone, someone always ends up travelling and paying for accomodation. I do think a B&G should consider if theres somewhere reasonably priced to stay near the venue etc tho.
2. i agree re weekdays, excluding if B/G are shiftworkers eg nurses for whom weekends can be a work day. Most people just choose weekdays to cut costs and this just passes cost to guests by making them lose a day of pay or a day of holiday.
3. children is a difficult one. I dont think a baby under about 6m should ever be excluded as they may be bf and totally reliant on being with their mum. Many bf babies simply wont take a bottle. For older children i have no problem excluding them but B&G have to accept that this might mean people dont come if they really cant find any childcare.

They do indeed. The reality is that most people who are hosting an event when they get married, rather than going through the motions for legalities and/or eloping, have at least some guests whose non-attendance would make them very unhappy. Most people hosting an event with alcohol, music etc also want a particular type of atmosphere there, or they'd have chosen to do something else instead. So there's an onus placed on guests, whether people like to admit it or not.

I'm sure nobody on this thread would ever have dreamed of being at all arsey if their best mate couldn't get the time off for their weekday wedding or if their loved ones actually did treat it as an invitation not a summons, perish the thought, but clearly these things do happen. And they happen because of the onus placed on guests.

There's also been a few mentions of affordability. Let's be honest, people having the sort of weddings OP is talking about are not usually doing it because there's no cheaper option available to them. More often than not, they're doing it because they want a venue of sufficient grandness that would otherwise be unaffordable, and they're willing to expect guests to weather greater inconvenience for that, rather than marry somewhere less naice but easier. If people want to do that, they can, but I shall call it what it is.

Please remember that a wedding invite is just that: an invite, not a summons.

I hope if nothing else that this thread has now discredited this phrase. It's really not accurate.

they want a venue of sufficient grandness that would otherwise be unaffordable, and they're willing to expect guests to weather greater inconvenience for that, rather than marry somewhere less naice but easier.

Exactly. Most couples could pick a nearby register office if they wanted but they don't. Instead it's all justified in relation to the 'stunning venue' choice.

*"Please remember that a wedding invite is just that: an invite, not a summons."

I hope if nothing else that this thread has now discredited this phrase. It's really not accurate. *

Exactly this. One of the couple often measures their friendships in terms of whether people can turn up.

If you don't really want people there, then don't invite them! It's much simpler all around. I don't get all this business of inviting people out of obligation, and making it impossible for them to attend. One poster talked of giving an evening only invite to a person from Norway!

I don't get all this business of inviting people out of obligation, and making it impossible for them to attend.

It’s because you get some people who get upset and offended at not being invited, even when the wedding will clearly be difficult or impossible for them to attend.

And they’ll sit around looking all huffy and say things like “I know I wouldn’t be able to to go to the child free, mid week holiday on that remote Caribbean island which would cost £££££ to travel to, I’d have had to decline the invite, but it would be nice if bride and groom had cared enough about me to invite me”

Surely I can’t be the only person who knows people like this?

Evening only invites should just be for colleagues and local acquaintances or friends of the parents. Surely no one does them for people who have to travel? That would be rude

Surely no one does them for people who have to travel? That would be rude

Oh, yes, they do! Complete with 'give us cash as a gift'. DD's even had some that 'Come to watch us get married, then fuck off whilst the special ones get a meal, then come back in the evening, and buy us a honeymoon. Now that is tacky!

"they want a venue of sufficient grandness that would otherwise be unaffordable, and they're willing to expect guests to weather greater inconvenience for that, rather than marry somewhere less naice but easier."

Excellently put Shitmewithyourrhythmstick

What I don't get is couples who get all huffy when parents of children can't attend because all their childcare options are at the wedding. D'oh! Did it not occur to them?

People often say we'll you can't please everyone and yes there might be some awkward distant aunt who wants to make a fuss but you can normally please most reasonable people. By having the wedding in a logical location (Eg hometown or current location with accommodation options), by being considerate with the date and childcare options.

For my part I don't bring DC to weddings apart from family ones. Family like to see DC and its lovely to have them in the photos etc. Friends from uni probably aren't that bothered about having DC there they may have never met and it's expensive fir them and wastes a place. In those cases I appreciate the invite and it makes it more likely I can attend but if I have childcare I don't take them up on it.

Yeah I've tried to get mine looked after during the toddler phase, even during weddings they were invited to. Fortunately they've been invited to all family weddings, since our childcare options would also be guests!

Nope.
If you want to be at there wedding then you will make the necessary arrangements to make sure you are there.
But i agree with others that have said that if the bride and groom are going to make these requests, they need to be more laidback and prepared for people not attending.

I'm the poster who has invited an evening guest from Norway!

Our reasoning follows thusly:

Norway family regularly visit the UK to see their family ( DPs cousins who live 20 minutes from the venue). We have invited the cousins. We have no idea if Norway family are visiting at the time of the wedding, but sent a cover note to say would be lovely to see you if you're in town.

I know. I'm a monster.

nope if you want to be at the wedding you'll make the necessary artsngement

Surely you see that's total bollocks. I may want to be at the wedding but often not enough to blow my last precious days of annual leave, or to leave a baby who I'm not comfortable leaving, or to pay money that would mean my family missing out on something we could all enjoy.

If you're not that close and your wedding is a massive hassle I'll just not bother although I'd have liked to celebrate with you. (As much as people are happy for the couple if the couple a wedding is about 0.1% as interesting for most of the guests as it is for the couple).

If it's a close friend or family member then I'll probably feel obliged to go and be under pressure from family. Then it's more of a problem and to be honest it would be annoying if no consideration made for people you expect to come and will be pissed off if they don't.

@shitme

🤔 but what if the ‘grand’ venue is what the couple desperately want and couldn’t afford to do it on a weekend!

As long as they don’t ‘complain’ about people not attending us that ok?
Or will guests receive the invitation and grumble regardless because they ‘would have liked to go’ but the couple selfishly made it difficult!

Suggesting couples should go for something cheaper and therefore easier for guests doesn’t really support the ‘weddings should be about the couple’ theory!

Seems to me that if couples/ guests just didn’t kick off or winge then everything would be fine!

@WhiteDust
Do you think this isn’t standard practice for mid/late twenties couples from reasonably affluent families? I assure you it is!

The couple/parents want a nice event to get everyone together and celebrate.
They sit down and discuss the guest list -kids want close friends and family but can’t / won’t pay £150 a head for Aunt Moreen and Uncle Giles (who they’ve met 3 times) to come!

Parents say ‘ok well we’ll pay for the extended family/ our friends as we want them invited!’

This has happened to every young couple we know who have got married recently!

In my experience the couples get the ‘wedding they wanted’ but just a slightly extended version with some financial help!

WhiteDust it’s very, very traditional for the brides parents to have a third of the invitations, the grooms parents likewise and the couple a third. Obviously it’s easier if everyone agrees but agreeing clear numbers beforehand saves unpleasantness afterwards.

mrdarcy if the wedding is all about the couple then surely it doesn't matter who attends? In reality it's not all about the couple and the couple have to choose - a less grand venue and all their friends and family in attendance or a grand venue and lots of guests not there and many of their guests inconvenienced and paying out more than they can afford.

Lots of couples can't afford their dream venue or dream dress so they can't have it. The fact is most of the guests have their own lives and own nuclear families that they're going to prioritise over someone else's grand wedding.

We’ve been amazed in the past at how little thought people put into their guests attending their wedding - surely if you want those people there you’d think about how easy it is for them to be there? We wanted our guests to be there but didn’t have a huge budget (£4000 for absolutely everything nine years ago) so we had an afternoon tea reception within walking distance of the church, which meant that everyone we invited could travel there and back again on the day itself. Many people commented on how grateful they were for this. We had 50 people there, including 15 under-5s and it was fine. I put together an activity pack for each of them (Poundland so it cost a tiny amount) so there was no noise during the service. We also provided info about local public transport as we knew several guests didn’t drive.

In contrast, we’ve been to one in the middle of nowhere (really grim soulless conference centre) where we had to take a taxi miles from the station as no public transport (venue had info about helicopter parking but nothing about even distance from local station!) and leave immediately after the meal as the place wanted £100+ for accommodation which we couldn’t afford to pay. Bride and groom seemed astounded that many people left at the same time and hadn’t paid for accommodation!

Another one had the church and the reception about ten miles apart in the depths of winter. Were promised lifts would be provided but were left in the church car park. We looked into taking a taxi but it would have cost a fortune and it was beginning to snow, so we just headed home
again. Bride most upset that we’d wasted two places at the reception - later found out several other people didn’t make it there!