Recent wedding trend ? vent

[Shanna-like-Banana]

I've noticed a wedding trend lately that has me perplexed.

Brides and Grooms leaving their guests waiting hours for them to make it to the reception.

I've been to several weddings in the last two years, where there is a lengthy amount of time waiting for the bride and groom to arrive, I mean hours.

One wedding was at a church, the reception across town. The bride and groom exit the church, the invitation says reception immediately to follow. The mother of the bride asks the guests to make their way to the reception. We drive across town. The reception hall says everybody is too early, and we can't come in until X. Some ppl leave, some ppl find something nearby to do, some ppl wait. They open the doors to let us in "early", the bride and groom don't show up until 2.5-3 hrs after the wedding ??? Turns out, they rented a party bus to take the wedding party to go back to their favorite bar place for rounds of drinks.

Another wedding same thing, church wedding, but reception is only 2 walkable city blocks away. Crowd makes its way down the blocks. We arrive, doors locked. We're all too early. Crowd waiting outside, reception isn't booked to start until X ( 1 1/2 hrs later) After an hour wait, they let us in "early" just to the lobby, Bride and groom arrive 2 hours after wedding is over.

Another wedding, guests waiting to be let into reception. Its' already been a lengthy amount of time past. Guests check seating lists, dozen or more guest not on seating arrangement, so they leave, thinking maybe they were invited to ceremony only. Bride upset when they finally enter 2.5 hours later to a half empty, dead vibe room.

An outdoors wedding at the same site as the reception. The wedding is over, the only place to go is into the reception area. No cocktail hour, no beverages of any sort, no hor'de'vours, etc. The bride and groom take photos literally for two hours. They had been at the wedding site prepping and photos since 12 noon, 20 minute ceremony wedding was at 4:30, two hour photo-shoot, dinner starts at 7:30. They spend the rest of the evening ducking in and out for more photo set ups. Guests are sitting for hours waiting for reception to start.

Why do brides and grooms do this ? I know it's "their" day. But if they want to schedule a several hour photo shoot on their day, why have 150+ guests waiting for hours ?

If they are so dead set on having a several hour photo-shoot, consider having it a week after the honeymoon. They have very much so wasted away "their day" with ppl just sitting around waiting on them.

All of these weddings, the invitation stated to the effect of reception immediately to follow. Why not simply say ceremony at 4, dinner at 7 ?

 

[cabanafrau]

Wow, haven't encountered that yet. I do know of one couple whose wedding I attended about four years ago who did a destination photo shoot before the ceremony, then the standard church photos after the ceremony before coming to the reception 45m to 1hr later, but the reception was open, hopping w/ full bar & apps.

 

[cluvsdisney]

Wow! I haven't experienced anything that bad. I have been invited to weddings where the ceremony at the church was in the afternoon and then the reception was in the evening in a catering facility. I think that's inconsiderate but at least guests know in advance so they can plan accordingly.

But how rude to invite people to places that won't even accommodate them. Disgraceful!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The big gap has been customary here for as long as I can remember. But, nobody says "reception to follow immediately". More like wedding at 2, reception at 5.

 

[Arielle22]

About 20 years ago, DH and I went to his cousin's wedding in NJ. There was a 3 hour gap between wedding and reception. They couldn't get the hall any earlier.

So everyone went to the groom's parents' home and hung out there.

That is the only wedding I have been too with a scheduled gap between wedding and reception.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

The big gap has been customary here for as long as I can remember. But, nobody says "reception to follow immediately". More like wedding at 2, reception at 5.

Yeah.

The only wedding I've ever been to where the reception IMMEDIATELY followed was one where both were held at the same venue.

A lot of couples take pictures immediately after, but there is usually a cocktail hour or the like to keep guests entertained. And I've never waited HOURS.

 

[soccerdad72]

The big gap has been customary here for as long as I can remember. But, nobody says "reception to follow immediately". More like wedding at 2, reception at 5.

Same here - including my own wedding. Our ceremony was early afternoon, the reception was dinner time. We spent about 2 hours for wedding party pictures. We went across town to the photographer's studio and then made our way to the reception. Guests didn't mind us arriving a while after they got to the reception - the open bar might have had something to do with that.

 

[jerseygal]

To simply have a gap in between so the bride, groom, and wedding party can have their own "fun drinking party" in between is RUDE AND SELFISH in my opinion...

I guess that we were lucky because all the weddings that we went to, within a "reasonable period" of time, the cocktail hour started...

Guests often times are coming a distance as it is and don't want to "hang around" HOURS waiting for the venue, cocktain hour to start!

Selfish in my opinion. But then again, there are many "young" people who think only of themselves these days..me, me generation it seems......Grow up INDUGED AT EVERY WHIM!

Looking FORWARD to a BEAUTIFUL wedding when our sons get married well planned with concern for guests!

 

[FlightlessDuck]

To simply have a gap in between so the bride, groom, and wedding party can have their own "fun drinking party" in between is RUDE AND SELFISH in my opinion..

It's THEIR wedding.

 

[canadiandisneymommy]

I own a wedding business and do custom invitations. It is not uncommon for there to be a gap between the ceremony and reception. However, etiquette rules suggest that this be clearly stated with start times of both events as you suggested. When you print "reception to follow" you imply that there is no waiting period or break and that guests are expected to show up for the cocktail reception or reception right after the ceremony. What your guests did was a faux pas and they should have been better advised by the consultant helping with their invitations or did more research on their own.

 

[taylor1293]

Very common where I grew up. Most Catholic weddings were at 1:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon and the reception around 8:00. The churches wouldn't allow a later wedding due to Saturday evening mass. I didn't marry at a local Catholic church so we had our wedding at 7:00 and reception at 8:00!

 

[hlg22]

The last wedding I went to had a big gap - wedding at 2, reception at 7, in different parts of the city. I didn't have a problem with it - the times were clearly stated on the invitation though. It wasn't a huge inconvenience for me since it was local (and from what I heard at the reception, most of the out of towners just went back to their hotels in between), but some friends with little kids sent only one spouse to the wedding, since it was too tricky to get a sitter for both events (and too expensive to keep the sitter from the wedding all the way through the end of the reception). I believe for the couple the reason was a combo of church availability and destination picture taking. On the other hand, to tell people the reception is "immediately following" and then leave them to sit for hours is just rude - every wedding I've been to where the reception was right after, the guests started the cocktail hour while the wedding party took photos, they weren't just left to wait.

 

[apirateslifeforme]

I've never told DH this, but when his best friend got married...UGH. DH was a groomsman, of course, but I was just a guest (we were not married yet...had another 3 months to go). He had to be dressed and at his friend's house for 9 a.m.

The wedding was at 11 a.m. Full Catholic mass, 1 hour.

The reception at a country club just up the street. You could go in and find your table, but there were no hors d'oeuvres or drink service until 4 p.m.

No joke. I don't even think the AC was on yet (it was July 30th). People actually left and went to McDonald's. When the waitstaff finally started circulating, I got all of 2 tidbits (DH, in the bridal suite, was stuffed before the bridal party was announced at 5 p.m.).

They paid extra for the reception to continue until midnight. It was a LONG day.

Not that our wedding was necessarily "better"...but we had the ceremony and reception in the same place. The invitation did say "Reception immediately following ceremony." Our guests came in and sat at their tables. The ceremony was from 11:30 a.m. until noon. Hors d'oeuvres and drinks were served beginning at noon. We were announced, had our first dance, and dinner service began promptly at 1 p.m. And it was all over by 5 p.m. (all of the guests had left by 4:30...the last 30 minutes was me, DH, my mom, his drunk sister and brother and SIL dancing to Ronnie James Dio, Judas Priest, and Billy Idol while DH's parents watched).

 

[OhMari]

Weddings like that have been going on for years in Wisconsin. But in the last few years it has started to change since reception halls can no longer be rented all day and evening.

Also after the meal and before the wedding dance the wedding party would leave for a couple of hours and bar hop some more and come back in time for the grand March. People would get so sick of waiting around all day and night, that as soon as the grand March was over everyone left. When we got married 33 years ago, I refused to leave my wedding after the meal and my guest started asking me what was wrong, that we were not leaving. We started the dance at 7 after our meal and had the grand March right away. I bet the reason why the wedding was stretched out like that was because farmers went home and milked and came back at 9 and that is why. I remember people were mad at us.

Wedding pictures too are so over rated. I haven't looked at our pictures in over 30 years.

 

[natalieguy]

That's strange in my opinion, BUT it's their day so ok do what you want.... My problem would be not being told. If I knew wedding at 2 reception at 5 then fine I could plan accordingly. But to show up and have to sit around and wait hours?! No way. I would have left. That's rude and tacky. I'm surprised so the wedding planner or venues would allow it.

 

[hlg22]

Weddings like that have been going on for years in Wisconsin. But in the last few years it has started to change since reception halls can no longer be rented all day and evening.

Also after the meal and before the wedding dance the wedding party would leave for a couple of hours and bar hop some more and come back in time for the grand March. People would get so sick of waiting around all day and night, that as soon as the grand March was over everyone left. When we got married 33 years ago, I refused to leave my wedding after the meal and my guest started asking me what was wrong, that we were not leaving. We started the dance at 7 after our meal and had the grand March right away. I bet the reason why the wedding was stretched out like that was because farmers went home and milked and came back at 9 and that is why. I remember people were mad at us.

Wedding pictures too are so over rated. I haven't looked at our pictures in over 30 years.

What is a "Grand March?" I have never heard of this - is it the presentation of the bridal party?

 

[mjkacmom]

About 20 years ago, DH and I went to his cousin's wedding in NJ. There was a 3 hour gap between wedding and reception. They couldn't get the hall any earlier.

So everyone went to the groom's parents' home and hung out there.

That is the only wedding I have been too with a scheduled gap between wedding and reception.

This is actually common in NJ, but usually only a couple of hours. However, it is always noted, and almost always, an arrangement has been made like the one you went to. Plus, we always have cocktail hours, and most of the time, the wedding party isn't in attendance (pity for them - it's the best part!). Pictures are right after the ceremony/receiving line, usually at a park nearby after the church pictures.

 

[Arielle22]

This is actually common in NJ, but usually only a couple of hours. However, it is always noted, and almost always, an arrangement has been made like the one you went to. Plus, we always have cocktail hours, and most of the time, the wedding party isn't in attendance (pity for them - it's the best part!). Pictures are right after the ceremony/receiving line, usually at a park nearby after the church pictures.

It isn't common in MA so we were very surprised. Even now it isn't common with anyone I know.

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

I've never attended a wedding, that I recall, where the reception didn't (or at least, wasn't said to) follow immediately after the ceremony. At our own wedding, we took all of our photos before the ceremony just so we didn't keep the guests waiting at the reception. I loved what we did. As soon as the ceremony was over, we went into the bride room while the guests left. As soon as the guests left the church, we got into the car and headed to the reception. We cut the cake and then we lead the dinner line. This way, we actually got to eat! We ate while everyone was going through the line. Then, when they came to congratulate us and we were greeting the guests, we had actually had a meal and weren't starving. Loved that. As soon as we finished, we did all of the dances. That way, people could eat while we danced and when they were finished eating, the dance floor was open to them.



A big reason we decided to do this was because of a wedding we attended a couple of months before we got engaged. The wedding started at 4:00 and it said that the reception would follow immediately after. So, after the ceremony, we all headed to the hall. And we sat. And sat. And sat while the bride and groom took pictures at the church. We waited for 3 hours. Then they arrived and we were all excited because we were starving and bored. I mean, you can only carry on small talk with strangers for so long. No eating, though. No dancing, either. They decided to take pictures around the reception hall. Then they had a little area set up where you could have your photo taken with the bride and groom. So, we arrived at the hall at about 4:45 and sat while they took pictures. There was no food, no drink, no dancing, and nothing to do but talk at a table. Finally, at 8:30, they decided to open the dinner line. Or so I'm told. My husband (then boyfriend) and I left about 8:00 to go grab some food.

 

[cluvsdisney]

I've never attended a wedding, that I recall, where the reception didn't (or at least, wasn't said to) follow immediately after the ceremony. At our own wedding, we took all of our photos before the ceremony just so we didn't keep the guests waiting at the reception. I loved what we did. As soon as the ceremony was over, we went into the bride room while the guests left. As soon as the guests left the church, we got into the car and headed to the reception. We cut the cake and then we lead the dinner line. This way, we actually got to eat! We ate while everyone was going through the line. Then, when they came to congratulate us and we were greeting the guests, we had actually had a meal and weren't starving. Loved that. As soon as we finished, we did all of the dances. That way, people could eat while we danced and when they were finished eating, the dance floor was open to them.



A big reason we decided to do this was because of a wedding we attended a couple of months before we got engaged. The wedding started at 4:00 and it said that the reception would follow immediately after. So, after the ceremony, we all headed to the hall. And we sat. And sat. And sat while the bride and groom took pictures at the church. We waited for 3 hours. Then they arrived and we were all excited because we were starving and bored. I mean, you can only carry on small talk with strangers for so long. No eating, though. No dancing, either. They decided to take pictures around the reception hall. Then they had a little area set up where you could have your photo taken with the bride and groom. So, we arrived at the hall at about 4:45 and sat while they took pictures. There was no food, no drink, no dancing, and nothing to do but talk at a table. Finally, at 8:30, they decided to open the dinner line. Or so I'm told. My husband (then boyfriend) and I left about 8:00 to go grab some food.

We went to a wedding like that except it was the receiving line that would never end. Then it was speeches. Then it was special songs. Then it was special dances. Then it was a dinner line. Then all of a sudden it's nearly 9. We were there for over 5 hours before we got something to eat and only had the toasting champagne to drink. We were engaged at the time and DH"s friend sitting next to me leaned over and said "I hope you guys aren't going to starve us at your wedding". It was just awful. I am all for celebrating the couple but good grief, there's no need to do so at the expense of your family and friends' comfort.