Recent wedding trend ? vent

[scrapquitler]

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 ?

It's normal and a given around here, and always has been, in my experience. Every couple I know has done photos both at the church and often somewhere else after the reception and then headed to the reception. Normally its 1 1/2- 2 hours later. Taking the pictures a week after or ahead of time would be silly, in my opinion.

I've been to weddings where the reception was in the same room as the wedding, and everyone had to leave the room and go to another part of the venue while they switched the room over and set up tables for the reception.

I've been to weddings where the church required the wedding at a certain time (usually Catholic churches that only allow Saturday weddings prior to noon so they don't interfere with afternoon masses) but the reception venue doesn't do early receptions, so the guests have time to kill.

I've been to venues where they have an afternoon reception for one wedding then an evening one for another wedding, and they have to set up the hall in between so there's sometimes a delay for that reason.

Since that all seems to be normal, many couples make plans for an interim reception or cocktail hour, but not all do. When they don't, most people anticipate the wait time and make some sort of plan for in between (we will usually stop and get a drink or a quick bite to eat somewhere, since dinner usually is a long time after the reception starts), sometimes we just go back to our hotel room to relax depending on where we are.

I think it's mostly a case of logistics and the bride and groom having more things to do that are expected than the guests do. I certainly wouldn't want the couple to forego pictures at a favorite spot because I was hungry and impatient.

 

[rigs32]

I certainly wouldn't want the couple to forego pictures at a favorite spot because I was hungry and impatient.

Really? If you're getting married, you're an adult. And being an adult means making choices. Leaving your guests hungry and impatient so you can get all the photos you want when you want them is rude and immature.

If that was your favorite spot, then hold the ceremony there. You want to take two hours worth of photos but the reception hall won't let everyone in? Choose another hall.

Your church won't let you have your ceremony any later than 1PM? Choose a reception spot that starts after that.

I know it's considered rude to just go to the reception, but if I'm driving two hours from home and there's a four hour gap between the ceremony and the reception, there's a good chance I'll only go to one or the other. I hate incurring the costs of occupying my time at a bar, restaurant, mall, etc to accommodate your preferences and choices.

While a wedding is about a bride and groom, it's also about the family and friends sharing the day with you. This notion of "it's MY day" has gone way too far, IMO.

You are hosting people at your reception. Would you invite people to a BBQ at your house at 2 PM and then not let them in until 3:30? Would you not serve any food or beverages until 4PM?

 

[indimom]

This is very common in my area. And has been a common practice for as long as I can remember (I'm 41).
Weddings typically around 1-3p.m.
Reception "immediately following" at a hall. I've never experienced a hall that wasn't ready and waiting for guests, and drinks and snacks are served during the wait.
But, the wedding party arrives an hour or two later, following pictures, stops for drinks, whatever.

DH has never been a fan of this practice, so we took the bulk of our photos before the wedding in order to avoid the long wait. I'd say we arrived about 30-40 minutes after most of the guests.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Not sure.

Most of the weddings I've been to have been at one site for both the ceremony & reception. We did the same thing & a few people (who apparently never went to a single location wedding) thought it was bizarre. We wanted it to be simple & easy for everyone.

But apparently a few people showed up miffed thinking that they had been invited only to the reception, not the ceremony. I had included all of that information in the invitations, but I guess they didn't bother.

 

[EMode]

I have been to several weddings where there was a gap in between, including my own. There has always been cocktails and hors d'oeuvres served though.

I'm pretty impatient, if I showed up at the reception and was told I couldnt enter for a couple hours, I'd take my card open it, take out the cash and go use it a restaurant and then go home.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

It has been like a year since I have been to a wedding. The reception was delayed maybe an hour after the wedding. That was mainly because the church and the reception site (a restaurant) were in different parts of town.

 

[goofyintoronto]

Almost all of the weddings ive ever attended had a huge gap between the ceremony and the reception. The ceremony is usually around noon. And the reception around 6pm. I've only been to two weddings where the reception was right after the ceremony.

 

[Hollymom1229]

We had a gap as a result of a Catholic ceremony that could only be at 2 PM, and a reception site that had receptions that started at either 11 AM or 6 PM. So we put on the invitation that the ceremony was at 2 PM, and reception at 6 PM. And yes, some people skipped the ceremony and just came to the reception. That was fine with DH and I as we felt the ceremony was mostly about us, but the reception was about celebrating with our loved ones. For those that came to both the wait between was only about 2 hours and we provided some great information on the last page of our wedding programs on great things to do on a Saturday afternoon in the waterfront part of Annapolis. I know some people went and had cocktails, some enjoyed Storm Bros. ice cream, others checked out some of the historical sights.

We tried to make that break in time as painless as possible for our guests, because while it was our day, it was also our responsibility to be good hosts.

 

[disykat]

That seems crazy to me. I"ve never been to a wedding with a "gap." Most of the weddings I've been to, pictures are taken before the wedding. If the bride and groom don't wish to see each other, they save those for afterwards, but all the bridal party, grooms party, brides family, grooms family, pictures are already done so the bride and groom can join their guests as quickly as possible.

 

[leebee]

At our wedding, the invitation said ceremony at 4pm, cocktails and reception to follow. Ceremony and receiving line at the church took about an hour. My bridesmaids and I had already had our photos done before the ceremony, as had my fiancee and his groomsmen. After the receiving line, we did photos with the entire wedding party and our parents, grandparents, etc. Most of our guests arrived at the reception venue around 5:30, and we got there about 6pm. There were munchies (cheese and crackers, fruit/veggie trays, chip and dip, and free wine and beer; nobody seemed upset that they had to wait about 30 mins. for us to get there, but I think the wording on the invitation gave the impression that dinner wouldn't be served immediately after the ceremony, and there was food and booze to keep folks busy until we got there!

Most weddings that I've been to that say "reception immediately following the ceremony" have a cocktail hour and hors d'oeuvres set out for the guests, as the bridal party usually takes pictures for about an hour. I can understand a gap for taking wedding party pictures. Many brides don't want the groom to see them in their dress before the wedding, so that eliminates taking pictures before the wedding. What I don't understand is the party bus, and going bar hopping, while your guests are hanging out, waiting for you to arrive at the reception (that YOU said was immediately following the ceremony). You've invited me to your wedding, and invited me to share in the celebration via the reception, but FIRST you are going to celebrate with a smaller group. Are they more important than I am? Do you like them better than the rest of us? Are we invited just for the gift? I don't' understand partying with a subset of your guests, while the rest of your guests are waiting for you to show up. It's just rude.

 

[BlovesC]

There's been a gap at almost all the weddings I've attended. Not four hours, which does seem extreme, but I'd say two hours has been about average. Usually there's been some sort of service offered to guests while they waited for the reception to start...cocktail hour, appetizers, entertainment, bar, etc. I've only been to one wedding where the was a sizable gap with nothing scheduled for guests so they just waited around for the reception.

At my own wedding, the ceremony and reception were held in the same place (a historic B&B, we had the ceremony out on the lawn and then the reception inside). Immediately after the ceremony, DH and I were supposed to spend an hour taking photos while our guests ventured indoors for cocktail hour. But we both hated posing for pics and were anxious to see our guests so we cut it short after 30 minutes.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I'm pretty impatient, if I showed up at the reception and was told I couldnt enter for a couple hours, I'd take my card open it, take out the cash and go use it a restaurant and then go home.

This sounds like what I would do. If they are to busy for me, works both ways, I'm to busy for them.

I've never been to a wedding that some part of the reception didn't start immediately following. Only gap was the travel time to the reception hall, was in a wedding once that wanted us their at 8:00am for pics and wedding at 2:48pm and yes the announcement said 2:48. They wanted to be different. That was a long day.

 

[Sabeking]

The last wedding we went to which was several years ago we had a similar experience. The invitation said reception to follow. We waited 2.5 hours with M&m's , nuts and a cash bar. They had invited my kids as well because we have known the family for 25 years. Once the couple showed up dinner was still not served for another hour or so. We said hello, made nice and went to McDonalds.

 

[dimimi]

This is how almost every wedding I have been to has been set up...wedding at 2, reception at 6. We had an area set up for out of town guests, but most people (local) went home. It is fine for people to just come to the reception, although typically close friends would attend the long catholic mass.

 

[Claire&TheBoys]

The more I read on message boards about weddings in other parts of the country, the happier I am that it's a lot simpler in my hometown. Most of the weddings I've been to were church friends - wedding at the church, reception at the church. Most couples have all the individual pics made before the ceremony, then only the ones with the bride & groom together (with attendants, with families, etc) afterwards. Receptions are generally heavy h'or d'eourves, punch and cake type affairs. My husband and I had a 2:00 wedding and were on our way to our honeymoon by 5:00.

 

[LBIJim]

A 3 or 4 hour gap between ceremony and reception is quite common around here, and always has been. But the invitations always would state this: ceremony at 2, reception at 6. That way everyone knows what to expect. Locals can go back home for a few hours; overnight guests to their hotels, or you can decide to attend one part and not the other if that's what suits you.

It's not stated in the invitation, but almost always some relative of the bride or groom would hold an informal gathering at their home during the gap. Lite refreshments are served. Word gets around and everyone receives a courtesy invite. Sometimes there are two or more separate interim events if the wedding is large. Bride's family, groom's family, friends, etc.

I've only been to a handful of weddings where the reception was immediately after the ceremony or followed shortly afterward.

Jim

 

[AnnaS]

The only time I have seen reception immediately following is when it is in the same venue.

All the other invites/weddings are usually early afternoon mass 1/2 pm with cocktails starting 6/7pm. You will usually find only immediate family members and some close friends at church. Many will go home after the church ceremony, all are usually invited at the bride's home or now go to the catering hall where drinks and hors dev'oevers (spelling?) are served.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

We are going to a wedding soon. There is a gap between ceremony and reception. This is because it is a Catholic wedding and options are day wedding or later evening because of Saturday vigil mass. The later wedding makes for a very late reception which is not everyone's cup of tea.

BUT--the times are clearly marked and their wedding website offers suggestions for activities. I don't mind this at all.

Not telling guests that they will have to wait--not cool!

 

[lovin'fl]

All the weddings I have been to (and been in a few) had the reception immediately following the wedding...just drive from church to reception. The wedding party may show up 30-45 minutes later (after taking a few pictures but most weddings do the bulk of pictures before the wedding), but the guests would all have hor dourves and drinks while seated at their tables...music/DJ going on as well. Never ever heard of wedding at X time, go home and come to reception at X time (several hours after wedding)...no way would I want to get all dolled up to go home and wait a few hours for the reception...very odd. And if I showed up to the reception, that I was directed to go to immediately following wedding, and had to wait outside for more than 15-20 minutes...I'd leave and take my gift with me. I should say, though, that I haven't been to a wedding in quite a few years (maybe 5-8 years...can't remember)...maybe it's a new trend.

I had my wedding and reception in the same venue so there were no gaps at all. I took most pictures before the wedding and just a few more after while my guests had access to open bar and hor dourves and the DJ played music (and we had a TV wheeled in the back, by the bar, to see the very 1st Ravens game ever).

 

[ellone]

A former friend did this. She had a 2 pm (I think) wedding at the church and then the reception didn't start until 5 or 6. Since the wedding was in the town I lived in, I went home, but I have no idea what people that didn't live around there did.