You are right - the default under this circumstance is the bride's home. Since this is culturally 'acceptable' your family must understand even if it is difficult to attend. This assumes your bride wants to get married there. A neutral place is bad for both sides. Remember - a wedding is the bride's dream come true so let her decide.
If your side of the family can't make it - then you both shoudl fly out to your home town after the wedding (maybe after your honey moon) and have a wedding reception party. This way everyone can meet your bride and shower you with gifts. The other possible option is to charter a bus and have everyone ride out together to save on costs. It may cost you $1000?? but may be cheaper than a 2nd wedding reception.
2006-07-07 14:20:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by fffrrreeeddd 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd say that since it's your wedding, you should decide what's more important, keeping within the budget or making everyone happy. You didn't mention how the groom felt about it. Does he want to invite all of the people? Sometimes people don't want that. Luckily both my boyfriend's and mine family is quite small less than 50 people on both sides and my mother is paying for it and we don't plan on having a huge wedding either a very simple wedding will do well for both of us. There are some questions to think about. 1. Does the bride get along with the groom's family? 2. Does the groom get along with the bride's family? 3. Who exactly is paying for the wedding? The bride and her family? The bride's family, the bride and groom? Depending on what the answers are, the bride will need the groom's support the entire way through either way. If the bride doesn't want to invite the entire family that has so much more people than she has that right if she is paying for the wedding. IF the bride isn't paying than she would just have to deal with the extra people. Now if the groom's parents are willing to pay for the extra people than I would say that's fine. There's lots of things to think about and realize on a wedding. While a wedding is joining to families together, it's also joining the bride and groom, and they need to be together on many things in a wedding because you don't want to down the road 10 years and realize you hated how your wedding went because of this, or that.
2016-03-15 21:21:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say somewhere neutral. I am 9 hrs away from my family and we have decided to get married this month in my hometown. It should really be up to whoever is paying. Whoever has a problem with traveling where ever you decide to get married then just send them an announcement with a picture. Only a few of his family is attending our wedding. I don't know most of his family, but my parents are paying for our whole wedding so that is the reason why we are doing the wedding in my hometown. Just do it somewhere neutral that you and your families can agree that isn't too far.
2006-07-07 14:44:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by angelblueyes200 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Traditionally (like 200 years ago), the wedding reception often was pretty much a big going away party for the bride, given for her by her parents as she was leaving home to go live with her new husband's family.
This was followed by a wedding journey, now known as a honeymoon, to give the bride a chance to get used to "married life" a bit away from the critical eyes of her new in-laws.
When this journey was over, the new couple went to live in hometown of the groom, perhaps even in the family home with his parents. At that time, the groom's family threw a reception (or a tea, or a ball, or whatever) to introduce the new bride to their relatives and social circle.
2006-07-07 14:46:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by kill_yr_television 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My husbands relatives live in England and Australia. I live in Washington. We got married in the US close to two major airports because it would make it easier for those flying in.
What about getting married in two places? My aunt got married to a man from a Wisconsin farming family who could not come to their wedding in Colorado because of farm chores. They had one wedding in Colorado, then went up to visit his family and had a reception/ wedding up there as well. I know that isn't ideal, but that way both families can see your special day without taxing their resources.
2006-07-12 11:08:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Quicksilver 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We had that issue as well -- family and friends lived far apart. We gave everyone a year notice and decided to have our ceremony and reception out in Las Vegas (we live on the east coast). Needless to say, we chose a chapel in the hotel we stayed at and it was to die for, and the reception was top notch. We SAVED a ton of money getting married there..
2006-07-07 15:43:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Scarlett 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
hmmm, that's something you both have to decide but why not look at something that is economical. It doesn't have to the brideshome town. Just what is economical. I don't vegas is.
2006-07-07 14:19:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lady Mandeville 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why not get married where you are currently living? It will be easier to plan, you can possibly save on some costs of getting married and help pay for your loved ones to fly in.
2006-07-07 14:49:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Susie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am from New York, and my husband is from Ohio.....that's only about 300 miles one way, but we got married in NY and had a second reception in Ohio. (We currently live in Ohio)
2006-07-07 17:02:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by bluez 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aloha! How about getting maui'd? =))
2006-07-07 14:25:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by unforgettablemauiweddings 2
·
0⤊
0⤋