I don't think it's rude but as I've found with wedding planning. Everyone has their own ideas about how things should be done and often offer advice when you don't want it. I've heard that the formalness of food is determined by how far people have travelled for your wedding. My sister just got married and we were going to do appetizers etc, but decided against it when people were travelling from the far reaches of the world. I think as long as people know not to expect a huge meal then it's not rude at all.
2006-11-09 02:48:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by trinity2379 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Actually, I have been to several cocktail party style receptions and love them. Why, because they are a real party, not a sit down dinner where I have to be planted in that chair for a few hours. If you arrange the time of day for your reception to be a NON meal time, it is fine to just serve hordourves. If you can, have the bar on one side of the reception and the food on another side. This will allow the guests to mingle back and forth creating movement and flow to the party where people cannot help but mingle and have a great social event. Also, set up some conversation pits rather than table after table after table. Do have some table seating, but also have areas where people can sit a spell. Having small round high top tables here and there is a great place for people to place a drink and chat over a bite to eat. Don't second guess yourself.
2016-05-22 00:19:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Emely 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think that wouldn't really be rude, but traditionally the reception is a celebration with family and friends sharing a meal.
I've been to weddings before where dinner is not served at the reception that followed and although there was dancing and laughing, it felt somewhat empty. I think there is something meaningful in sitting down and eating together, especially when two families are coming together. It's like you're saying "I accept you and welcome you (into my home and life).
If I were to cut expenses on a wedding, dinner at the reception would definitely not be the place I would start. The dinner doesn't even have to be that elaborate. I had around 400 people at my wedding and we were able to serve dinner for a very reasonable cost. It wasn't filet mignon or lobster, but was a modest meal. Anyway, that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Congratulations on your upcoming wedding!
2006-11-09 02:53:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Big Blue 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No but you should consider changing the time of your wedding to accomodate that. If your wedding is at 4, reception would be around 5/6. That's dinner time. It is expected that a reception at that time would involve dinner. You'd end up with a lot of hungry guests.
Change it to 1 or 2:00 so that it leaves people time to get dinner afterwards.
2006-11-09 06:18:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by stimply 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the reception immediately follows the wedding, then, sure. do what you want. 4pm is not a traditional meal time. Just put on the reception card, or the invite, that appetizers will be served, and everything will be fine. Just make things as nice as you can, keeping within your budget, and that should be enough.
I personally think that weddings have gotten totally out of hand. Average folks think that they need the big celebrity wedding. and it is all about the money, not gifts, nobody wants gifts anymore, they want money.
Good for you! Spend your money on your new life as man and wife, buy some furniture, a car, or a house, not one evening of partying.
2006-11-09 03:31:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by riversconfluence 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Absolutely not rude! The important thing is the marriage itself and having all your loved ones around you!
My girlfriend had a dessert wedding. It was great! We sat at tables eating yummy finger desserts, danced, laughed and had a ball!
Just make sure you let guests know what to expect, as all these other fine folks have suggested.
It's your wedding--do what you want and what you can afford. There is no point going eyeball deep in dept. People who do are crazy. My girlfriend had a BBQ for a reception and a backyard wedding! Good time at that one too...
2006-11-09 05:09:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by sillkee1 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd say that's just fine. I've never been to a wedding that had dinner at the reception. It's usually just a buffet-style table set up with the same basic stuff you said you're going to have and maybe some other kinds of finger foods.
2006-11-09 06:34:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mud 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that is absolutely fine-- after a 4 oclock wedding the finger foods would serve as more of an appetizer course for the main meal your guests will have on their own later.
I disagree that you should move the wedding to 6 pm. 6-7 is usually dinner hour for a lot of folks.
Just remember, the marriage is what's important...not the wedding or the reception.
Best wishes and congratulations on finding the love of your life!
2006-11-09 02:50:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cindy S 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't think that this is rude at all. As long as you have finger foods like you say you are going to, that is all that matters. However, I think you better make the wedding start a little bit later like around 6pm, because if you start it a 4pm when are people going to have a chance to eat dinner.
A better idea would be to serve cold meat, salads and buns around 10pm.
Also, free booze is a good thing to have, especially since these people will be bringing gifts, and your not serving dinner.
Good Luck!!
2006-11-09 02:43:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
As long as your guests know that a full meal will not be served that is fine. I went to a reception once expecting to eat and all they had where appetizers - which was fine if I had known this in advance. People come to expect a meal, so just note it on your invites that "reception including appetizers will follow ceremony" or something to that nature.
2006-11-09 04:57:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by GingerGirl 6
·
1⤊
0⤋