When I was younger, if someone couldn't make it, they replied no on the rsvp and send a card to the couple. Now it seems the norm is to have multiple receptions for folks in various areas of the country who couldn't make it. When did this come about? And wouldn't it be expensive to pull off? Just one reception is usually quite expensive as it is.
2007-01-25 07:25:56 · 7 answers · asked by Cinnamon 6 in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
You know I have been hearing more and more about these multiple receptions. I don't particularly care for it myself. To me, if a guest couldn't make it, or didn't feel like traveling, you didn't hold a whole other reception to accommodate them. You would just see them the next time you were in the area, and maybe go out for a little celebration dinner. Maybe these people have money to burn?
2007-01-25 08:44:08 · answer #1 · answered by MelB 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People live differently than they used to. Kids got married 7&lived on the same land or in the same house. Then they started living in the same community or the same city. Now people get jobs across country from their home, meet someone that lives in the totally opposite direction. It's very hard to have a wedding & reception in the bride's hometown anymore. And not everyone has the finances to travel to a central location to the wedding.
The reception in either or both families' towns let those who wish the couple well to feel like they've participated in the wedding somehow. Sometime a video of the actual wedding is shown before the reception starts. And they don't have to be expensive.
2007-01-25 16:47:59 · answer #2 · answered by weddrev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's mainly because people are moving a lot more. People used to grow up and move out and move near their families. Now people move worldwide for school or work (or just because) and meet people in the new area and they want to marry someone in the new area.
You have to think of it as a broader issue. My spouse and I are from opposite sides of the nation (Florida and California). Neither family is particularly wealthy. Neither one is poor. However, no matter which coast we pick, we will force the entire other side of the family to fly 3,000 miles and spend anywhere from $200-$500 per ticket. If you think of it as a group cost, it's much cheaper to have two receptions. The only person/people who are going across coasts are us. No more than $1,000 for the trip. Plus since we have family in each place, we don't have to pay for room or board. Then when it comes to people purchasing gifts, how many people will buy a $200-$500 plane ticket, then pay for room rental, car rental and then on top of it, purchase a gift for you too.
As a new household, even though gifts aren't the focus of the attention, they are definitely needed and appreciated. So when a parent or other family member pays out $1000 just to come, paying additional cost for a gift seems excessive. Plus, how many people want to spend $1,000 for someone else's wedding? So then whichever coast you choose, you will automatically cut out half of the family.
You can make the reception as expensive as you want. The reception is not about spending money, but to celebrate the union of the new couple. If the guests expect to be wined and dined, then maybe you don't want them at your reception anyway.
2007-01-25 15:52:22 · answer #3 · answered by sillylittlemen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually, people who do this will have 1 "main" reception--usually following the wedding, and then another reception or open house in another city for the folks who couldn't make the wedding. They usually keep both relatively simple, although I've also seen people go all out with one, keep the other simpler, and then I've also seen people do 2 major receptions. It's really dependent on the bride and groom, and what each family is willing. Generally, I've seen it done with the bride is from Atlanta, and the groom is from Seattle. With people moving around so much anymore, it's getting rarer and rarer to find a bride and groom who are both from the same city. I've also seen it done when the bride and groom live in the same city, but their families are in other cities. The groom may have close friends and family who want to share the day, but cannot afford to travel to Atlanta. It's really a nice way to include all those who are close to the bride and groom. My sister had 2 receptions, because she lived in Kansas City, and her hubby was from Long Island. My folks paid for the one in our hometown, and her hubby's folks paid for the one in their hometown.
2007-01-25 15:52:13 · answer #4 · answered by basketcase88 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Some people have 1 large wedding reception, and also follow up with smaller dinners or parties or cake/punch receptions for their friends/family in other areas. People aren't staying in one place these days, and it seems family and friends are in 3-5-6 different states or countries. It doesn't always have to be a lavish affair.
2007-01-25 15:33:53 · answer #5 · answered by Violet Pearl 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My husband and I eloped (best day of my life!)
So, when we got back, we had two receptions. One for his side of the family and one for my immediate family and friends.
Then when we went to visit the rest of the family (2 provinces away). We had a third reception.
We only paid for one.
It was great because we did not have to worry about everyone getting along and because they were separate we could spend more quality time visiting with the people who were there.
2007-01-25 16:09:57 · answer #6 · answered by Linda 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a newer trend, because people are relocating more and more. Yes, it is very expensive. I'm in favor of one reception.
2007-01-25 15:32:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋