My finance and I are getting married in a private wedding ceremony with just our family's attending (mom, dad, siblings, grandparents), Is it wrong to have our wedding reception (celebration) 2 weeks after our wedding ceremony?
2007-07-27 04:59:05 · 28 answers · asked by Erin C 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
The reason it is two weeks after is because right after our ceremony we are leaving for our honeymoon and when we get back the weekend after we have other family commitments.
2007-07-27 06:17:37 · update #1
No, it is not wrong at all. Wedding "traditions" are a bit overrated in my opinion. It's your wedding, do what suits you, your mate, and your friends and family. If that's a ceremony one day and a party later, that's fine! Everyone will have a great time celebrating your marriage. Just go have fun and plan it the way you like - don't worry about what's "right" or "proper".
2007-07-27 05:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by Steven D 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not wrong. My fiance and I are having a small destination wedding, and then a reception two weeks later at home. People care too much about "traditions" these days. Just because something is done one way for a long time, does not mean that is the way it should always be done!
Everyone is different. Traditions are great for some people, but they aren't necessary. It's your wedding, do what you want. If anyone is really bothered by it, then they don't have to come! (Though I really don't think that will be a problem, either.)
Also, as far as gifts are concerned, they should never be expected--even at a reception immediately following a wedding ceremony. I don't see anything wrong with calling a reception a few weeks later a "wedding reception", because that's what it is. Gifts are, by definition, always given without obligation. Call it what you like!
Congrats!
2007-07-27 22:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can only have "a wedding reception" after a wedding ceremony (that day).
You can have "a party" or "a celebration in honor of Mary and John's wedding on July 1, 2007" three days . . three weeks . . or even three months after the ceremony.
Please be very cautious that your guests do not interpret this as a "you must bring a gift event." If your guests want to give you a gift they will.
Answered by: A Certified wedding specialist / A Professional bridal consultant / A Wedding ceremony officiant
2007-07-27 19:39:28 · answer #3 · answered by Avis B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a wonderful idea. I have coordinated so many weddings where everything is done at once. The people that should be the most happy (bride and groom) and relaxed are the most stressed and tired. So I think it would be amazing to have the event separated. Because there are no more wedding day jitters or worries about what could happen... if the music is late or the videography isn't played at the right time. The day is yours to feel special and pampered. So party it up with other friends and family after you come back from your honeymoon!
2007-07-27 12:30:26 · answer #4 · answered by Amanda 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it's not wrong at all. I have a cousin who just couldn't afford a wedding and reception all on the same day. So she got married in the beginning of August at the JP's office and had a reception a few weeks later when she and her new husband had more money to celebrate with everyone. It's your wedding how ever you want to do it is just fine. Good Luck. Enjoy your special day.
2007-07-28 00:42:11 · answer #5 · answered by spooky13c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not wrong, you would just send out invitations to the reception, instead of the wedding and reception. If guests aren't invited to the wedding, it doesn't really matter when the ceremony is, and there is no reason oyu shouldn't have a reception to celebrate your marriage. Your timing will also give you time to have pictures and/or videos developed to share with guests at your reception. Best wishes!
2007-07-27 19:09:16 · answer #6 · answered by LoveWithNoBoundaries 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not wrong. It's a choice. If it's a choice that works for you, then do it.
I went to a lovely wedding reception last year for a couple who had been married a month before with just their immediate families at their sides. One nice touch was that they set up the bride's laptop computer in a corner playing the video of their wedding so everyone could see it.
Would I have liked to have been at the wedding proper? Of course I would! Did I mind only being invited to the reception? No, I didn't.
2007-07-27 12:28:48 · answer #7 · answered by gileswench 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, lots of people do that, especially when they go off and get married. But you can still do that if the wedding is in town. I think sometimes guest want to attend both the ceremony and the reception, so they make a fuss about it. It's your wedding, do it how you want.
My dad did that with his new wife. They go married in august and then had a reception in september.
2007-07-27 12:18:10 · answer #8 · answered by LSU_Tiger23 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. Truthfully, in many places, you have to sign a wedding license days before the wedding. So you are legally married before the celebration. I think that a wedding is simply a call for celebration. The traditiond we have are from before wedding licenses. Back then, as long as you were married by someone certified, then you were married. But now it is a legal process.
Anywya, there is nothing wrong with being married one day and celebrating the next, that is what eva longoria andtony parker did. They were married in the court house one day, and had their ceremony the next. It is a perfectly acceptable practise. In fact, I think I would prefer it that way.
2007-07-27 12:09:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing wrong with your plan. I got married in a civil cemermony then had a wedding six monthes later with a reception.
2007-07-31 10:50:07 · answer #10 · answered by mamatucker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋