Invite to reception only

Tiered weddings are considered rude.

I'm not a fan of a tiered reception in any way... if you want a small ceremony, have a small reception. The ceremony is 20-30 minutes tops, so it's not that long anyways.

It appears gift grabby to me -- "Oh hey you can't watch us get married but you can bring a gift to our party!"

Our ceremony is immediate family only, and our reception is much larger. Most of our reception is extended family, so they all understand that our ceremony venue is very limited. At least I haven't had any complaints. Our invites say something along the lines of "bride and groom invite you to a dinner reception to celebrate their marriage".

I think if your ceremony is limited to only immediate family, it is fine. While I don't agree with it, I hear many people skip the ceremony and just attend the reception anyway.

Completely agree with @septmrs.

I don't think it's any different than if you got married privately, and then had a reception at a later date. Go for it!

It would be the same as if you eloped, then celebrated when you came back.

Our ceremony location limits us to 25 people max, including us, officiant, photographer. We originally talked about just having a very small wedding because we had our hearts set on that venue. A lot of FH's extended family expressed disappointment that they didn't get to celebrate with us, which is what started us thinking about a larger reception. It ended up being a really good compromise for us, but it may not work for every family.

Thanks everyone for your posts.

It's very helpful so far.

Questions: I'm not sure how is it gift grabby to invite people to just the reception? Certainly inviting them to a ceremony only is...

I see it more as like a birthday party where you spend time with you family and then have a big party after.

My understanding is that inviting guests to only one or the other sends the message that "you're not important enough to watch us get married, but you can get us a gift." It depends on why you are not inviting all of the reception guests to the ceremony, though. If it is a family only ceremony for whatever reason, most people won't mind only being invited to the reception. If your ceremony is going to be decently sized and there are some guests who are only invited to the reception, that looks suspicious.

It's not a tiered wedding; it's an intimate private ceremony with a celebration afterwards. Every week I do ceremonies where the 'precious' guests don't even bother to show up at the ceremony.

I don't think it's a matter of 'importance", it's a matter of style. BUT, if you do that you keep the ceremony to IMMEDIATE family, as in parents, siblings. The end.

I don't think it's gift grabby, and I have great radar for that. You really can't invite people to just the ceremony and not the reception, but it's fine to do it the other way around if the ceremony is truly private.

We are having our ceremony immediate family only (siblings, parents, that's it max 10 people). We are inviting extended family and friends to our reception.

FH and I aren't religious and I hate having guests wait around while pictures are being done. Even though it is common practice, it always feels rushed to do photos while your guests are having cocktails without the wedding party there. I'd rather do the ceremony and photos and be able to greet guests as they arrive.

When we do formal invitations we will note that we will be married in an intimate ceremony and wish to invite them to celebrate with dinner and drinks on us.

Personally, I hate sitting through ceremonies. So I prefer to just attend a reception anyway. I've never been offended at being invited to a reception instead of a ceremony.

Please don't do this. A friend did this and it really bothered many of us. She invited about 20 people to the actual ceremony and then had multiple receptions. I know that is not what you will do, but for all of us it was disappointing because we want to be there when you get married!

Do what you want. I don't get the way it's seen as rude in the U.S. , it's the norm where I'm from. In fact some are invited to the whole wedding and other to after the meal is finished lol. No one is offended -- they come and have a great time. It's nothing to do with gifts it's to do with the couple and what they want. Although gifts aren't a big deal back home at all it's more about enjoying being part of the couples day where it's the whole thing or part of

I commend you for asking people's opinions but at the end of the day it is entirely up to you and what makes you feel comfortable.

We are doing something similar. We are having a small ceremony with parents, our only living set of grandparents, siblings, maid of honor and best man. Then about a month after we are having a reception (but we're calling it a soiree), at our home where the extended family and friends are invited.

I took it upon myself to talk to family members who may feel left out, and explain our reasons for doing so. You'll find that people will be more understanding if you do this up front instead of receiving a reception only invite in the mail.

Also, I do believe that adding any type of "you're invited to the reception but not the ceremony" wording on the invite will stir a little resentment. Our reception invites are worded "Please join us for a backyard soiree honoring the newlyweds..." This indicates we've already tied the knot, but that we want to celebrate the occasion with friends and family.

Again, everyone has their own opinion of what they feel is right. Also, every family is different and will react accordingly. I hope this helps!

No ceremony, but a reception? I'm okay with that. Ceremony, but no reception? Decline.

Yes, you can have your intimate ceremony. Celia makes a very important point -- if you go that route, it has to immediate family members only -- no "special friends" or second cousins. It honestly wouldn't bother me, but it could irritate other people.

Don't do it!

I'm gonna go with Celia on this. I'm inviting less people to my wedding ceremony and more to reception and here's the reason: Indian ceremonies are ridiculously long and boring (almost two hours) and most people know that. The ones who will stick around to watch the ceremony are my family and bridal party. Later on, friends and more family can still be a part of my wedding celebration by enjoying the reception without having to sit through a long wedding process. I don't see it as such a big deal...I've seen it done before in many weddings.

So OP, I don't see it as a big problem to invite more people to reception than wedding. I don't think it's gift grabby at all when a couple spends a lot of time and money themselves to entertain their guests. Just my opinion.

It's your wedding so do it the way you want we are doing a small courthouse ceremony with close family, friends are welcome but it's not s massive thing so the invites will only be sent to the reception

Hey! I'm Anna too Please change your avatar to something other than the rings. They are associated with spam/trolls!

If you have a truly intimate ceremony, you need to invite JUST IMMEDIATE FAMILY ONLY. Otherwise, people will definitely feel insulted. Think: "how come so and so made the cut to go to the ceremony, but I didn't?" It can seem gift-grabby ... the ceremony is the whole point of why you are there. The marriage. So if they aren't "good enough" to come to the ceremony, it seems like you only want them there so they bring you a present.

I'm with Celia on this one. Small ceremony, bigger celebration sure. But do not, and I seriously mean do NOT expect gifts. No honeymoon jars, no mention of registry on any stationary (honestly, I wouldn't make a registry), you get it. Because it will look like you're fishing for gifts if you do it this way. There is a way to do this without it seeming rude, but proceed with caution.