Invited to Reception Only?

People do this, it is a “thing” however, not a good way to save money. I would say like 90% of my budget is spent on reception so cutting people out of the ceremony would save me $0.
generally this is done by people that want to have an intimate ceremony, not as a way to save money.

It does look like it's saying to have an intimate ceremony and a large reception. I have seen this done with super religious ceremonies.

I've been to weddings like this and heard of other acquaintances doing it. However, I definitely don't see how it would save money. Usually it's for other reasons like religion, or looking for a more intimate wedding.

I've been invited to one and I was SUPER offended since we had traveled to Manhattan and stayed there (not cheap). The invitation was not clear about the nature of the tiered wedding and I didn't realize until just before that we weren't invited to the ceremony.

It defnitely doesn't save money though. It's the reception that costs per person. The most you would possibly save here is the cost of a few chairs?

This might be a British thing - it's common to have "day" guests and "evening" guests there - the "day" guests attend ceremony and meal, then the evening guests arrive for the party and usually there's a light buffet later in the evening. So if it's taken in that way, it makes sense. But if you're doing just ceremony and reception, it won't save you money at all!

Agreed- I don’t see how it could possibly save money, as reception is where the majority of the costs go to - catering, rentals, bar, etc etc - I was just curious of the logic behind it!

When I was involved on youth groups in NZ, it was normal for everyone to be invited for the ceremony, family and close friends invited to the dinner, then anyone for the after dance party. Sometimes these weddings had cake and punch at the church after the ceremony. This worked for those occasions as often these youth groups were quite large. But until recently I had not heard about being invited to the reception only and not the ceremony. To me this is weird, as I would want to see the couple get married and not just have a meal or party to celebrate.

It definitely would not be a money saver, as you would spend the same amount on the ceremony regardless of the guest count.. Unless it were a court house wedding, and no decorations were required. The only costs I have for my ceremonyvare for the aisle decorations, but I can supplement these with what the church already has. I dont havr anyvcosts for the venue or the officient, as I am a member of my church. I know not everyone can save costs this way, but I still dobt see how a smaller ceremony saves money.

View Quoted Comment

Agreed! And it seems rude unless they were two separate events. Maybe a DW ceremony or family only, followed by a local or larger reception later (weeks or months later).

View Quoted Comment This is what we are doing for our DW. We only want our families at the ceremony with us and will have a larger reception when we get home from the honeymoon.
I have heard of this happening for people and have been invited to reception only before, and it wasn't something that we cared for. It felt gift grabby since those we went to were the same day as the wedding and weren't small intimate ceremonies we had come to find out.

View Quoted Comment

A DW and separate reception later are totally fine (and fun)!

I guess a same-day separate ceremony vs reception is often done in the UK? I'd be upset if I were invited to the ceremony but not reception--that part is way more fun for guests. I guess if the ceremony was just for family and a few hours later there was a big reception for everyone, that could be ok. But not the other way around.

My friend did this but not to save money. She wanted her and her husband to just enjoy their moment without the big crowd.

I have seen plenty of weddings where the ceremony was very intimate with few people and the reception was a huge party. In no way would that save me money as all of our funds are going into the reception, but it might save some people money if they're putting more into the ceremony.

I don't see how this would save that much money, since the ceremony is the "cheaper" part of the wedding. Unless you are paying to rent chairs per person. But it is largely considered rude to invite people to one part of the wedding only.

I've heard of this, I think it applies more to churches than other venues. But I'd way rather be invited to the reception only than the ceremony only!

This will save zero dollars LOL