Reception only guests

Hmm I personally don't believe it is a big deal because you will get some guests that will just go to the reception anyway and might see it as a good thing that they might not have to go to the ceremony. That being said if your guest list know each other and there might be talk of who got invited to both and who just got reception only it might seem a little insulting. I've been to weddings where the ceremony has only been family and close friends to the ceremony and everyone is invited to the reception, this way if word does get around that there is two "separate" lists it is justified because they are family.Hope I was of some help

Whoever you invite to your wedding should be invited to both the ceremony and reception. But some of the ladies are doing something similar to what you are suggesting. You can do it, but get ready to receive some backlash from your guests especially older ones and family members.

It's not a good idea unless you are having a VERY intimate ceremony of immediate family only. Otherwise you create a "tiered" wedding of those who are important enough to go to the ceremony and those who aren't. Some people consider the ceremony to be the most important part. I wouldn't do it.

There will be people who are offended. There will even be people who say they aren't coming since they aren't invited to the ceremony. I feel like you're putting yourself in a situation to get a lot of heat....But if you can take it and it doesn't bother you, then honestly I envy you! You go girl! Do what you want! But if you do that, yes, obviously separate invitations. Maybe don't "call" it a reception? What if one guest turns to another and says "Beautiful ceremony wasn't it?" But the other one wasn't invited? Feels like you're picking and choosing your favorite people. Have you already booked it? Maybe you could just do the ceremony followed by a small dinner then have the big reception on another day?

And then you could tell people you wanted an "intimate" ceremony but wanted everyone to celebrate with you?

We're doing separate invitations for the ceremony and wedding breakfast (the formal sit down meal) and the evening reception. This is pretty standard in the UK. The daytime is for family and close friends and then you invite additional guests to the evening - people like colleagues, parent's friends etc.

We worded our day invitations as 'request the honour of your presence at their wedding' and the evening reception as 'request the pleasure of your company in the celebration of their marriage'

You're going to get backlash because it's rude. Unless you are having an extemely private ceremony (I'm talking just the two of you and the officiant, or just your parents or siblings present), all guests should be invited to the entire wedding.

I get that you want as many people to celebrate with you as you can, but you need to accept that you can't invite EVERYONE.

Honestly, just find another location for your ceremony if it can barely accommodate your guest list.

Actually Stephanie, you're wrong.

According to Miss Manners (and I quote):

"One of the lovely things about tradition is that it anticipates common problems and offers polite ways to deal with them. It has always been correct to invite more people to the reception than the ceremony. The large formal invitation is then worded so as to invite everyone to 'the wedding reception' of the couple rather than 'the marriage of', and a small ceremony card is included for those who are invited to both".

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Shannon, regardless of Miss Manners' opinion, the only way I'd attend a wedding where I wasn't invited to the ceremony would be if it was someone I cared a lot about AND they were having a ceremony with immediate family only. Why? Because I can understand not being able to invite everyone you want to invite to your wedding due to your budget, but chances are, if I'm not important enough to you to "make the cut" for the ceremony, then we're not close enough for me to spend time and money coming to your reception. Because I'd be missing the wedding part of it.

To be honest, as a Jew who has been to a LOT of B'nai Mitzvah, the whole POINT is to be there for the ceremony. Receptions are to celebrate the ceremony, and I'd rather not go to a party where I was not part of the club that got to go to the event the party was celebrating.

Good for you Stephanie, you're entitled to your opinion. However, maybe you should consider stating it as an opinion rather than making massive generalisations like "all guests should be invited to the entire wedding" and "you need to accept that you can't invite everyone". Actually, the OP CAN chose to invite people to just the reception and who are you to say she can't?

There are people on this forum who take a really rigid view on etiquette, so I quoted from a commonly accepted source of etiquette advice. I'm having a tiered guest list myself, as is perfectly acceptable and I'm constantly surprised at all the opinions about them that are based on nothing but personal preference - yet are presented as 'etiquette'.

I'm with Shannon on this one. It's perfectly normal in the UK to have reception only guests (in fact some of my friends who knew we were struggling with numbers for the ceremony offered to be reception only guests to help us out). I definitely know that for my group people would rather just be invited to the evening than not be invited at all.

The wording on our evening invitations was "Whilst restrictions on numbers at the venue mean we cannot invite everybody we would like to the ceremony, we would love it if Jane Doe could join us at the evening celebration".

I hope you find a solution that works for you.

Jemma and Shannon are right about this--in the UK.

In the US it is more often thought of as rude. I have been to a reception where the ceremony was for some guests only and those of us on the other side of the door waiting felt very out of place and excluded.

Shannon, the OP can do whatever she likes. But if she asks for opinions she is going to get them.

Julie you need to do what you think is right, not what we think. You know your friends and family better than we do.

I agree Tina, if someone asks for opinions they should expect to get opinions. What bothers me is when those opinions are presented as fact. The point I wanted to make is that there is a lot of arm waving about etiquette. And in this instance the etiquette, from both Emily Post (and family) and Judith Martin who are all American etiquette experts, is that it is perfectly acceptable to have reception only invitations. I can certainly see the problem if they were ceremony only invitations!

Most people are pretty good at providing constructive comments. I guess people just need to be mindful of keeping it that way.

Well this is exactly what I've already been reading. No one has the same opinion on the matter. The ceremony will be extremely short..as in if you're late you might miss it so I personally put more weight on the reception where we will get to interact with everyone. I may just ignore the rule at the park since it is a public area. It's not that it won't hold everyone it's just their rules to use it limit guests. We've expected to have these venues for years. Thanks for everyone's feedback.