Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

I agree. All this shade on dry weddings is awful. Many people don’t drink - for religious or addiction or health reasons. I am delighted to share their big day with them while also being respectful of their culture or individual preferences. Can people *really* not go one night without booze??? (And I drink a lot - so I’m not a teetotaler)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty of destination wedding (hours away) but gave +1, +2, accommodated friends of family with champagne toast but cash bar.
we had to budget but splurged with everything else big time.

So you splurged on everything except the one thing guests actually look forward to at weddings? What in the world were you thinking?

+1 Splurged on what exactly? This is exactly the type of couple who should have eloped at this destination. Why bother inviting anyone?

I know, I know. That is a DCUm no no. in retrospect we were college age poor and young and not what I would have done now but eloping was actually our plan and family still wanted to attend. we paid for a luxury hotel and rooms to accommodate everyone with 100+ people. lots of thanks for a great time and people were very generous and still talk about how great of time it was so I guess they didn't mind too much?

You paid for everyone's lodging but drew the line at the bar bill?

+1. This makes no sense. Also being college age poor and...paying fur luxury accommodations.

Yeah doesnt pass the sniff test. More likely pp splurged on their dress and rings and left guests in the lurch.

But its the internet, anyone can say they did anything and how everyone loooved it.

Or maybe they think a hotel block at holiday inn counts as covering accommodations

I would not criticize what accommodations might be available where - are you going to send someone an hour away to the Ritz, or tell them the closest places that are clean? If you are a travel snob, or think you are above it all, that is not on the bride and groom to pay for.

A hotel block isn't actually covering accommodations (nor is it luxury) which is what pp said. I was musing that they simply blocked the rooms and left guests to book it/pay for it on their own.

no, the PP said they paid for their rooms at a luxury hotel.

Even if the bride and groom "blocked rooms", they were thoughtful enough to do so. What exactly do you want them to do? Make your beds and serve you coffee in the morning? It seems some posters just hate weddings. Which is fine, but stay home and spare everyone your rotten attitude, because it shows.

The point was that they said they paid for all these luxury rooms, but had a cash bar. So did they really? They wouldn't buy more than 1 drink pp but "splurged" on this luxury hotel? It's not adding up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty of destination wedding (hours away) but gave +1, +2, accommodated friends of family with champagne toast but cash bar.
we had to budget but splurged with everything else big time.

So you splurged on everything except the one thing guests actually look forward to at weddings? What in the world were you thinking?

+1 Splurged on what exactly? This is exactly the type of couple who should have eloped at this destination. Why bother inviting anyone?

I know, I know. That is a DCUm no no. in retrospect we were college age poor and young and not what I would have done now but eloping was actually our plan and family still wanted to attend. we paid for a luxury hotel and rooms to accommodate everyone with 100+ people. lots of thanks for a great time and people were very generous and still talk about how great of time it was so I guess they didn't mind too much?

You paid for everyone's lodging but drew the line at the bar bill?

+1. This makes no sense. Also being college age poor and...paying fur luxury accommodations.

Yeah doesnt pass the sniff test. More likely pp splurged on their dress and rings and left guests in the lurch.

But its the internet, anyone can say they did anything and how everyone loooved it.

Or maybe they think a hotel block at holiday inn counts as covering accommodations

I would not criticize what accommodations might be available where - are you going to send someone an hour away to the Ritz, or tell them the closest places that are clean? If you are a travel snob, or think you are above it all, that is not on the bride and groom to pay for.

A hotel block isn't actually covering accommodations (nor is it luxury) which is what pp said. I was musing that they simply blocked the rooms and left guests to book it/pay for it on their own.

no, the PP said they paid for their rooms at a luxury hotel.

Even if the bride and groom "blocked rooms", they were thoughtful enough to do so. What exactly do you want them to do? Make your beds and serve you coffee in the morning? It seems some posters just hate weddings. Which is fine, but stay home and spare everyone your rotten attitude, because it shows.

They probably got a credit for each room that was booked in order to get a better deal for themselves. But you don't get to take credit for "paying for luxury rooms" when all you did was create a room block. And then to stick your friends with a cash bar is tacky and cheap. I'd be embarrassed for my friends if they did that. Thankfully I don't know anyone like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised so many posters are offended by destination weddings. I have never been to one but I thought people typically kept them smaller and didn’t expect everyone to attend. It’s not like you’re required to go, it’s just an invitation.

I don't really get it either, unless all of your friends and family live in the same area, it's going to be a destination wedding for some people even if that destination is your hometown. I'm in DC and almost all of the weddings I have attended have required travel.

+1

Me and my circle think of "destination weddings" as a place where neither the bride nor groom has ties, but they basically marry where they are honeymooning. It saves work for the bride and groom, but not for everyone else!

If the bride OR groom is from (born and raised) Chicago (for example), and they choose to get married in Chicago, that is NOT a destination wedding, as it is a reasonable presumption that approximately half of the wedding invitees are from the Chicago area. ie: not a random place that every single guest and family member has to travel to, and to which no one has ties.

To add, a "destination wedding" is also usually held at a Caribbean island, or another popular destination spot that is considered not the United States (except maybe Hawaii, in some cases). The amount of travel is significant, such that it is a few hours or more plane ride, and the attendees are forced to take time off from their jobs and obligations. In other words, the whole wedding "to do" takes a few days, between travel and the ceremony. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it is not a burden, if you are not even from the place where the wedding is being held.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty of destination wedding (hours away) but gave +1, +2, accommodated friends of family with champagne toast but cash bar.
we had to budget but splurged with everything else big time.

So you splurged on everything except the one thing guests actually look forward to at weddings? What in the world were you thinking?

+1 Splurged on what exactly? This is exactly the type of couple who should have eloped at this destination. Why bother inviting anyone?

I know, I know. That is a DCUm no no. in retrospect we were college age poor and young and not what I would have done now but eloping was actually our plan and family still wanted to attend. we paid for a luxury hotel and rooms to accommodate everyone with 100+ people. lots of thanks for a great time and people were very generous and still talk about how great of time it was so I guess they didn't mind too much?

You paid for everyone's lodging but drew the line at the bar bill?

+1. This makes no sense. Also being college age poor and...paying fur luxury accommodations.

Yeah doesnt pass the sniff test. More likely pp splurged on their dress and rings and left guests in the lurch.

But its the internet, anyone can say they did anything and how everyone loooved it.

Or maybe they think a hotel block at holiday inn counts as covering accommodations

I would not criticize what accommodations might be available where - are you going to send someone an hour away to the Ritz, or tell them the closest places that are clean? If you are a travel snob, or think you are above it all, that is not on the bride and groom to pay for.

A hotel block isn't actually covering accommodations (nor is it luxury) which is what pp said. I was musing that they simply blocked the rooms and left guests to book it/pay for it on their own.

no, the PP said they paid for their rooms at a luxury hotel.

Even if the bride and groom "blocked rooms", they were thoughtful enough to do so. What exactly do you want them to do? Make your beds and serve you coffee in the morning? It seems some posters just hate weddings. Which is fine, but stay home and spare everyone your rotten attitude, because it shows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised so many posters are offended by destination weddings. I have never been to one but I thought people typically kept them smaller and didn’t expect everyone to attend. It’s not like you’re required to go, it’s just an invitation.

I don't really get it either, unless all of your friends and family live in the same area, it's going to be a destination wedding for some people even if that destination is your hometown. I'm in DC and almost all of the weddings I have attended have required travel.

+1

Me and my circle think of "destination weddings" as a place where neither the bride nor groom has ties, but they basically marry where they are honeymooning. It saves work for the bride and groom, but not for everyone else!

If the bride OR groom is from (born and raised) Chicago (for example), and they choose to get married in Chicago, that is NOT a destination wedding, as it is a reasonable presumption that approximately half of the wedding invitees are from the Chicago area. ie: not a random place that every single guest and family member has to travel to, and to which no one has ties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty of destination wedding (hours away) but gave +1, +2, accommodated friends of family with champagne toast but cash bar.
we had to budget but splurged with everything else big time.

So you splurged on everything except the one thing guests actually look forward to at weddings? What in the world were you thinking?

+1 Splurged on what exactly? This is exactly the type of couple who should have eloped at this destination. Why bother inviting anyone?

I know, I know. That is a DCUm no no. in retrospect we were college age poor and young and not what I would have done now but eloping was actually our plan and family still wanted to attend. we paid for a luxury hotel and rooms to accommodate everyone with 100+ people. lots of thanks for a great time and people were very generous and still talk about how great of time it was so I guess they didn't mind too much?

You paid for everyone's lodging but drew the line at the bar bill?

+1. This makes no sense. Also being college age poor and...paying fur luxury accommodations.

Yeah doesnt pass the sniff test. More likely pp splurged on their dress and rings and left guests in the lurch.

But its the internet, anyone can say they did anything and how everyone loooved it.

Or maybe they think a hotel block at holiday inn counts as covering accommodations

I would not criticize what accommodations might be available where - are you going to send someone an hour away to the Ritz, or tell them the closest places that are clean? If you are a travel snob, or think you are above it all, that is not on the bride and groom to pay for.

A hotel block isn't actually covering accommodations (nor is it luxury) which is what pp said. I was musing that they simply blocked the rooms and left guests to book it/pay for it on their own.

no, the PP said they paid for their rooms at a luxury hotel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised so many posters are offended by destination weddings. I have never been to one but I thought people typically kept them smaller and didn’t expect everyone to attend. It’s not like you’re required to go, it’s just an invitation.

I don't really get it either, unless all of your friends and family live in the same area, it's going to be a destination wedding for some people even if that destination is your hometown. I'm in DC and almost all of the weddings I have attended have required travel.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

No +1 weddings: Cheap, unless you're getting married at the courthouse and only have one witness
No open bar weddings: Also tacky and cheap. Don't make guests pay for anything at your wedding.
Dry weddings: Bad if in the evening, fine if it's an afternoon or small informal wedding
Asking for cash: Bad if you ask outright.
Destination weddings: Pain in the ass and $$ for the wedding party but not bad overall
No-kids weddings: Fine IF the bride or groom do not invite the kids to be part of the wedding. If you want a flower girl in the wedding, invite the flower girl to the reception.

The worst: Dry wedding/no open bar

It depends: No +1 and destination weddings. If it's someone I'm really close to and would feel more compelled to attend, I would be a bit annoyed by a destination wedding. On the other hand, we were second tier invites to a not so close college's friends wedding in Mexico. It worked well with our schedule and we had a great time/extended it into a vacation. But that was all because we went fully on our own volition and not feeling like we'd let someone down if we didn't go.

With the plus one, our general rule was you got a plus one if you were married or in a committed relationship or travelled a decent distance. We figured the many local singles we invited would know a lot of people and not feel lonely without a +1.

No problem/good: couples who ask for cash (easy gift giving!) and child free weddings.

Anonymous wrote:DH and I got married fairly fresh out of college and didn't do +1 for college/high school friends because we knew there'd be at least a table full of people they would also be friends with. I don't think we had any other single invitees. Our wedding budget was tiny and it's what we could afford (no parental help).

I was a poster saying that I didn’t like no +1s, but in your case, I think this was totally fine. I think it’s more to help people who might not know people there.

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised so many posters are offended by destination weddings. I have never been to one but I thought people typically kept them smaller and didn’t expect everyone to attend. It’s not like you’re required to go, it’s just an invitation.

I don't really get it either, unless all of your friends and family live in the same area, it's going to be a destination wedding for some people even if that destination is your hometown. I'm in DC and almost all of the weddings I have attended have required travel.

Well, this one will be a hot topic for Jeff’s blog!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything on that list is fine except for no +1s which is just cheap and doesn’t honor the friends of the couple. It can be awkward to go alone. Also not every single person *will* bring a +1 (if they have a group of friends coming, then they may feel fine going on their own).

I’m surprised so many posters hate the no+1. If you were single and invited to a wedding with a +1, you would just bring a random person? And expect that person to sit around while you socialize with the people that you know at the wedding?

I think no+1 is rude for married guests, those who have been in long-term relationships, or those who are couples that the bride and groom are friends with. But I don’t think the B&G should have to pay for single friends to bring someone along for the hell of it.

Unless you are in a serious relationship, most singles do not bring a +1 unless they won’t know others there. I don’t think the typical person would bring a rando to a wedding. Weddings are actually great places to meet potential dates so if you have a date you don’t really know, then bringing a +1 would mess that up. But trusting your guests to navigate that trade-off feels better to me than the bride/ groom having to make that call.