Community Chat

[Carmie]

When I was much younger, the Catholic churches would only marry couples on Saturday Morning around 9-10 am.  Guests would show up at the church and if they lived local, they would go home until the reception started at around 5-6 pm.

During all of the waiting hours, the bridal party and family would get pictures taken, etc.

Then brunch was provided for the bridal party and out of town guests.  Often guests hung out at the brides house if they were not local and partied there too.

More often than not, guests would not go to the church for the ceremony, but only went to the reception, even if invited to both.

This was very normal and common until things got too expensive. 

I got married in the early 70's.  I chose, against my parents wishes, to have a 6 pm ceremony with reception right after.  It was very hectic and everything felt rushed, especially for pictures.

It was much more relaxing and better to be married in the am and  have the reception in the pm especially if you have a large guests list ( I had 500 at my wedding) but it ended up costing more for the brides parents who provided brunch, snacks, drinks and a reception meal for guests.

I imagine Pippa's guest list will be large.  She might want to do this to have more time for pictures, etc and a fun party reception.

 Her choice and not as bad as my friend who's DIL sent out invitations to a wedding reception at a restaurant with a menu, asking the guests to come celebrate and pay for their own dinner.

My friend was shocked and she and her DH paid for all of the meals after calling all of the guests beforehand.

[seaBreeze]

Some Europeans do this .... at least in my DH's family (Romania).   There was a 4-hour time span in between the wedding vs. reception.   Went back to hotel, to rest and refresh, then to the evening party which was similar to "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."   Opa~!

(To me, this is an inconvenience to your guest--perhaps good for the bride--but especially when the reception is 15 miles away from the wedding venue as in many weddings I attend today.    In 1981, I married, and the reception was beside the church--I thought of my guests first.)

[Katcat1]

Who cares about Pippa?  The name itself tells you she is a ditz. 

[Mj12]

---

@Katcat1 wrote:

Who cares about Pippa?  The name itself tells you she is a ditz. 

---

Her name is Philippa.

[chrystaltree]

I saw that, it seemed like some silly fake news story to me.  No one would ever ask such a thing of their guests, it's too ridiculous to believe.

[stevieb]

---

@Daisy wrote:

If it were my wedding, I'm not sure if I'd request that guests bring a change of clothes for the reception.

Obviously, the guests know that there will be an outdoor reception with music and dancing or whatever. I'd probably leave it to the guests to decide if they want to wear something a little more casual/comfortable at the wedding or if they want to bring a change of clothes/shoes instead.

---

That'll only go so far as invitations are increasingly declined and the gift table suffers...

[stevieb]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

---

@Yardlie wrote:

Regarding no ring/no bring ... It is a form of discrimination against singles.

Next thing you know, people will be inviting only one person out of a couple. If they aren't close friends with the spouse, they won't be invited. No know/no go.

---

RIght. Just like "no kids" discriminates against those of us with young children. But of course, DO send a gift.......

---

Nope, that's apples and oranges. It's one thing to not permit an attendee to bring someone to accompany them, so they aren't alone and they have someone they can sit with, chat with and so on.  It's altogether different to suggest that the whole clan isn't invited. This is particularly so when those doing the inviting have no control over whether or not the children even want to be there or whether they're going to potentially be disruptive. While it's true that some adults can be disruptive, too, it's a matter of probabilities. When children aren't invited, parents always have the optiion of sending regrets if they feel strongly about it.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

---

@Yardlie wrote:

Regarding no ring/no bring ... It is a form of discrimination against singles.

Next thing you know, people will be inviting only one person out of a couple. If they aren't close friends with the spouse, they won't be invited. No know/no go.

---

RIght. Just like "no kids" discriminates against those of us with young children. But of course, DO send a gift.......

---

@SahmIam

Sorry, but that's not "discrimination" against people with young children.  

It's not wanting a wedding ruined by children who were never taught how to behave in public and running roughshod all over, and even throwing food around.    They have no place at a formal wedding.

Personally, I think small children should ALWAYS be left at home with a babysitter.  If the parents don't want to respect the bride & groom's wishes, they should stay home, too.    

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@BettyNewbie wrote:

---

@felixmom wrote:

I read that she's also putting a "no ring, no bring" policy in place meaning guests can't bring their significant other to the wedding unless they're married or engaged...do do do do.....

---

someone may have already said but....thats a Royal Family rule for family members....not the \public......not Pippas rule....and shes  not following it completely because Harrys gf is invited to the reception

---

@BettyNewbie

It's smart for Harry's girlfriend to not attend the wedding.   I'm betting Pippa has never even met Meagan, anyway.  If Meagan did attend, it would steal the bride's thunder, and lets remember ....   it's Pippa's day.  

[stevieb]

---

@BettyNewbie wrote:

---

@felixmom wrote:

I read that she's also putting a "no ring, no bring" policy in place meaning guests can't bring their significant other to the wedding unless they're married or engaged...do do do do.....

---

someone may have already said but....thats a Royal Family rule for family members....not the \public......not Pippas rule....and shes  not following it completely because Harrys gf is invited to the reception

---

Strictly speaking, Pippa is not a member of the royal family. Her sister is but she's not. If the royals choose to dictate how their events are conducted or how royals attending other events conduct themselves that's their choice, but I don't think they can dictate attendace at a wedding of the inlaws... As was noted, I've read the supposed rationale is the size of the church. I'm not sure that rings true (pun intended) but it makes a good excuse.