Re #38:@pizzagirl – the post you reference (where I posed the choice) was in response to an earlier post by someone who decried destination weddings and expressed a preference for cake-and-punch backyard weddings. (When I posted my response (which you quoted), I thought my post directly followed the one I was responding to, but there were apparently many between.)
Of course you can have a lovely wedding in wherever you happen to live. And backyard weddings can be lovely (whether casual or lavish). But at some point, self-conscious asceticism (when not driven by economic constraints) is NOT gracious to guests. I was reacting to the subtext in the earlier post that an abstemious wedding in a modest setting is somehow morally superior – or more gracious than – to a bountiful one in a beautiful setting.
We traveled to a wedding in Utah a few years ago, along with ALL of the other guests. All of them. You know…flying to that wedding was no different for us than it would have been flying there if the bride’s family lived there.
And it was way more costly than the destination wedding we went to in Mexico.
But do you have a problem with destination weddings? If a bride grew up in, say Stockton, CA, and currently lives on the East Coast, do you think there’s something inherently better about her having the wedding in Stockton, than, say, Napa Valley? Both are equidistant from SFO. Assume 70% of guests are traveling and the rest live generally in the Bay Area.
I personally would prefer the wedding in Napa over the Stockton wedding, since I’m traveling anyway. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Stockton; it’s just not as visitor-friendly as Napa). And, if the reception itself is at a beautiful location with spectacular food and wine, you aren’t going to hear me complain.
The Stockton wedding would not be a destination wedding; the Napa one would. Is there any reason to prefer the Stockton one?
I agree with your description Pizza. A destination wedding is one where neither the bride nor groom nor either of their families live and I think of them as location weddings where the location “creates” the event.
But people are using ‘will-so-and-so-travel-a-long-distance’ as a litmus test or ploy to say some people care about the couple more than others. Again, my D lives in LA and is looking at the Santa Ynez wine country as a venue, which is just under two hours from where they live in LA. Neither us or her SO’s family is from LA or Santa Ynez. They are both relatively new to the LA area and probably have a dozen or so friends from there they might invite, but everyone else will be from out of town. I would bet our life savings that they are not thinking, “Well, let’s see who cares about us the most by testing them with an invitation to our destination wedding,” or “Can’t wait to see who has the money to come or not.”
Well… secrets be told, they are there now for an overnighter, and there’s a tiny chance the question may be popped. Not holding my breath, but I know October was in the equation and this is as close to going away in October that they’ve planned. So whenever my phone rings… the thought quickly races through my mind before I see the caller ID. D made it VERY clear that she does not want anyone else knowing anything about it before she does, so everyone is pretty much out of the loop.
Stockton means nothing to me, so I have no idea if I’d “want” to be there or not relative to Napa!
In teriwtt’s scenario, if both the daughter and the significant other now live in the LA area, then that’s where they have their ties - that isn’t the definition of a destination wedding to me.personally, though it may be to others. I certainly agree that if you’re going to have people come to LA because that’s where you live, might as well pick a nice place - it’s not as though you have to be a stickler for your exact zip code!
And just to add, if I had my druthers, and after my awesome vacation to the PNW in August for which I am most grateful for the CC crowds input, I’d be thrilled if they let me pick a destination because I now know where it would be… hello Vancouver Island (or maybe the Sea to Sky gondola experience between Vancouver and Whistler - but this would be difficult for the groom is horrible height phobic!) For this, I think I would pay for everyone she wanted to come just because I want as many of my friends and others to experience the place as possible.
I have been to one that was done very well–everyone was catered to–picked up from the ferry dock and brought to the hotel, welcome basket waiting, fun activities planned all weekend, and we were returned to the ferry dock at the end. It was a blast and I left feeling the bride’s family is the most generous, welcoming, warm family ever. I have also been to one that was done “on the cheap” and it was kind of miserable, I hate to say–traveling all that way and then sort of stranded to figure out what to do on our own. Not enough seating for the informal things, not enough food, not enough activities. We were starving and bored. I left feeling this bride was very selfish and I still haven’t received a thank you note for the gift. I think she was more interested in her pictures than in the comfort of her guests. It was so bad that we weren’t allowed in the destination house to use the bathroom–guests had to traipse across a dark field to a port-o-potty (in wedding wear, not fun! The grandparents were miserable and left after a couple of hours.). If it isn’t a direct relative or best friend, I’d only go if you really want to go to the location and only if you already have the money and won’t miss it later. If it’s your sister or best friend, suck it up and go.
To me – when I think of destination wedding - I also tend to think of a resort where people are locked into a certain price range (which may not be doable for a certain number of the invitees) - as opposed to holding a wedding in a place where there are choices at different price ranges (e.g., I can stay at the Holiday Inn, the Hilton or the Ritz as fits my budget). But again that’s just me.
I have a work friend planning a destination wedding right now in the Dominican Republic and it does sound lovely. I’m not invited though (I’m fine with that, it’s one of those where she’d have to invite a bunch of us or none of us).
Family member here got married in Vermont. One set of parents live in another country. The others about 1800 miles away in the states. No one lives in Vermont. But I seriously doubt they said “gee…lets see who has the money to come to our wedding.” The reality is that folks would have had to travel as far…or further…if the wedding had been held in the bride’s home town…where she has NO ties anymore.
My feeling…when you get a wedding invitation, you should be pleased you were invited. You shouldn’t be second giessing the bridal couple and their reasons for inviting you. And…if you can’t or don’t want to go…simply decline the invitation. Easy, Peasy.
I have a relative who is having what I am calling a pseudo destination wedding. The couple are grad students, from towns very close to each other, currently living across the country where they are attending school - which is where they are living, but also means that almost everyone else needs to travel. I don’t think I’m going because it’s a pretty big budget hit for me. They’re free to choose to have it there, but I think they are concerned that people won’t go, and if that’s a big concern, I’d argue that they should be having it in their home state. (I don’t think they’re at all obliged to make it so people can go, but if having a lot of people there is a priority, they should think about that).
I have this strange bias that destination weddings need to be out of the country and at a resort that you’re “encouraged” to stay at, to be destination weddings. And to me, it is a bit uncomfortable to contemplate but I would go if I was very close to the person. And, if I had enough warning to plan properly.
Otherwise, if I have to fly to California for a wedding, it doesn’t matter where except for the practical points of it being easier if it’s closer to a major airport. Making it in the wine country wouldn’t make it any more or less of a “destination”.
I don’t like the idea that you have to stay at the resort where the wedding takes place. Sometimes, the discount for the bride and groom is based on them getting a minimum number of guests to commit.
My BIL went to a destination wedding at a resort in Costa Rica with his wife and two young children. He was a bit peeved because it was so remote it took all day to get there. Two plane trips, a long boat ride, etc. And it was for a coworker that he didn’t like! A destination wedding for someone you don’t like is a great excuse to not be able to go!
Hmmm, not me. I think of “destination weddings” as ones where the location is chosen for its intrinsic qualities rather than because of strong familial ties. (Though most people wouldn’t select a destination to which they had no ties at all). I’ve been to many weddings that qualify as destination weddings, and only one was at a resort. And I didn’t stay at that particular resort because it was out of my budget but I sure took advantage of having access to the grounds during the wedding weekend, even though I couldn’t afford to stay there!
The bride and groom get that discount or perk regardless of the location. Many hotels give the bridal suite to the wedding couple if they book a block of rooms. That is not unique to destination out of the country resort weddings. At the Vermont wedding I was at, the wedding couple reserved the whole inn…and had to guarantee the rooms would be paid for (and therefore occupied). No one was forced to stay there (we actually didn’t), but they did have to fill the rooms. And yes…the wedding couple got a bridal suite.
Our out of the country wedding did not have us required to stay at the same place. But the wedding in Utah did…that’s where the transportation was provided…and it’s where everyone stayed. We loved it…but yes, it was expensive. But it was our choice to attend…or not.
When we plan the wedding in this household, we will choose a venue that the bride and groom like…in a location where the planning can be done most easily by whomever is doing it. If it ends up being 1000 miles from here because the bride wants to do the planning…so be it. And yes…I guess folks will have to travel…or not. Their choice.
A thoughtfully prepared destination takes into account guests’ budgets.
At the fancy-schmancy destination wedding I attended, only the bride, groom and their parents stayed at the credit-card melting resort where the wedding was held. Everyone else opted for much cheaper accommodations in various hotels nearby; a couple of those hotels did have discounted rooms for the guests, and transportation to/from was provided by the venue.
A well done destination wedding can be a fabulous experience for everyone involved. If one of my children wanted one, I’d be absolutely game – as long as I didn’t have to pay
My oldest daughter got engaged over the summer and they have decided to have a destination wedding to Nova Scotia. They have decided that they want the event to only include parents, grandparents and siblings. They chose the location because my family emigrated to the US through Nova Scotia and she feels connected although none of us have been there . There will be two other weddings from her father’s side of the family in the two months before they plan their day.
She has very strong feelings about over the top ,expensive weddings that are for show. This will be a non-traditional event. Her dress will be a color not common to weddings and she won’t register for gifts.
I’m fine with their choice since it will eliminate a whole lot of stress
Do you think that couples who have non-destination weddings should also do this? Most have three geographic locations to choose from – where he grew up, where she grew up, and where they currently live. Are they obligated to choose the one that will be least costly for guests?
