Alright so here is a question/scenario:

One of my chapter sisters is getting married this next year. She and her husband-to-be don't have that much saved up for the wedding and are cutting costs by not allowing anyone other than the bridesmaids/groomsmen to have dates. This includes significant others of guests even if you are living together/engaged/serious relationship, unless the sig other was also good friends with the couple (basically would have been invited anyway even if y'all weren't a couple).

Mainly I'm bringing this up because we found this info out yesterday and I'm feeling confused. While I understand that they want close friends and family there, a few of the sisters (myself included) live with our boyfriends/fiancee and have all been together for over a year. It is also more or less a destination wedding that is about 2-3 hours minimum from everyone, in snow country in snow season. I'd rather not drive alone.

Does this make sense/is it weird?

It does kind of make sense. Having been to a few weddings along these lines, I'm also betting that it was a pulling teeth fight with the families to get even sisters on the guest list.

If you want to go, get all the sisters together and drive there together. If you don't want to go because of the SO omission, that's your prerogative too. But don't bring a date if you've been told it's not OK.

It's weird. It's especially weird that the bridesmaids/groomsmen can have dates but no one else. In my opinion. bringing a +1 that isn't your significant other is awkward anyway when you're in the wedding party because you don't have much time to hang with them and might not even sit with them at dinner.

To be honest, if I were in your situation and concerned about driving alone I would decline the invitation with regrets and send a gift. But, live-in and I have been together for longer than a lot of the couples we're seeing getting married right now anyway, so there's no logical reason not to invite both of us.

I understand cutting costs, but I would do it a different way - limit "primary" guests to very close friends (and obviously family), then allow them to bring their significant other, if they have one. The whole chapter would not get an invitation.

Also, be prepared to hear at the last minute "oh it's OK to bring SO" after they have gotten the declinations from Aunt Agatha who HAD to be asked but who hasn't left her house in 60 years.

This thread should probably be moved to the Dating and Relationships forum as there are already plenty of wedding threads going on over there.

Yes, please. My husband's drama-queen aunt did not provide her guest's name. We figured it was her boyfriend, but a) how could we be sure? and b) we didn't know his full name as we've not been around him.

So guess what his placecard said? "Guest of [Drama Queen]" Yeah, I got bitchy at that point.

I have been to several of these!!! Based on my experience, they seem to be common in places such as India and Pakistan. My husband and I got married in the United States, but my in-laws planned a reception for us in Pakistan when we went to visit after the wedding since no one other than my husbands parents, one aunt and uncle, and a few cousins could make it to our wedding. There was no RSVP for the event, but something like 400 people showed up (all on my husband's side and he hasn't lived there in 12-13 years).

This, though the destination aspect of it can also be an excuse for not going.

And I'll just say it: I'm not a fan of destination weddings. And the idea of on one hand not having much money for the wedding and so cutting costs by limiting guests, while on the other hand having a destination wedding is . . . odd . . . to me.

I don't think she means that it's a destination in the sense of going to a resort or Bermuda or something, rather that it basically becomes that for everyone not from the town it's in because it's a long ass drive to BFE.

We had a sister wedding like that that was almost at the NY border. Fine for her family but awful for her friends, none of whom were from there, and in the middle of nowhere. And no alcohol and just h'ors d'ouvres.

My big-city-Northern mind has just been completely blown by MysticCat's post. Truth.

:D

Did I mention that it was also common for the bride's family to display all the wedding gifts? (Well, except for china, silver and crystal -- for that, a single, full place setting would be laid.) Friends would call on the bride's family for the express purpose of ooohing and ahhhhing over the gifts.

"Call on" tee hee hee. Reminds me of Little Women.

If a person is not explicitly listed on the wedding invitation envelope, he or she is NOT INVITED. PERIOD.

The members of a couple who are dating but living separately should each receive his/her own invitation, and it is acceptable to invite one and not the other.

The members of a couple who are engaged but living separately should each receive his/her own invitation, and it is NOT acceptable to invite one and not the other.

The members of a couple who are living together are considered engaged (whether they are or not) and should receive one invitation, addressed to "Miss Donna Noble" <newline> "Mr. Lance Bennett". It is not acceptable to invite one and not the other.

A married couple should receive one invitation, addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith", or to "Ms. Gwen Cooper and Mr. Rhys Williams" if they do not have the same last name. If they have children and the children are invited, their names should go on the inner envelope, e.g. "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" <newline> "Mary, Sara, and George". If the children are not invited, their names should be omitted from the inner envelope.

A single, divorced, or widowed man is "Mr. John Smith". A single woman is "Miss Rose Tyler". A widow is "Mrs. Peter Tyler" and a divorced woman is "Mrs. Jane Doe" (sorry, couldn't think of any Doctor Who characters who fit that profile ;) ).

This is trumped where someone has a professional title, e.g. "Dr. Martha Jones" or "Dr. and Mrs. John Smith".

I'll shut up about naming conventions now. :D

According to Miss Manners, it's not necessary to include RSVP cards - the invited guest(s) "should" know that they should write a "yes" or "no" letter back - but in this day and age, if you don't include RSVP cards, you're going to be making a lot of phone calls.

THANK YOU! I don't get it either. It's one thing to have a destination wedding for immediate family only. Once you're inviting all kinds of people, it makes no sense to me. Do you really want me to spend $1000 to go to some destination for your wedding? It isn't going to happen and it feels selfish (on their part) when I get those invites.

^^^^ Agree on all fronts. All of the destination weddies that I have known were immediate family, Best Man and Maid of Honor.