Destination Weddings

[lalasmama]

My sister and I are in stark disagreement about this, and I thought I would ask others....

When you hear someone is going to have a "destination wedding," what is your first thought?

If it matters, the couple in question lives on the west coast, and is planning a small, intimate affair, either in Hawaii or a west-coast destination that would still require a flight to get to.

[JBaxter]

I did other. I think a wedding is between 2 people and everything else is about the big show. I WISH I could have eloped w/ my hubby by ourselves but he wouldn't. My mind is ~ its about the couple anyone else there is just a bonus. So I dont know how to look at it really.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Our family of 4 is going cross country for a wedding next year even though the bride and groom (dh's sister) live close to us on this coast. Pisses me off to pay $1600 on airfare then hotel on top of that but I get it. I dont think it's rude but I'm waiting for them to have kids and get that it's not that simple. We have no idea why they picked it either. Anyway, if the people matter to me I would do whatever I needed to to go to a destination wedding that was conceivably in my budget. Otherwise I'd have no problem sending my regrets.

[roseyloxs]

I think the wedding is about the people getting married. They have to know going in that less people will attend and not be offended when people say no. Destination weddings don't bother me since I think you are allowed to be a bit selfish on your wedding day. I also have no qualms about saying no to people outside of my immediate family.

[brittone2]

I don't think any of your options are a good fit for my feelings.

I have no issue at all with couples having a destination wedding, as long as they don't guilt trip or become upset when people can't afford the trip and/or the time off.

I totally see the appeal. DH and I considered just having a really small, private wedding. Suddenly my parents who were always rah rah about small weddings or eloping were like...no, you can't do that! I'm glad we ended up having a traditional wedding and reception, but I totally understand the appeal of a destination wedding. That said, if you are going to have a destination wedding, IMO you have to be willing to accept that not everyone can afford the time off or the travel expenses to be there. That includes even close family members, dear friends, etc. IMO. Guilt tripping or pressuring people that can't be there is inappropriate.

[MamaKath]

In general I think they are selfish. If it were a Vegas weekend or similar, no big deal I think. We went on a cruise recently and there were several weddings that took place. In one the family covered ALL expenses, including the (approximately 125) guests cruise costs and those for all who participated like musicians, singers and minister (I can not even begin to imagine). All other weddings aboard were self paid and even though they were probably "within reason" for some, my family could probably not have afforded to attend in a situation like that.

We live pretty far from family (day driving) and have a big wedding next year back home. It is a "destination wedding" in some ways since the bride and groom will be marrying where the bride grew up, however his family and many of their friends will have to travel to be there. In a situation like that, it is almost no-win.

[marymoo86]

I have always viewed destination weddings as an intimate affair with immediate family only. Isn't that the point?

[newnana]

Didn't vote. Between our family and friends, all weddings are destination weddings for someone because nobody lives near anyone else, so most guests will be travelling from somewhere across the country. We have friends/family from all across the US and for any given event, the vast majority of guests (85%?) will have significant travel to attend.

If the definition is that the couple getting married has to travel to get there, then we had one because DH and I had to travel to where my parents live and I grew up for the wedding, but that's sure as heck no destination I would pick.

And all events across our friends/family are with the understanding that there may be low turnout due to location, because no location is ideal.

[KLD313]

If the couple want a destination wedding it's not selfish. I think where selfishness comes in is if they expect a ton of people to attend and get mad if they don't.

[kristenk]

We had a destination wedding. Our wedding was in Colorado, though, so no one needed to procure a passport or travel from one coast to another.

If we had the wedding in my hometown, all of DH's family, all of our friends, DH and I would have had to travel/fly to a small town. My mom and any friends that she would have invited wouldn't have to travel, but everyone else would. It would have been less expensive for DH and I (we paid for our wedding/reception), but it would have been a travel nightmare for the majority of the guests. And my hometown wasn't exactly known for hotel/motel options at the time so i have no idea where everyone would have stayed.

If we had the wedding in the city where DH and I lived at the time, our families would have had to travel, but DH, most of our friends and I wouldn't have had to. But it would have been much more expensive and I would have felt compelled to expand the circle of invitees to include some people from work, another circle of relatives, etc. It would have been bigger and wouldn't have been ideal for us (DH and I).

By having it in Colorado, DH and I were able to scale way back on the guest list to just close relatives and close friends. We had maybe 30 people there. I couldn't obsess over everything b/c we just sort of had to pick things out, go with them and hope for the best. It was way less stress for me. The thing was that in every single scenario we came up with for the wedding, the majority of the people that we REALLY wanted there would have had to travel. No matter where it was.

And we understood that some people wouldn't be able to make it and that was okay. Most of our friends didn't have kids at the time. I think that we invited 2 couples with kids. One couple came (without their kids - although children were welcome) and one didn't.

[mom2binsd]

I voted other, I don't think it's selfish, but when choosing a destination I hope they take into consideration the financial obligations of those who they REALLY want to attend. If for example your sister is newly married and has small children, has one one income and they are middle class, expecting them to come to a faraway place pay for airfare,hotel,food etc may be unrealistic.

[bisous]

If the couple want a destination wedding it's not selfish. I think where selfishness comes in is if they expect a ton of people to attend and get mad if they don't.

This is exactly what I think! I would have a hard time (but would sure try!) to go to a very, very dear friend or family members wedding. But were there times in my married life when that would have been impossible? Absolutely.

I think the couple that decides to do a destination wedding must just be aware that having it some place far away and expensive will mean that some of their dear friends and family will not be able to attend and just factor that issue into the "pros and cons" when deciding where to hold the event!

[klwa]

If the couple want a destination wedding it's not selfish. I think where selfishness comes in is if they expect a ton of people to attend and get mad if they don't.

:yeahthat:

I like that better than my original poll answer! I voted OK so long as the prices/destination are reasonable.

[Globetrotter]

I have no issue at all with couples having a destination wedding, as long as they don't guilt trip or become upset when people can't afford the trip and/or the time off.

:yeahthat: I got a major guilt trip for missing a friend's no kids allowed wedding when ds was an infant, nursing FT. If you want people to be there, make it convenient, but otherwise go for it! I certainly see the appeal. I would work around the convenience of the most important (to the couple) attendees.

Most weddings we attend involve cross country travel, so that's not an issue here, but more the convenience factor.

[crl]

I think it's perfectly fine and not selfish to have a destination wedding. But I also think the couple needs to recognize and be gracious about the fact that many people may be unable to attend.

Catherine

[rin]

I picked "other". I don't think it's rude to have a destination wedding, no matter where. You want to have it at the top of Mount Everest? Sure, go ahead! If you EXPECT anyone else to come, then yeah, that's rude, but if you want to go and get married on Mars I think that's 100% your right (just don't expect anyone else to be there).

Frankly, for many people unless they have multiple weddings there's no way to avoid asking people to travel. When I got married, DH & I were living in a town where we had some friends, but no family. DH's family mostly lives in one part of the country, my entire extended family lives in a very different part, and my parents/siblings/hometown is in yet another part of the country. Unless we'd had four weddings, there's no way we could have avoided asking some people to travel, and we just didn't have the money to do that unless we'd wanted to just go bare-bones and serve everyone hot dogs on paper plates. We decided to pick one locale, invite everyone we wanted, have as nice a wedding as we could afford to make people feel like it had been worth their while to travel, and not get offended in the least if anyone couldn't make it due to distance.

[Jen841]

IMO a Destination Wedding is a SMALL initmate affair. Only a small number of guest, and it may just be family, are expected if feasible (time, money, distance,...) The hosts in some situations fit a lot of the trip expense.

A couple should not expect gifts ect. from people when they return if they were not part of that close circle UNLESS there is a 'local' celebration, i.e. a BBQ/party/etc.

Unless it is a full blown local reception, gifts don't need to be elaborate (i.e., you don't need to give a $150 'cover your plate' type gift.)

What I think is selfish is people registering for full sets of silver and china, and going and getting married on an island with 20 people.

[wellyes]

We had a destination wedding - me, DH and both set of parents only. It was perfect.

We had family parties when we got home.

[Pyrodjm]

We had a destination wedding. I made sure that our parents would be able to make it, otherwise we knew some friends would not be able to attend due to circumstances or finances. We mailed invitations to our friends and family and the wording was something like "Join us in thought or in presence as we become husband and wife...". We emailed our closest friends to let them know that we understood completely if they couldn't make it.

A few people we would have liked to have attend could not, DH's cousin for instance. But it was a ceremony to celebrate a love we'd shared for a long time, not a public event with lots of "must attend" guests. It wasn't about the party, the gifts, or the hall, etc. We wanted to start our married life together standing on the sand under the moon and as I told my sister in the middle of a similar argument we had a month before my wedding, it really didn't matter who else was standing near us when it happened. There were 12 people present at our wedding including DH and I. It was perfect. Different friends took us out to dinner when we returned home for a few months and that was great.

I don't get how people think that having a destination wedding is selfish. People that feel that THEY must be present at someone else's wedding regardless of what the couple wishes are the selfish ones.

[Liziz]

I voted other, I don't think it's selfish, but when choosing a destination I hope they take into consideration the financial obligations of those who they REALLY want to attend. If for example your sister is newly married and has small children, has one one income and they are middle class, expecting them to come to a faraway place pay for airfare,hotel,food etc may be unrealistic.

:yeahthat: Although "destination wedding" can mean a lot....in the past 8 years, I have not been to a single wedding held in the city I live in (or within 5-6 hours travel, most required plane trips). And while I'm too lazy to count for sure, that's somewhere around 15 weddings. There's three more weddings coming up this year, and all require a plane flight. Only one of those I'd consider a true "destination wedding" (on a beach in Key West)...the rest were all hometown weddings/where the couple was living -- but we just happen to have friends and family spread out around the country (and seem t|\o only make already-married friends wherever we live!)

...honestly, at the end of the day, whether it's a destination wedding or not, I think it's rude for a wedding couple to *expect* people to attend.

[StantonHyde]

Well, my brother and SIL were living in San francisco but got married in our Idaho home town, so all their friends essentially went to a destination wedding. I had to fly in from Philly and several other relatives flew from the east coast. When you have families spread out, people have to fly anyway.

[niccig]

I think it's perfectly fine and not selfish to have a destination wedding. But I also think the couple needs to recognize and be gracious about the fact that many people may be unable to attend.

Catherine

This is what we did. We got married in Hawaii as it's 1/2 way between USA and my family in Australia. We didn't expect people to come. We had about 50 people, they all treated it as a vacation and stayed a week. We went out of our way to find as cheap accommodation as possible (Big complex of condos). I was surprised so many said yes, but it was before everyone had kids. 3 people had young babies and one of the grandmothers came to help out all 3. Other friends with older kids treated it as an adult-only holiday. I know if we were doing it now, we wouldn't get that many people coming.

Our wedding service was actually very cheap, friend officiated, my dress was cheap, I got a lei from safeway for my flowers. We spent money on the reception dinner and accommodation for family/friends that were in wedding party eg. paid for friend that married us, friend that took photos, my parents etc. We even drove people to airport the next day so they didn't have to pay for transport.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

I don't think any of your options are a good fit for my feelings.

I have no issue at all with couples having a destination wedding, as long as they don't guilt trip or become upset when people can't afford the trip and/or the time off.



:yeahthat:

I don't see having a destination wedding as selfish at all. Going to a friend's wedding is not a right or some sort of entitlement. As long as they dont' get upset for people not being able to come (due to cost, logistics, whatever) i don't see what's so bad about it. In fact, the destination weddings I've been to were done because the bride & groom PURPOSELY wanted to limit the number of people attending and wanted a small wedding (yet didn't want to leave people out). Coming from someone with a huge extended family (and an even bigger family on DH's side), and from a culture that doesn't understand the idea of small, quiet weddings, i totally understand this.

In our case, given that my family and DH's family are in different states, and we met most friends through college/grad school (who are from all over the place), we had to fly to attend 90% of weddings anyway even though the vast majority were not "destination" weddings. DH even got to go to a friend's wedding in Venice (the bride was Italian). We've been to two weddings in Hawaii, one was not even a destination wedding (the bride was from Hawaii).

[fortato]

The wedding should be about what the couple wants... not their family or friends.

I always wish that DH and I had eloped in Maine like we had originally planned.
When you think about it... the wedding ceremony is the important part...the reception is just taking 100 people that you might like, or barely know, out to dinner and dessert....
Meh.

Next time I get married...it will be on the beach, and you guys will get a post card a month later.

[dcmom2b3]

Eh, none of the poll options really fit for me. I'm not a fan, but I define "destination wedding" as a wedding in a place neither party has roots (or some other good reason for choosing the locale (e.g. nicci's Aussie/US compromise). For example, he's from Connecticut, she's from Cincinnati, and the wedding is in the Carribean. (sp?)

I'm probably biased since, by the above definition, the only destination wedding I've been invited to was of a couple who were just over the top with it all -- ring had to be from a specific jeweler, bachelor party was a week long trip to Rio (eek!), Vera Wang dress, wedding at an uber expensive 4(5?) star island resort. Friends were expected to attend, guilt trips were laid, there was a "We're the Joneses and you should keep up" air about it all, and that just left a bad taste in my mouth.

I think my negative view is more about the way that couple handled their wedding than the concept of destination weddings in general.

[Green_Tea]

I think people should get married wherever they want. If there are guests that they have their heart set on attending, they should plan to pay for them to get and stay there. I don't think it's selfish to want to get married in the Caribbean or Hawaii, but I would never expect anyone - not even my parents or sisters - to pay to get there to see it happen.

ETA: I have never RSVPed yes to a destination wedding. I would only attend one if it was a sibling or my best friend getting married. Otherwise I'd prefer to spend my budget to travel to the destination of my choice. I have happily attended weddings that required a hotel stay or a long drive, though.

[HannaAddict]

Good for them. Hawaii is a great place to get married, hurray to the couple. I think people should get married wherever they want, especially if a small, intimate wedding. Aloha if you can attend!

[Ceepa]

We would not have had a destination wedding. I wouldn't mind if friends had declined because they could not swing it financially or otherwise, but DH and I both had family members who would not have been able to attend if we had chosen, for example, some tropical locale. In that case, the wedding would not have been as meaningful. We put more weight on those we loved being able to celebrate and share with us than having an international backdrop.

[MamaMolly]

I wouldn't say rude or selfish to have a destination wedding. I'm a big believer in having the wedding you want. I do think the couple would have to understand that people might *dearly* wish to come but can't for a lot of reasons. Saying that someone would come 'if they really wanted to be there' is pretty juvenile IMO.

I voted other.

[hopeful_mama]

I'm an Other. It's perfectly fine - if and only if they're mature enough to be ok with people not coming. Anyone not coming, including parents, grandparents, siblings, first choice for Maid of Honor/Best Man, etc. For whatever reason (or no reason), and not try to guilt them into it. [Personally I also feel they should try to help out meaningful guests for whom it would be a financial hardship, but that may just be me.]

We considered a bit of a destination wedding, 2 hrs from where we live but at a not-cheap location, but ultimately I couldn't do it, it would have been an inconvenience to too many people and my grandmother wouldn't have made it. In my case, her presence meant so much more than the location (which was also special to me).

[California]

It would have been selfish in our case. My grandma was very frail, blind, and wheelchair bound. My mom asked us to consider Grandma's needs in our planning. Would have broken Grandma's heart if she'd missed the event.

[hellokitty]

I see both sides of this issue. Esp if you got married when you were younger and all of your friends were poor and couldn't afford to attend a destination wedding. I see it as something better suited for older, more established couples whose friends are also more established, kwim?

With that said, last wk I was in the shower thinking about who I actually KIT with that attended my wedding. The number of ppl that I still KIT (I got married at 26, so we had a good number of college friends) is pitifully low. Even of those that I still KIT with, I am not that close to many of them anymore, due to geography and/or differences in where we are in life (ie: I am a sahm with 3 kids, some of my friends are still single and career women, I know they won't, "get" me right now).

If I could do it over again, I would have eloped with DH (we actually thought about it at one pt, since my parents and mil were being such PITA with wedding details). I would have considered a destination wedding, except for the fact that my dad's side of the family (who I dislike and barely know) are wealthy and would have made up the majority of the guests who could come, and I did not want that. They still came to my wedding, but at least they did not make up 90% of the guests, kwim? So, I opted against a destination wedding, since I wanted our (poor) college friends to attend a wedding that they could attend. However, we could have saved a lot of $ and grief if we would have just eloped and I don't think that it would have tainted our memories of a special day. I will probably actually recommend to my children that they elope or do a an intimate family destination wedding when/if they get married. My wedding wasn't even that big (130 ppl) nor was it extravagant, in fact, compared to most of the weddings I have attended it was probably the least fancy one, more of what would be described as a quaint. I have been to many weddings which have 250+ guests in over-the-top locations, where the entire event was basically a big $$$ sign. I don't think that it's worth it, I think it's even worse when the big wedding is to coddle the parents' egos. If the couple wants a destination wedding, I say that they should go for it. In the long run it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to matters of importance when it comes to a marriage.

[wellyes]

We put more weight on those we loved being able to celebrate and share with us than having an international backdrop.

Well, I didn't choose my destination wedding for its international backdrop. I wanted to celebrate privately mostly to avoid some very painful mental-illness family drama. Also, to avoid spending thousands of dollars and several stressful months of planning for a party neither DH or I cared out. Instead I chose a place where the wedding ceremony was included with the resort fee - the least stressful option ever. It is not for everyone, but it was perfect for me. I didn't care much where it was.

[MontrealMum]

If the couple want a destination wedding it's not selfish. I think where selfishness comes in is if they expect a ton of people to attend and get mad if they don't.

:yeahthat:

It's not the destination wedding that would upset me, it's the expectation that people ought to attend. And for me that goes for weddings with invited guests that live at a great distance from the wedding site as well. That's what I think is selfish, not a wedding that requires travel.

I know a few people that did destination weddings. After the fact, so I was not invited as I didn't know them then. And to my knowledge they were small intimate affairs. Everybody and their brother that would had been invited had it been held in the bride's hometown were not invited, therefore, not expected to shell out big $$. I'm totally cool with that. Looking back, that sounds fun and part of me wishes we'd done that ;)

The only person I know who had a destination wedding and proceeded to invite tons of people - and expect them to come - is one of my cousins. But she also didn't rsvp or send a gift to any family weddings prior to her own marriage, so I don't think we can really say that she's the queen of etiquette, or general sensitivity.

[HannaAddict]

[QUOTE=Ceepa;3575631We put more weight on those we loved being able to celebrate and share with us than having an international backdrop.[/QUOTE]

Pretty harsh. I don't think having a destination wedding is less meaningful or necessarily even international. That just sounds so judgmental. Perfectly fine not to do it yourself, I didn't have one, but if I did it would have been just as meaningful.

[Ceepa]

Pretty harsh. I don't think having a destination wedding is less meaningful or necessarily even international. That just sounds so judgmental. Perfectly fine not to do it yourself, I didn't have one, but if I did it would have been just as meaningful.

I meant in our case, and I wrote that. I clearly stated that if DH and I had chosen a destination wedding, "for example, some tropical locale" OUR family members (mine and DH's) would not have been able to attend therefore WE put more weight on those WE loved being able to celebrate and share with US than having an international backdrop.

This was in response to OP specifically asking "When you hear someone is going to have a 'destination wedding,' what is your first thought?"

[TxCat]

If the couple want a destination wedding it's not selfish. I think where selfishness comes in is if they expect a ton of people to attend and get mad if they don't.

Fully, fully agree with this. One of DH's good friends got married in Belgrade (married a Serbian woman who had never lived in Belgrade and hadn't even lived in Serbia for close to 20 years, nor did her parents live there - you can tell I'm still irritated about this). We went - great expense, not easy to get to, I was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, etc. The bride was mad that we weren't staying there longer (2 days) and that we left the wedding "early" (we left the reception at 11pm after having arrived for wedding festivities at 1pm, and we didn't stick around for the Sunday morning brunch because it was taking us over a day to get back to the US). We have never been close to this friend since then. Frankly, I think if you choose to get married in a faraway place you should be grateful for the people that show up, end of story.

[BayGirl2]

OK, I voted #1, but I agree that the bride/groom should not expect everyone to attend, that's where the line is. My vote was because I do believe that people who really, really want to attend will find the way.

And given the logistical background of many couples today almost every wedding is a destination wedding for someone. We got married in Napa. Its 1 hour from our house, we stayed up there, but I'd still consider it local. My entire family/older friends had to travel and stay in a fairly expensive place. Not everyone came, and I was ok with that, we wanted to keep it small. I'm sure those who did considered it a destination wedding because its a tourist destination, even though they would have traveled/spent the same if we had it near our house (also a tourist destination). I'm sure someone in DH's family was a bit annoyed about spending $$ to stay in Napa for 2 nights when its an hour away from home, but they all made it happen. We gave them like 12 months warning, if that matters.

To me the wedding choice/plans are up to the couple, they don't have to consider anyone else if they don't want to. If they care greatly that certain individuals attend then they should include that in their decision (sick grandma, for instance). Its common for family members/friends to think the wedding is about them more than it actually is, IMO that's where the line into selfishness gets crossed.

[Gracemom]

I am not a fan. My sister had one. My DH had just gotten laid off, and I told her we wouldn't be able to afford it. She understood, but my mom was adamant that I go (even though I had a baby) and bought tickets without my permission. Argh!

[katydid1971]

I don't think any of your options are a good fit for my feelings.

I have no issue at all with couples having a destination wedding, as long as they don't guilt trip or become upset when people can't afford the trip and/or the time off.

:yeahthat: