Reception Only??

I think it's considered OK etiquette-wise to invite some people to the party, since it's going to be a very intimate ceremony in a remote location. (If you had 100 at the ceremony then 200 at the reception, that would be a different story.)

We have a friend who had the same situation for their recent wedding/reception. They included a card with their invitation acknowledging the travel time letting guests know that they understand if they cannot make it to both but preferred guests at the reception over the ceremony to celebrate and have fun and that they would Livestream their ceremony.

View Quoted Comment

This is a great option! I think guests would appreciate this.

View Quoted Comment This is a great idea! Thank you for sharing.

It depends. Some people don’t like ceremonies and don’t see the meaning behind it as important. Others say that is more important than the reception and do get offended when they are invited to the reception only. It really depends. There is no cut and dry answer. If you are worried about costs, a reception is more expensive because you are charged per person. If you are worried about travel, those who want to be there will do whatever it takes to attend and folks travel long distances everyday to get to weddings, so don’t automatically assume that a certain distance is a barrier to attendance. Some people sit that long in rush hour traffic to get 10 miles down the road on a daily basis.
For many decades it actually used to be impolite to be invited to the reception only. If the ceremony was private, there was no reception following for that reason.