Is it boring to have civil ceremony in same location as reception??

bytheglass

Hi All,
It's extremely early days in wedding planning for me but one thing myself & my partner know for certain is that we want a civil ceremony (ie. not religious).
In your opinion, If we were to have the ceremony followed by the reception in the same hotel would this be a little boring for our guests? I have never been to a wedding like this. But would it also allow for a later wedding? (ie. 4pm?)
Suggestions welcomed on what we might do to add some excitment? & general thoughts on the topic.
Also, what do I do first? Put deposit down on reception? or book the date with the registrar?

mocmo

Hi there,
Myself and my fiance are planning on the same thing (we have just started the planning this week!) and I have no worries about it. I have been to one wedding like this and far from being boring it was really relaxing...no driving from home to 'church' to hotel etc. As guests we just drove to the hotel, checked in and then got ready. The ceremony was in a separate room in the hotel after which everyone moved to the bar for the usual champagne / tea & coffee reception. It also avoids people having to hang around in bad weather (always a possibility in Ireland!) for photos etc. Also as you mentioned the ceremony can be later which is definately a plus...especially if you are the one getting married! I wouldn't worry about it at all...enjoy your planning

How Strange

Thats what we did. We had our ceremony at 3.30pm, it was a winter wedding so just enough time to have some photos taken outside and we had a few glasses of bubbly after. We sat down for dinner at 5pm and went to the bar around 7pm where we stayed til 3am singing and dancing. We had a small wedding, 20 people, so no band etc but it was such a fantastic day/night.

In terms of cost, the venue would probably charge you little or nothing for room hire for the ceremony. I know we got a top end wedding in terms of room decoration and extra little touches and we only spent €2kish in total. We had a small wedding so we went for a 3 course dinner menu rather than a specific wedding menu and the venue were only too happy to do that and they gave us a choice of 2 starters, 2 mains and a vegetarian option. That saved us a lot of money and the food was amazing.

I don't see how it would be boring for your guests especially if you choose the afternoon ceremony; they'd have an hour and half or two hours to relax before dinner. They won't have to get back into their cars and drive to the reception venue which I always find a bit of a pain in the ass as it breaks up the wedding party. If its winter then they can go to the bar for a few drinks and if its summer they can relax outside.

Rew

I've been to 2 weddings that did it. One of them there was big gap between the ceremony and the dinner. Couple headed off to get photos, people didn't know what and when was happening next. Everyone hung out in the bar, some were pretty drunk by dinner others were starving, bar food was available (depending on which member of staff you asked!!) but they couldn't cope with the demand.

This could happen at any type of wedding but I would suggest planning and taking into account the gap between the 2 parts of the day and letting people know what time things are happening.

iguana

I'm going to be very, very blunt. Do you know what I find most boring about almost every single wedding I go to? Mass.

I always, always forget that it's a full mass after the wedding ceremony and get this sickening shock when I realise that after the important part (the vows), there is a whole, hideous mass to follow. I hate it. Perhaps I wouldn't if I was at the wedding of someone who actually genuinely, was devoutly Catholic/Anglican and I knew that the whole shebang had deep meaning to them. But I never, ever have been, it's always been because they like the church, they're keeping their parents happy or "it's the done thing," none of which are a good enough reasons to make a large group of people sit through a mass. (Especially bearing in mind that too many people in this country have very good reason to detest the church and find the hypocrisy very hard to bear.)

Almost everyone is sitting there (or standing/kneeling), bored, chomping at the bit for the wedding to resume. So I think that having a short and sweet civil ceremony at the same venue as the reception isn't even remotely boring, even if that venue was a soviet era office block followed by a meal of boiled cabbage.

krankykitty

Not sure what weddings you've been at before, but at most weddings I've been to, where the ceremony takes place at a different venue, all you're doing in the time between is travelling between church/reg office and the hotel. In this scenario of having the ceremony in the same venue, you'll already be at the hotel which will be convenient for guests and they can then just relax and enjoy the day.

I would however go for a later time of ceremony, ie 3:30 or so, so there won't be too much of a delay until dinner. But that's something I think (as a guest) i'd prefer anyway, even if I did have to move between venues.

kandr10

Hi,

I totally agree with previous posters. It's convenient for most people not to travel. That's the main advantage from my point of view and why we decided to do this when we get married.
As regards which to book first, it's probably best to pencil yourself in with the registrar or else make a provisional booking with the venue. Tbh though, if it's far enough in advance, you should be fine. We booked the venue first, then rang the registrar, subsequently brought the wedding forward and it was no problem for either. Venue then sent off an approval form and we got confirmation. I don't know why we did it backwards, I guess we were lucky it worked out. If I was to go back I'd check the registrar first. Good luck with the planning!

bytheglass

Thanks for all the replies guys,
Iguana thanks for the bluntness, we are not remotely religious even though the partners parents are devout (they made him go to mass every morning before school during lent!) so I'm looking forward to that conversation when we break it to them that 'we won't be doing the done thing'! (NOT)
Yesterday evening we visited the 2 venues we had in mind, it was great to do both in the same day because we knew instantly where we wanted the reception to be so happy days there.
So the hotel we are keen on had their function room set up to do a civil ceremony the next day - picture 100 chairs laid out in the middle of the function room, looked great BUT the dining tables were all pushed to one end of the room, only to be laid out afterwards when the guests are having drinks in the bar. I just didnt fancy the idea of having the ceremony & all the time thinking (there's a glass missing from that table over there, etc etc, simply because you can see them all from where we would be saying our vows).
So then the manager showed us another smaller room which was just off the lobby & GORGEOUS & would be perfect if we only had about 8 ppl (parents, bridesmaid & best man only) - YES! mind made up we thought! The wedding invites will state 'You are invited to the wedding celebration of...' & we can get away with the intimate 8 at the actual ceremony & then meet everyone in the bar/function room/deck/lobby (details would be ironed out) afterwards.
But no! this lovely intimate room is just off the lobby & has a big glass door - most of our reception guests (Im basing this on 100) would be travelling & booking into the hotel prior to say 5pm dinner so they could easily spot us either mid ceremony or in & around the lobby before we go off for photos - Wouldnt that make guests feel awkward?

bytheglass

Thanks for that kandr10, will definately take your advice & check out dates with registrar first before confirming venue

Beruthiel

bytheglass wrote: »

Also, what do I do first? Put deposit down on reception? or book the date with the registrar?

I had my ceremony in the venue we were eating in.
It was a wonderful day.

I asked both the solemniser and the hotel if they had X date free.
We had the ceremony @ 4.30 and dinner @ 6.00

newbridgemom

as a photographer, i would agree with the above poster about finding something for guests to do while pictures are being taken. i did a wedding at Fallon & Byrne in the summer and the ceremony was around 2 or 3pm. after the ceremony at f&b, which was beautiful btw, the couple had a rented out the function room at the Stag's Head Pub down the street. guests went there, we went to take pics around dublin, then headed back to the pub before having to go back to f&b for dinner. i got lots of great pics of people in the pub too.

krankykitty

Is some sort of drinks reception after the ceremony (and while the couple are getting pics taken) not enough though? At any wedding I've been at where you've had to attend the church, then go to the hotel, that's exactly what's happened - at the hotel the wedding guests are normally in the bar or in a separate room being served drinks. So I would imagine it would run the same if the ceremony was in the hotel, with the exception of having to travel between venues.

Seriously, the guests are probably mostly going to be adults and will be able to work out some things to do for an hour or so :cool:

newbridgemom

If you are having a later reception, the drinks reception is probably the way to go. This will be in the same place as the ceremony and dinner. But if you are having an earlier ceremony for some reason, the pub idea works out well. Especially if you have people traveling from abroad who are looking to experience as much of Ireland as they can. The pub is a fun diversion. It probably costs as much as the champagne reception anyway.

krankykitty

Just to clarify, when I said "drinks reception" in the most part, this was merely being brought into the bar of the hotel/separate room where the guests were - you didn't necessarily have anything other than tea and coffee served, and it was up to guests to go to the bar to get their own drinks. But it kept them all together and in the same place, if you know what I mean!

I think even if you don't arrange something, the guests will make their way to the bar and end up mingling etc anyway.

Crafty-Chel

We recently had a civil ceremony and we could have had it in the same place as the reception but decided not to as there was only 14 ppl goin to the ceremony and it would alot of waiting around for pple to arrive for dinner, so we had the two separate and when we arrived at the venue all the guests were there to greet us which was nice... everyone was delighted that they didnt have to go thru a boring mass ceremony and they were in no rush to get ready ect as the wedding itself didnt start till 6....

Its nice to keep them separate because after the ceremony ppl take there time going to the reception and you get time to go and have so photos taken and it breaks up the day....

stargirl.gra

We had a civil ceremony and reception in waterford castle in november and it was perfect. The thing we did differently was we had our photos taken before the ceremony.the reason for this was we wanted a 4pm ceremony so we'd lose light for photos but also we'e been to so many weddings this year where after the church at lik 2pm we'v found we had to get food on the way to the reception as we wudnt be eating until 6 and its too long a wait. I also find it so disjointed when u arrive to the reception but the bride and groom are off having photos. So we had our photos at like 2.30ish and we just asked bridal party and immediate family to be ready and it was lovely it kinda calmed everything and then we had our ceremony at four and were able to mingle with guests straight away. We were called for dinner maybe 5-5.30 and eating at 6 id say. Also most of our guests were so impressed with the civil ceremony and the venue.we had the castle exclusively and ppl loved that they came there and knew everyone there was a guest at the wedding and they didnt have to go travelling anywhere.