It seems that weddings are stressful and expensive, and moving them to another location just introduces another level of stress and expense, plus leaves you at the mercy of your parents and new in-laws. Much better to enjoy something simple at home with many friends, then a really relaxing honeymoon away from it all- especially parents and new in-laws.

Actually, my daughter did a destination wedding to keep from hurting the feelings of people who might have wanted to come to the wedding, but that she didn't want to invite!

It was a great way to combine the wedding and honeymoon, which ultimately was less expensive and our families enjoyed a great week together.

In answer to your question, I don't know where your son would be traveling from, but when we were planning our daughters, we looked at Hawaii, Mexico and the Caribbean. Although, she ultimately chose St. Thomas, we found that Mexico had the best deals.

I've been to three now. Two out of the country. Of course, it's lovely to be in a "vacation" spot, but it also presumes that that particular spot is where most of the guests want to have their vacation that year. (Except for those for whom the expenses are inconsequential.)

I'll never forget my niece's comment about her destination wedding. When asked if she thought her friends would be able to afford to come to her southern Mexico wedding, her response, completely seriously, was: "I figure I'll find out who my real friends are." ???????

I am still trying to get my head around that.

This topic has been discussed at great lengths on this board. I am also opposed to destination weddings, unless you are only expecting immediate family to attend. Like others posters mentioned, you can't expect your friends to sacrifice their hard earned and few and far between vacation days to go to your wedding. It is narcissistic, and probably a result of the knot.com, bridezilla, martha stewart weddingization of American wedding culture.

So many and varied responses to this question. We have a great piece of land at our home and could do a lovely wedding and reception here. We haven't offered as it would be be only fit a smallish group here. This appears to be what the "kids" WANT at this point so I was just looking for some tips. I did our wedding the way we wanted it(sort of)--with great deference to my parents preferences. It was a fine wedding but in retrospect maybe if we did it "our" way it might have been very different 37 years ago. The world now is a very different place--our children have had very different yet somehow much better education and upbringing than we did--different values etc. This is where we are coming from folks!! If the relationship looks good, shows passion and commitment--just please God hope it works--and they are willing to put the effort and love into it and MAKE it work!! As his parents have! The wedding day wherever it happens is only the first of a zillion days of togetherness with all the good and bad thrown in..

To answer the OP's question, Palace takes reservations as far as a year out. We booked 11 months ahead of time and I'm sure could have much earlier.

To the others who are "opposed", I assure you that no one "expects" their friends to attend. You don't do a destination wedding if you're going to have hurt feelings about people not being able to make it, for whatever reason. My friends would have had to travel across the country for a domestic wedding, so I'm not quite sure what the difference is.

Our mindset was we were ok if it was just the two of us there. We invited others, and were thrilled to have people join us if they were able. The more the merrier, and our guests loved it (or else they're fabulous liars).

Just because it's not what you chose to do, doesn't make it narcissistic.

We were married in Hawaii in '05. It was a small (20 people) affair, but everyone who went loved it.
It does cause an uproar, that's for sure. For us, because we live in a city where none (not one!) of relatives live, it wasn't such a big deal, though traveling to Hawaii is a much larger expense than almost anywhere on the mainland. And, as I noted, the families were not overly happy and urged reconsideration. We did reconsider, a lot, but in the end, kept it in Hawaii. While we don't regret any part of the wedding, we do have some regrets about people who couldn't be there.

My daughter decided against a destination wedding because of the isuues listed. She picked a locale with both sentimental value (my parents were married there in the 40's), and it's central location for the mainly California guests.

The argument frequently given for destination weddings is that for most people today, they must travel to any wedding - few of us stay put into our adult years.

However, the argument against is that most destination weddings are at places that involve more distance and cost than regular places that people live.

The couple should get married wherever they want - unless your family and friends are very affluent the 30-50 guests cited is likely unrealistic. But be aware that some will be hurt or sad that they could not attend - and be uncomfortable saying it is about time and finances.

Something people rarely think of is hoiw stressful it is to get married anywhere - and to make all arrangements long distance and reserve all sorts of things sight unseen can be difficult. While many "destinations" have packages you can book, many people want a stamp of individuality to their wedding.

If it is outside US, everyone must also have/get/pay for a passport these days.

We also got married in a city where NOT ONE of our relatives lived - just us. Not either set of parents. But our friends were there. Getting married in home city of either of us was not practical for a number of reasons. We got married where we lived - making a destination for everyone, but a driveable (4 hours) destination for many. We were better able to entertain our guests, actaully see, taste, hear venue, food, entertainment - and got to have brunch with out of town relatives the next AM.

First of all, may your son and his fiancee have a wonderful wedding and a wonderful life together! I do suggest that they reconsider having a destination wedding if that precludes anyone from attending; my daughter-in-law's brother had one and his own mother could not attend (although others offered to pay her way, she chose not to take them up on their offer or to take the time off work that attending would have required). Why not save the destination for the honeymoon? If you want people to join you on your honeymoon, then fine; that way, you can use the wedding as the inclusive celebration that weddings have traditionally been, and still travel with the companions you choose afterwards, with no one feeling slighted. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Older family members often are the ones who have to pass on destination weddings (I'm talking about the out-of-country weddings.) My mother had become very frail by the time her first grandchild (whom she helped to raise) got married -- in Hawaii; there was no way she could travel that far at that point. If he'd married in California, where he lives and where the majority of his family is, Mom could have attended.

Some people choose to have a destination wedding b/c they don't want everyone coming...

nma: Exactly. People choose destination weddings for a variety of reasons.

And if you choose a destination wedding, you should NOT expect anyone to attend.

My BIL and his fiance chose a destination wedding precisely because they really didn't want many to attend. My new SIL has lupus and is uncomfortable being around a lot of people becuase of the side effects of her disease and medications. Also, fighting, divorced parents were an issue. They just didn't want the hoopla and drama that a wedding at one of their hometowns would've caused.

nma, totally understood. But many still send announcements, even invitations...to which the expected response is a gift.

Much to our surprise our daughter decided on Hawaii for the locale of what will be the second wedding for both. She has been there once and he has not although he has an aunt who still lives there. They chose a small wedding party and location over another big wedding and worry about every little thing.

According to Emily Post, an invitation to a wedding does not obligate one to a gift, but rather a card or note of best wishes. Trolling for presents is frowned upon. Close friends and relatives may feel obligated, but you do not have to respond with a gift for every invitation!

sylvia, that may be so theoretically, but not practically. I.e., if grandmother and great aunts cannot attend, do you honestly think they would are not obligated (or would not want) to send a gift?

I guess my problem w/the whole "far" destination wedding is that it does exclude a definite portion of people...and one can pretty much predict who those people will be. Which leads one to speculate that the couple really did not want those people there.

With a more "home-based" wedding, there will, of course, be a certain number of people unable to attend, but the bride and groom can't so easily (and obviously!) predict the no-shows.

Whatever happened to eloping???

Ag3046: "the wedding is for their guests, not for them"?

Since when? The wedding day should be all about them. It's their special day - not the guests. If they choose to do a destination wedding, then that is their choice. Family and friends can choose to come, should they want to. You see these shows these days showing how stressful a wedding can be adn I always wonder why it needs to be that way. It's a day you as a couple will remember forever. It's all about the couple and what is important to them, not the guests.

maria_so:

Our wedding was about the guests that came to celebrate with us and made us all feel happy to be together, and to share in our excitement of our new life.

Our honeymoon was about us, not the wedding.