We are debating the pros and cons of the ceremony taking place either at a church vs. on location. We are getting married at the Old Field Club which has a beautiful area for the ceremony next to a lake but I am curious about the differences in price, flowers, limos and some other factors.
What are your thoughts?
asg450
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
I've heard having your ceremony and reception at the same location can save you money.
Congrat's on your engagement.
JenBill61210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
it really depends on if having the ceremony at a church is something that is important to you... to me it is, but the cost would be the same for between the church donation and ceremony fee/officiant.
JAAMS
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
It depends on the place... I've been to RH's that have ceremony fees as high as $750 and as low as nothing.
I think ultimately it is probably cheaper (usually) to do it at the RH, but if the church is very important to you, that is probably the more important consideration.
bride2b57
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
As someone who recently debated this myself, I can say that the cost for us at our location was MORE than at the church. I agree that your decision does depend highly on what is important to you. In our situation, the ceremony fee was 500, the officiant was around 500, the music was about 300 and you have to remember decor. You are likely to spend more money on decor for an outside wedding versus and inside. Another thing to consider, is if you are planning on an outside wedding and it rains...can your decor be used inside. We decided on the church because it meant a lot to our families and was more cost effective for us.
M_and_J
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
It is costing us more to get married at the RH
geegee827
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
It was going to be more expensive if we had the wedding at the RH.
Aside from the ceremony location fee, there's decorations, an officiant and music. Also we would then need to extend the CH because we want to attend our CH and it's either take pictures before the ceremony or not go to the CH. Even though the limos would be cheaper if we had it at the RH, it still came out to be the more expensive option.
In the long run, we chose having our ceremony at the church for religious reasons and $$ wasn't really a consideration though.
sophisticat13
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
If getting married at a church is impt to you and/or your FH, then I would do it...but other than that it's a lot easier to get married at the RH. Less money for transportation since you can just get a pick up and drop off rather than paying a limo by the hour; and you will already be there (and so will your guests!!). We got married at our RH and were very happy we did...but this is entirely up to you and your FH
Nina1010
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
I agree with some of the other posts. It depends on what your suggested donation is with your church vs the ceremony fee at your RH. It varies place to place. Also, if you get married at your RH, you can have your CPS pull double duty at the ceremony (then move to the tables during CH). You may also not need to rent limos...save more there. When you have flowers at the church, usually you donate your flowers too... it would be awkward to transport the flowers. Some officiants are less money than the church as well. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
DKaye09
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
Getting married at the RH will cost you whatever price they charge for ceremony, but you can rid yourself of: *The limo charge- especially if you are getting ready there. *An extra florist charge- If having your ceremony at RH usually the florists use your CP on columns to decorate for the ceremony.
But, it depends on what YOU want, and what's important to the both of you.
maybebride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
Aside from money issues, think schedule.
If you get married at your RH, cocktail hour immediate follows the reception. So either you have to take all your photos during CH, or before the ceremony.
It makes the day shorter for you, because you don't have to go to the church, then the RH. It may be a little more convenient for some guests to have everything in 1 spot.
You really need to figure out what is right for you and FH. If you have already chosen your location, then talk about it with the people there is terms of price and other options - such as can you get there early to take photos before?
Espo22
Posted:
Member since
Re: Ceremony at Church Vs. On Location
A ceremony at an Rh can be just as much if not more, you still pay a ceremony fee at an rh and then have to pay officiant fee's.
So money shouldn't be the deciding factor bc can be the same about. I think THIS is the most important part of your day, and the decision should just come from the heart. Is it important for you to get married in a church? if so then do that, its a personal decision and you should do what means most to the two of you. Yeah there are pros and cons for both, but i think this decision is more about what you believe and what holds importance in your life.
