Talley Sue has it exactly right, as always. Send invitations, not announcements, to those whom you want to invite. Don't send some "casual" invitations and some "formal" -- all the same, whether or not you think they will attend. Don't overdo it in an attempt to be helpful; it very quickly becomes pushy. I understand that you want to give people plenty of time to plan (and save up). But unless you run with a very wealthy crowd, please understand that very few people will be able to accept your invitation, and don't feel hurt that most cannot. (If they don't, it won't be because you didn't send them enough brochures and stuff early.) I think you can even pretty much figure on only your closest family and friends, and probably relatively few of them. That being the case, it should be easy just to let them know (if they don't already) that the wedding will be in Jamaica and what the date is. I would do this by phone call, a handwritten note, or e-mail, not a printed "pre-invitation" (you save a little money that way, too). You can either ask them if they'd like you to send the info about the resort, or just included it with a letter or as an e-mail attachment. I'm happy for you that some of your friends or relatives (you just said "couples") say they are planning to attend. Expect some drop-off, though. My cousin had his wedding in Kenya (where his fiance's family lived, not just because it was cool), and they sent us all info that did make it seem like the trip of a lifetime. Although several of us said we'd try to come, and we meant it (at least before learning the cost!), in the none of us did. Yes, it would have been amazing. But if I am going to save up that kind of dough, I want it to be for MY trip of a lifetime, not someone else's. Jamaica would be a lot less than Kenya, but it is still an expensive trip for just a weekend (except maybe for Floridians) so you may be contemplating everyone making it a whole week or something. But please understand that few people will be able to arrange their vacation schedules around your wedding plans, and even those who could might prefer to choose their own destinations and arrangements for what will be rather an expensive trip and possibly their only vacation of the year. There is another string going on about destination weddings right now; you might want to check it out. Is there some reason that the ceremony itself, not just the honeymoon, has to be in Jamaica?

Intrestingly, I was reading the big Emily Post's Etiquette (15th edition, which is a few years old now; she's up to the 17th), and it said: "All the members of the bridal party (with the exception of ver young flower girls, pages, or ring bearers), the immediate famliies of the bride and groom, and out-of-town relatives who have arrived for the wedding are invited." Not "sometimes invited"; "are invited." In my two areas (small-town midwest, and big-city NYC), that doesn't happen. She goes on: "if facilities and finances permit, a few very close friends are often included, especially whose who come from a distance." (but then, they'd be "out of town guests," no? I sense some inconsistency) "If the clergyman is a prsonal friend, or comes from out of town, he and his wife should also be invited. "Husbands, wives, fiances, and live-in companions of the attendants go to the rehearsal dinner, but "dates" ar enot included." There are seating diagrams, etc--she treats it much like a big wedding. And though she says 'music and dancing are not at all essential.." she also says "Other[s] [rehearsal dinners] are far more elaborate. A strolling violinist or accordionist may play romantic background music, or there may be a full orchestra and after-dinner dancing." That seems way overboard to me! and, int he section on menu: "when the wedding is large and formal, the style of the rehearsal dinner is too, and the meal compares to that of any formal dinner. However such an elaborate and expensive menu is in no way necessary. If the wedding is informal and nontraditional, the menu should be also." I really disagree w/ the implication that the rehearsal dinner *should* be formal if the wedding is. A contrast in tone is kind of nice. And all this sort of implies a fanciness and a scale that I think is too likely to compete w/ the rehearsal dinner. But I think for our OP, the fact that the hostess is worried about it being too big and too expensive, that recruiting someone else to organize outings, etc., is a better idea.

I rarely disagree with sweet pea, and I don't on almost everything she wrote, except I wouldn't wear a wedding gown, and I don't think your husband should wear a tuxedo (unless it is a black tie party anyway, of course). (I stress that I am thinking of a traditional wedding gown; if you mean a regular dress, even a long white one, that you are planning to wear to your wedding, then wear it, as long as it isn't dressier than what the guests will be wearing, or at least not much -- i.e., if they will be wearing short party dresses, you could go ahead and wear an evening gown, but not if the party is casual or in the daytime.) Your guests won't say anything, but some will be secretly laughing and thinking that you are being kind of silly, and maybe even that "they just really want to have it all -- they didn't care enough about our presence to have the wedding where we could be included, but they still want us to admire them in their finery." This is one of the tricky things about destination weddings; you have to be careful not to be trying to do the same wedding more than one way. But you can have an absolutely terrific party for your home reception, dressy or not as you prefer. Wedding gowns are for weddings, and yours will have been a different day. Wear a smashing party dress or terrific casual outfit, according to whatever kind of party you choose. (I'd rather wear that than a wedding gown any time.) I like the idea of photos or a video from the wedding, but only if (1) either everyone or practially no one (wedding party and close family excepted) at the reception was invited to the wedding -- otherwise you're showing your B-list friends all the fun the A-list had; and (2) if you do a video, have it running on a loop somewhere where people can go and watch all or part of it as they wish; don't sit them down and give a presentation of the film. This is the same issue as the wedding gown; if you want them to see the ceremony, then have them attend it, but don't exclude them and then force them to watch a video or, worse, a reinactment. As to what you should do and what you should have -- well, your imagination is the limit! A reception is a party. So have whatever kind of party suits your personalities, your budget, and your guests' tastes -- anything from a backyard picnic to a white-tie extravaganza. Although I would, as I said above, avoid any type of pseudo-ceremony -- don't fall into the trap of thinking your guests will feel cheated otherwise; they won't -- it would be great to have the same types of toasts and thank-you speeches and, if you have dancing, wedding dances that you would have at any other wedding reception.

Exactly, Lowspark. And you have to be honest, I think. If the man in that Carolyn Hax article had said, "We care about our grandparents, but we care more about having what we consider the 'perfect' wedding," I wouldn't have cared much for his values, but I would have valued his honesty. Though I'm with Gellchom and Tally Sue - his going on about being creative and special don't sit well with me. What I hear more often from people planning destination weddings are justifications. "It's a vacation for everybody," even though, as others have written, it's not much of a vacation if someone else chooses the date, time, destination, and companions. "I know that everyone we're going to invite can afford it," even though the people who say this are simply judging from the size/quality of the guests' house, car, boat, clothes, whatever. "Everyone would have to travel, anyway," even though hotel accommodations in one's hometown are likely to be less expensive than in the romantic resort destinations that are generally chosen for such weddings. (Plus, many families and groups of friends will provide accommodations in their own homes if the wedding is held in the home town of the bride or groom or in the town where they currently live. I know my own circle of friends did this for one another's weddings, and now does it for their kids' weddings.) And when you travel for a wedding, you're likely to stay over just one or two nights, not the longer period that most destination weddings seem to anticipate. I can understand a destination wedding like Scarlett's. If these few friends are the only ones that would have been invited to the wedding anyway, no matter where it was held, and if they could all manage to plan a vacation together and Scarlett and her husband got married in the process, that sounds great. The people who were hurt by not being invited would have been hurt no matter where she held the wedding, because they wouldn't have been invited anyway. Lowspark, I think what people having a reception in the groom's hometown have on their side is tradition. Even if they all lived in the same town, the groom's side sometimes holds a reception for the new couple if the bride's family doesn't choose to invite as many guests as the groom's family would like. Maybe a reception following the destination wedding will become tradition, as well, though (at least to me) it would feel like dividing your family and friends by income (the people who have money go to the destination wedding, the poorer people must content themselves with the home-town reception) rather than by closeness to the bride and groom.