Stupid people who can't read wedding invitations

[jeevmon]

So, the bride-to-be and I sent out our wedding invites several weeks ago. We addressed some invitations just to "Name." We thought that this meant that it was an invitation just to that person, and that they would know to ask before inviting a guest. Others were to "Name & Guest." This would be for those who we knew were seeing someone seriously, generally either living together or engaged, but where we did not necessarily know that person's name. Still others were to "Mr. & Mrs. Name" (or to Mr. Name and Ms. Moniker, where the wife kept her name). These were to the couple. Yet another group was addressed to "The Name Family," which meant spouses and their children.

We have now had several people who just assumed without asking that invitations addressed to "Name" meant "Name & Guest," and didn't even call before RSVPing with a guest. The space we're getting married in is not that big, and we have a high proportion of single friends. If they all bring guests, we may overflow the space.

Why is it that people assume without asking that an invitation includes an implied guest? I mean, if it's not addressed to "Name & guest", at least have the courtesy to ASK if it's OK to bring one! Don't just assume that we keep track of all of your lives well enough to know that you have someone new in it.

ARGH!

[Gundy]

::recently engaged Gundy plugs her ears and chants la la la la la::

[Indygrrl]

I would assume that if someone sent me a wedding invitation that they wouldn't expect me to come alone. I wouldn't say they were stupid because they made that assumption.

Then again, I haven't been to very many weddings. I don't know what the etiquette is.

[Magickly Delicious]

Whoa. If the wedding invite doesn't say "and Guest," you don't bring a guest. Case closed.

For your sake, I hope this is the last snafu that happens in your wedding planning.

[Ferret Herder]

The etiquette (though I might have to check my book on this) is that if you are married (or the gay/lesbian version thereof, legally binding or not), engaged, or living together in a romantic relationship, your SO should be invited. If their name is then not on the invite, it is recommended to call to inquire whether there was an oversight.

If the couple puts "and guest" on the invitation, then you can bring a guest even if you're not in such a relationship.

Invitations are only applicable to those whose names are on them. The above restrictions also apply to your children, if any - if they are not named, they should not be assumed/considered to be invited. (Adult children should get their own separate invitations.)

[Dinsdale]

I agree that invites only apply to named individuals.

I also suggest, however, that in many if not most cases it might be somewhat inconsiderate to expect a guest to attend by themself.

[Kalhoun]

Ditto Dinsdale.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Originally posted by Indygrrl
I would assume that if someone sent me a wedding invitation that they wouldn't expect me to come alone. I wouldn't say they were stupid because they made that assumption.

Then again, I haven't been to very many weddings. I don't know what the etiquette is.
Er -- if you're single or in the early stages of a relationship, why wouldn't they expect you to come alone? I've never been able to figure out why anybody would want to bring a casual date to a wedding; ceremonial occasions are boring if you don't know the people involved, and it leads to all sorts of awkwardness if your date gets the idea you're dropping hints.

[porcupine]

jeevmon, you're right - your guests are being rude.

Etiquette is that a wedding is not somewhere that you bring a casual date, unless the couple makes it clear that it's ok (by including "guest" as jeevmon did or didn't as the case may be). From Emily Post (http://www.emilypost.com/etiquette_tips/tips_wedding_now_what.htm): Respect your invitation.
Do not ask your host or hostess if you can bring a date or your children. The invitation will be addressed to the people invited. If you may bring a guest, your invitation will read “Mr. John Phelps and guest.” If your children are invited, they will either receive their own personal invitations or their names will be listed under yours on the envelope. This is not the time to question your host’s decision, to argue or to beg for an exception. And, please, do not add their names to a reply card!

[Ike Witt]

The question now is, how does jeevmon get these extra guests uninvited? And do it in a way that doesn't make everybody angry.

[GaWd]

jeevmon-

If you think you're pissed now, just wait.

My wife and I sent out our invites in June. Just like yours, they were clear- "so-and-so", "so-and-so and guest", "so-and-so and names of children", Etc. Cool, right? Easy to understand, right?

Well, very few auto-RSVP'd additional people on their invites, but they sure showed up with them. Here's more from the "Wedding Files":

-Some guests brought children when not invited.
-Some guests RSVP'd with children and didn't bring them
-Some guests RSVP'd with a guest and showed up alone.
-Some guests RSVP'd alone and brought a guest.
-Some guests RSVP'd alone and didn't show.
-Some guests RSVP'd their whole family and didn't show.

The above situations will end up costing you $$, but as we found out in the case of our wedding, it almost balances out between those who don't show and those who overshow, and you'll only get burned for a hundred or two$$.

Bottom line: Not everyone is as kind, courteous, or contientious as you are or would expect them to be. Some of them will be close to you, others not so close. Some will be shocking, others not so shocking.

Sam

P.S.- Just make sure your family and guests don't act like this or your wife won't ever forget it :D

[porcupine]

Geez, Gawd, that's some list. Didn't anyone RSVP and send the neighbors instead? Or how about bringing their family pets? I think that's what I'll do next time I'm invited to a wedding. ;)

[Scarlett67]

Just popping in to point out that the actual correct way to invite someone's SO is not "and guest," but rather to find out that person's name and send them an invitation.

Re single invitees: If you are offended at being invited as a single, you are free to politely decline the invitation. Others have correctly pointed out that the guest list is not open to expansion, and that a wedding is properly not an occasion for a casual date.

[Elenfair]

Go on. Go to: http://www.etiquettehell.com

and read the wedding etiquette section.

Die laughing at the horror stories.

You'll feel much better...

[GaWd]

Scarlett-

If people had "official" SO's(fiancee's, spouses, domestics, established long-term BF/GF), they were invited by name-as etiquette dictated. "Guest" was reserved for those with frequent SO changes, or those we did not know names for or had not been introduced to but knew that they existed.

Sam

[GaWd]

Geez, Gawd, that's some list. Didn't anyone RSVP and send the neighbors instead? Or how about bringing their family pets? I think that's what I'll do next time I'm invited to a wedding.

What can I say, people are assholes! :)

Sam

[sunfish]

My sister faced the same problem when she got married - the place was small and the list had been tightly restricted for budgetary reasons (pissing my mother off to no end, since she had many more she wanted to invite, but sis and bro-in-law were paying), so single people who did not have long term SOs were not invited to bring guests. Some RSVP'd that they were bringing guests anyway. My sister being my sister, she promptly called them and said, so very sorry, but we have limited space and if you bring a guest we won't be able to accommodate them. Some complained but most apologized, and I don't think anyone skipped the wedding out of pique.

Frankly, since all the single people were seated together at tables more or less by group - friends from work, friends from college, relatives from each side - everyone had a great time socializing with people they knew. Much better than dragging a more casual date to a wedding (and I've been the draggee on a couple of occasions, so I know whereof I speak).

[Geobabe]

Time was, weddings were considered good places to meet other single people. It's only recently that people have started thinking they have to bring a date.

[alice_in_wonderland]

My understanding is that the only people a bride and groom are obligated to invite, from an etiquette point of view, are spouses or fiances. I believe this is now extended to live-in patners/common law spouses.

Girlfriends/boyfriends can be omitted without fear of an etiquitte gaff, apparently.

As to what to do, jeevmon, I would phone the offenders and explaine the limited space and let them know that extra persons can't be accomodated. Mind you, I'm sort of pushy that way. YMMV.

[Scarlett67]

Originally posted by GaWd
Scarlett-

If people had "official" SO's(fiancee's, spouses, domestics, established long-term BF/GF), they were invited by name-as etiquette dictated. "Guest" was reserved for those with frequent SO changes, or those we did not know names for or had not been introduced to but knew that they existed.

Sam
Understood -- but the officially correct method still stands. All wedding guests are properly invited by name. Frequent SO changes can be considered "casual dates" and not appropriate for a wedding. If you don't know an SO's name, no matter how long term, the correct procedure is still to call and find out their name. You could even ask your "primary guest" whom they would like to bring -- it might be a sibling, child, or Army buddy, and not even an SO.

Of course, you are free to publish your wedding invitation in the local paper, or make photocopies and staple them to light poles. But I'm just stating the Miss-Manners-correct way.

[GaWd]

Fuck'em. They're lucky they got invited at all.

I invited a few people as "guest", and I do mean FEW. Stop being a PITA, Miss Manners. We were Etiquette correct, anally so, IMO.

for etiquette's sake

Sorry Miss Scarlett Manners.

Sincerely,

Sam

[Scarlett67]

Ah, I see. Your interest in etiquette surely does show.

I was not making judgment on your method, just adding some information (from an etiquette authority) to the discussion. I apologize for attempting to eradicate a bit of ignorance, as it was apparently not welcome in this thread.

Please carry on.

[Elza B]

Oh, God.

Why did I come in this thread?

I'm off to pop a Xanax and obliviously glance through wedding favors on WeddingChannel. Not even gonna think about this happening....not gonna happen....

(By the way, Jeevmon - good luck. The same thing happened at my brother's wedding in June, and I'm expecting similar things to happen at my own next September.)

Ava

[mrsface]

At the risk of shattering what seems to be (almost) a consensus...

Wait a minute...

Who exactly is doing who a favour here? When you hold a wedding, you are asking friends and relatives to make time to celebrate YOUR happiness, bring YOU presents, and generally help YOU to have a wonderful time. In my view, they should be allowed to bring who the hell they want. The quid pro quo is that if the guest is "unexpected", they bring something - wine or food - to keep the party flowing.

When I got married, I didn't really expect anyone to turn up. But they did, and as well as all the faces I expected, there were crowds of people I'd never heard of. Yes, we "overflowed the space" and had a great time. It's supposed to be a party, not a military manoeuvre.
Don't even get me started on present lists...

Oh, and have a nice day!!

[CrazyCatLady]

This is probably a hijack, but I have a question for those like Dinsdale who talk about it being inconsiderate to invite someone alone. Why would that be inconsiderate? It's a gathering of family and friends. If you need to bring a date to have fun at such a gathering, you should probably stay home in the first place, IMO.

As for the OP, you need to call them now and explain that you're so very sorry, but you have very, very severe space constraints, and you just can't accommodate add-ons. It's such a shame, and if only you could, and all that crap. Be a wall, man. You'll have to stand firm in the face of offers to stand in the back, bring their own chairs, and god only knows what-all else. A polite and gentle, but very firm, "I'm so sorry, but we just can't," is going to be your best friend through this.

I've even known some people to use the tactic of making it sound like the misunderstanding is their own fault. You know, "Oh, I'm sorry, I just couldn't find a way to explicitly say "No guests" without it sounding like I was specifically excluding Soandso. I was trying to avoid hurting people's feelings, and I guess I just wasn't clear enough. I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding." This is usually segued into the above space constraint speech. This tactic allows the cretin to save face, while smoothing said cretin down and defusing arguments about whether or not Soandso can come.

[Sinshine]

A very good friend of mine pulled a really clever manoevre, in my books: open ceremony, reception by "specifically named invitation only." If your name was not on the invitation, you were welcomed at the ceremony, and thank you so much for coming.

In this day and age, fewer and fewer couples actually need the wedding gifts they receive in order to get their households functional. Good thing, too - the haul has never been very reliable in the "useful" category. (My mother's collection of napkin rings and swan-shaped salt-cellars comes to mind. She wanted pots and pans, and got finicky things for napkins and salt.)

Bottom line: your wedding, your bill, your way. Oh - and remember to eat something at dinner time.

[Essured]

I agree with CCL on the action you should take regarding the extras.

I can't believe anyone for one second thinks it's OK to bring someone that wasn't specifically invited. Actually, I can believe it, and it disgusts me.

Once again : If your name is not on the invite, you aren't welcome at the event. That includes your kids, your casual fling or even your spouse. If you're offended, your choices include talking to the couple about it or refraining from attending, not showing up with who you thought "should've" been invited. That's not your call to make.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally posted by mrsface
When I got married, I didn't really expect anyone to turn up. But they did, and as well as all the faces I expected, there were crowds of people I'd never heard of. Yes, we "overflowed the space" and had a great time. It's supposed to be a party, not a military manoeuvre.
People not showing up to my wedding - after some of them had begged and pleaded me into adding more guests that they had to bring - cost me hundreds of dollars in extra catering charges. If extra people had shown up it could have gotten us busted for fire codes and we literally wouldn't have had enough places to seat people.

Just like if I'm throwing a regular party at which I'm providing food and sending out invitations, I expected people to RSVP for my wedding, and to not invite extras unless it's obvious that I've made an oversight, in which case they should contact me before assuming.

[MaddyStrut]

The absolutely worst dates I have had are those where I've been the "and guest" of someone that I was casually dating. You're not really one of the crowd, not in on the stories and jokes, and the only other people in your predicament are the other "and guests."

On the other hand, I have had fantastic times at wedding where I've gone single and others have as well. I can only see it being uncomfortable if I were the only single person there. I've met some fun men there too! They look so nice all dressed up--and I'm feeling much more confident when I'm all dressed up myself!

Unless I'm seeing someone really seriously, I don't bring a date to most family get togethers such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, graduations, etc. I don't see why weddings have to be different. Plus, sometimes in the beginning of a relationship, the last thing I want to put into someone's head is the thought of a wedding!

[Geobabe]

Originally posted by mrsface
Who exactly is doing who a favour here? When you hold a wedding, you are asking friends and relatives to make time to celebrate YOUR happiness, bring YOU presents, and generally help YOU to have a wonderful time. In my view, they should be allowed to bring who the hell they want. The quid pro quo is that if the guest is "unexpected", they bring something - wine or food - to keep the party flowing. Um, what? A wedding isn't a freakin' keg party. It's not a potluck either, unless the couple has designated it so. The couple most certainly has the right to limit the guest list, since they (or their families) are the ones paying for the damn thing. There's no such thing as an inalienable right to attend a party.

[moi]

Originally posted by mrsface
When I got married, I didn't really expect anyone to turn up. But they did, and as well as all the faces I expected, there were crowds of people I'd never heard of. Yes, we "overflowed the space" and had a great time. It's supposed to be a party, not a military manoeuvre.

When I got married, it was a special event that I wanted to share only with those closest to me. Not strangers.

For those with larger weddings or financial considerations, the couple may also not want to pay for strangers.

[GaWd]

Scarlette,

You are correct, I have NO interest in etiquette-my time is done.

The problem I have with your brand of "ignorance eradication", is you are ignoring the fact that there are many, many pools/opinions and autorities on etiquette. I assure you that everything done on our invites were cleared with by "Authorities". You come off as trying to prove a point(rather stubbornly, I might add) rather than offering a bit of etiquette advice.

I'm sorry our use of "Guest" offends your more sensitive side.

Regards,

Sam

[thatDDperson]

Maybe Miss Scarlette needs to understand that all wedding etiquette is regional, and And Guest is much more appropriate that some of the possibilities. My niece sent her father an invitation to her wedding addressed to Sperm Donor and The Woman of the Week.

It was appropriate, if not tasteful.

[Eva Luna]

Ummmm, not to risk pissing jeevmon off any more than he is, but as someone who is apparently his only single friend who understood how the reply card worked (and mailed it back! I must get points for that, right?), perhaps I can elucidate this situation further.

Enclosed in the invitation was a cute little reply card, which, at the bottom, stated "Number of guests __"

Now I interpreted that as meaning that families with kids wouldn't necessarily have all the kids listed by name, or that some family members (but not all ) might attend, so the hosts would need a specific headcount. Other wedding invitations I've received recently have had slightly different wording, i.e. "I will/will not be attending," and respondents circle one.

One might also do well to keep in mind that individual invitation recipients have no idea about the specific verbiage used to invite other individual recipients, and you have a potential recipe for a great deal of confusion.

That said, I can understand all the frustration, especially at those guests who have decided to bring a casual (or even a platonic) date. I don't understand the desire to bring someone to a wedding with whom you are not seriously involved. And hey, I'm hoping there will be a single guy or two there myself...

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Scarlett67
Just popping in to point out that the actual correct way to invite someone's SO is not "and guest," but rather to find out that person's name and send them an invitation.

<snip>

But I'm just stating the Miss-Manners-correct way. Scarlett, perhaps it was merely an oversight, but you seem to have missed the post above by our gentle friend, porcupine, wherein she quotes the esteemed etiquette expert, Emily Post as saying, with regard to wedding invitations, "If you may bring a guest, your invitation will read “Mr. John Phelps and guest.”" To be sure I wasn't pointing out out-dated information, I checked the copyright on that site and found it to be this year. Additionally, the most recent publication date on the book from which this advice came is 2001.

Certainly you are well within your rights to abide by the rules of etiquette with which you feel most comfortable. However, it is clear that there are dissenting views amongst the leading authorities on this subject.

Ignorance is not always where you expect it.

[Tamex]

Ya can't win, I tell ya. I've gotten wedding invitations that don't mention my daughter, so we show up without our daughter, and the bride and groom come up and say, "Well, why didn't you bring your daughter? Of course she was invited!" :smack:

I've just gotten a strange one where apparently kids are allowed at the ceremony, but the reception is "adults only" (I don't get it either. I thought that the reason for not inviting kids to weddings is because they could "ruin" the ceremony.) Given the difficutly of arranging babysitting in a town where every one you know is going to be at this wedding, we decided to decline outright. What do they expect you to do with your kids during the reception--stuff them in a closet?

[CrazyCatLady]

I think I can explain that one, Tamex. A lot of receptions, especially for evening or late afternoon weddings, are expected to run very late, and nobody wants to deal with cranky kids up past bedtime, nor does the couple want everyone leaving early because it's time to put said kids to bed.

The bride may have no particular worries about kids acting up during a 20-minute ceremony, but quite a few worries about somebody getting out of hand during a 4-hour reception. Or the church where the wedding is being held doesn't allow you to have a no-kids ceremonies (I've heard of that and stranger rules on various wedding-planning boards). Or the couple doesn't feel kids should be around the level of partying they expect at the reception. Or there are lots of insufferable teenagers they don't want there, who wouldn't necessarily be excluded by a no-kids rule. Or they don't feel like paying for meals the kids will pick at.

I've seen and heard lots of reasons for open ceremonies and adults-only receptions. Personally, I think it makes at least as much sense as the Northeast tradition of inviting people to bits and pieces of the festivities.

[kung fu lola]

Originally posted by Goo
Once again : If your name is not on the invite, you aren't welcome at the event. ..... That includes your kids, your casual fling or even your spouse. If you're offended, your choices include talking to the couple about it or refraining from attending, not showing up with who you thought "should've" been invited. That's not your call to make.
(emphasis mine)

Let the record show that ettiquette compels couples to invite the spouses and live-in partners of their guests (http://www.blissezine.com/weddingforums/wedfrm_faq.asp#guest). So if you are married and you recieve a wedding invitation addressed only to you, the to-be-marrieds are the ones in the wrong.

[Shade]

It's a bit late now, but would it be etiquettely acceptable to mention on the invitation (or accompanying letter) something like

"If we've forgotten to invite someone, please ring us so we can send another invitation"

The idea being that people with genuine SOs who you didn't know about can bring them if you decide, and everyone who says "But you forgot to invite my bets friend's dog" can be told "Oh, I'm so sorry! If we'd known earlier everyone needed to bring their best friend's dog we'd have had a larger hall for the reception. Perhaps we could have dinner next time we're in town, and catch up with the little carpet piddling thing?"

[Jodi]

I think assuming people not listed on the invitation are in fact invited is amazingly rude. But I'm also a little puzzled: Why would you allow some of your (presumably single) friends and family to be "and guest" and then invite some others singly? Surely if you don't know the SO -- and really, if you, a close friend/relation, don't even know their name, how "S" can they be? -- but are willing to allow people to bring unknown guests, then that courtesy would be extended to all? There's no etiquette involved here; I just don't understand the thinking.

I think the idea that people only appear socially in pairs is absolutely ridiculous. If I am invited to a social function by myself, then I go alone, because I don't have any reason to expect to be invited as part of a couple (I don't have an SO). Why would anyone assume that an invitation includes someone not named on it, whom the people doing the inviting either don't know or didn't know well enough/like well enough to invite?

Horrifying.

[Jodi]

Yeah, if I was married or had a long-term SO: (1) I would assume the couple would know him, or at least know me well enough to know of him and (2) would know the convention that you must invite both halves of an established couple to any mixed social event. So I would not hesitate to (3) call up and inquire "You did intend to invite Yorick as well, didn't you?"

In retrospect, the numbering in this post was (4) unnecessary.

[Essured]

Originally posted by kung fu lola
(emphasis mine)

Let the record show that ettiquette compels couples to invite the spouses and live-in partners of their guests (http://www.blissezine.com/weddingforums/wedfrm_faq.asp#guest). So if you are married and you recieve a wedding invitation addressed only to you, the to-be-marrieds are the ones in the wrong.

I didn't state that etiquette demanded or did not demand spouses or live-ins be invited. I didn't mention etiquette anywhere.

My point is, if you're not on the invite, you aren't invited. Yes, it may be rude and against all etiquette rules that A wasn't invited but B was. That doesn't mean that B can just say "Oh well, I'm bringing A anyway, because etiquette says blah, blah, blah." The people on the invite are the ones invited. Period. If you have any queries, consult the couple, don't just show up with who you think should've been invited. That's just arrogant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Bad News Baboon]

Originally posted by Eva Luna

Enclosed in the invitation was a cute little reply card, which, at the bottom, stated "Number of guests __"


If I read that right, that was inclosed in jeevmon's invite?
If so, I can see why people are inviting dates!


I also have to make this point in regards to Tamex's post.
If you are they type of person that doesn't follow etiquette on a regular basis...
or someone who always offers an open invite (it's a bar-b-q! bring all your friends!), it may confuse people when all of a sudden you are being strict with your list. I am NOT saying that this is ok, but I can see where a guest would think: "oh, SoandSo is so cool! They always have me bring a date. I am sure this time is no different!" That coupled with a guest line on the reply card... I can see (but not justify) the confusion.

Although there are many thoughts on ettiquette, I agree with Scarlett67.
But then again, I like to know who specifically is coming to my shindigs!

[jeevmon]

Originally posted by Jodi
I think assuming people not listed on the invitation are in fact invited is amazingly rude. But I'm also a little puzzled: Why would you allow some of your (presumably single) friends and family to be "and guest" and then invite some others singly? Surely if you don't know the SO -- and really, if you, a close friend/relation, don't even know their name, how "S" can they be? -- but are willing to allow people to bring unknown guests, then that courtesy would be extended to all? There's no etiquette involved here; I just don't understand the thinking.


The cases where the "and guest" convention were used were fairly limited. In almost all the cases, they were people that I knew had significant others, but didn't know their names. They were friends, but not necessarily very close ones, or people that I felt obligated to invite for one reason or another. In a couple of cases, I knew the first name but not the last, and therefore thought it would be simpler to just use the "and guest" convention because we had a rather tight deadline to get these things out. (And while I did have to call/email to get addresses, I felt it would be kind of tacky to ask who their SO was, since for all I knew, they may have broken up since the last time I got an update.)

And, as far as Eva Luna's point, short of having different reply cards for coupled vs. non-coupled invites, there was no really efficient way to handle it. Invitations are not cheap generally, and the ones we ordered were definitely not. (Though they came out extremely well and we've had tons of compliments!)

[GrizzRich]

Etiquette should be observed at all times; not just on special occasions.

[Elenfair]

About RSVPs...

The only etiquette-safe reason to break one is if you are deathly ill (and I don't mean a cold), you're dead, or if someone close to you has died.

I always found that amusing.

[lieu]

I too am a bit surprised to discover that invitations are sometimes sent out to an individual only, respectfully requesting he come alone. When single, I didn't make a habit of keeping every friend appraised of my current romantic involvement and was thankful that every invitation I can remember did say "and guest", thus negating a potentially awkward situation.

I am aware though that a great deal of effort and some agonizing goes into the list and respectfully accept the fact an oversight is unlikely.

I will say, however, that weddings are an absolutely wonderful event for singles to attend alone. Hands down there's no better place for an unattached person to encounter the most desirable cream of the host's crop of friends. Dressed to the nines and in a festive mood, it's a bachelor and bachelorette paradise.

Congratulations jeevmon. I wish you the very best.

[Aholibah]

Just another Miss Manners fan chiming in. Obviously, America's two leading etiquette authorities differ on the question of the 'and Guest' invitation.


I just wanted to point out that Miss Manners also makes it clear (repeatedly) that the main concern of etiquette is to show consideration for others. I saw nothing in Scarlett67's first post to suggest she was attempting to beat anyone over the head with the etiquette stick -- a practice that Miss Manners herself decries as inconsiderate and rude. Scarlett67 was simply adding the input of another recognized authority (as she herself said, "the Miss-Manners-correct way") to the discussion. I think this was highly appropriate of her and not an occasion for folks to get huffy.


As for the OP, I also will second (third?) CrazyCatLady's excellent advice for dealing with the uninvited.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

GrizzRich brings up an important point, although he may not have meant it this way.

I have known many brides and grooms who in their daily lives never give two fucking shits about Emily Post or Letitia Baldridge or anyone/thing involved with formal etiquette and social niceties. They (like so many of us) go through life happily informal and blissfully ignorant of all the little rules and niceties. We get by without the rules, heathens that we are.

But by god, let those cream-colored invitations arrive in their neat little boxes, and suddenly the future Mr & Mrs. are up in arms about guests who "don't understand etiquette." I find it somewhat hypocritical.

Furthermore, a lot of brides and grooms are perfectly happy to bend traditional rules of etiquette when it doesn't fit their needs. Registering for gifts is poor etiquette, for just one example. But most couples do it, and most guests are grateful for that.

So brides and grooms and parents who are fretting over the guest list: can't you find it in your heart to be a little understanding? Maybe your offending guests *don't* know etiquette. Or maybe they go by the alternative etiquette rules cited above, that significant others are understood to be invited. You just don't know. So have some compassion, and add to your list of tasks "Follow-up to deal with the people who made the wrong assumption." If you've got a limited guest list, so much so that you've had to ask guests to come without dates, then you have to accept that you might have the extra, unpleasant task of gently letting clueless people know that their date isn't invited. It comes with the territory.

[cowgirl]

A note on "and guest" - while I agree that bringing someone you've just started seeing to a wedding is kind of crap, there are some weddings where you just won't know anyone other than the bride/groom. In such a case, it can be a great relief to be able to bring a buddy.

[Cat Whisperer]

Another point regarding uninvited guests showing up that happened at our wedding is that the bride and groom have carefully selected the level of guests; we decided that we were inviting friends and immediate family *only*. I had two pairs of aunts and uncles blow into town the day of the wedding and show up for the wedding uninvited - this was totally unfair to all of Jim's aunts and uncles who weren't invited because we weren't inviting that level of family.

A wedding is not like a big party; for one thing, it's damned expensive (our tiny wedding cost $3000!). For another, there usually has been a lot of thought given to the invitees by the couple that should not be disregarded, even if the reasoning isn't obvious to the casual observer.

[auntie em]

I have just four words:

Thank God for Vegas.

After SkipMagic and I tied the knot, my mom threw a small party for us in her home. We asked for RSVPs to plan for food (which we made ourselves) and the number of (not cheap!) party favors we'd need.

Out of the 20 people invited, we had one who asked to bring an extra person (and then didn't end up coming at all), and one who called my mother to RSVP and informed her that she'd be bringing TWO extra people (and then on the day of the party arrived two people short), explaining that the two people in question were so fond of me that they'd hate to miss a party in my honor.

This is how I know that I never could have survived planning an actual wedding. This kind of shit on a large scale would drive me crazy.

That said, if for some reason I DID have to plan a wedding, I think I'd just put "And Guest" on everyone's invitation (though I was taught that etiquette dictates that you should address each guest by name) to save myself the headache of having to deal with people like the ones in the OP.

I've seen two of my friends go through hell with the same situation, and although I sympathized (as I do with jeevmon), I wondered if it wouldn't have been a better idea (because it would have been easier on both of them) to have just added "and guest" to the invitations for single folks.

[Tamex]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
I think I can explain that one, Tamex. A lot of receptions, especially for evening or late afternoon weddings, are expected to run very late, and nobody wants to deal with cranky kids up past bedtime, nor does the couple want everyone leaving early because it's time to put said kids to bed.

Hmmm...that's never worried anyone in my husband's family before. Either the parents leave early, the kids nap on the chairs, or they join in the polka until midnight! If the kids are cranky, the parents generally leave; if the kids are good, the parents stay. Seems to work.

Maybe Catholic churches don't allow no-kids ceremonies, so this was the next-best compromise for the couple. I know it's their right to invite whomever they want, but, in this case, it means that none of us can go. Oh well.

I had people who RSVP'd and not show up for my wedding because of horrendous weather, and I didn't know I was supposed to hold it against them! I'd rather have them safe and sound than stranded on the side of the road and freezing to death in an attempt to uphold "etiquette"!

[c_goat]

Well I'd rather be called "and guest" than "and escort" as my fiancee's cousin put on the invitation (we were engaged at the time).

I mean maybe escort sounds more fancy, but it also makes it sound as though "you're not invited, we just need you to bring the invited person there".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

We had one of burundi's cousins call to ask if her husband's out-of-town kids could come to the ceremony: they were going to be visiting their dad for awhile, and dad didn't want to leave them back in Ohio when he came down for our NC wedding.

Fine, we said; bring 'em along!

Then they called back and asked whether his out-of country Welsh relatives could come to our wedding; they were also visiting, you see....

I made burundi put a stop to that.

And then one invitation informed us that they would be bringing 43 guests and a pack of hound dogs. We never did figure out which wiseass sent that card back :).

Otherwise, people were very good about attending with the right number of guests. We did our best to be laid-back about the whole thing, and had an absolute blast.

Daniel

[jeevmon]

Originally posted by c_goat
Well I'd rather be called "and guest" than "and escort" as my fiancee's cousin put on the invitation (we were engaged at the time).

I mean maybe escort sounds more fancy, but it also makes it sound as though "you're not invited, we just need you to bring the invited person there".

Actually, I had a different interpretation of "and escort" which was even less complimentary. ;)

[Futile Gesture]

The whole thing is a minefield. By creating three types of cards you are effectively creating three classes of person.

Name & Name - both accepted friends.
Name & Guest - friend with someone you might like to know.
Name - friend either without someone you don't want to know, or just without anyone because you don't think they could get a date.

Whatever happens, the scope for causing offense is endless.

This is why Weddings are evil and best avoided by all.

[Eva Luna]

Originally posted by jeevmon
Actually, I had a different interpretation of "and escort" which was even less complimentary. ;)

Great minds must think alike. ;) Either that, or we've both been browsing the more interesting sections of the Reader.

[BMalion]

Originally posted by thatDDperson
...all wedding etiquette is regional...

...My niece sent her father an invitation to her wedding addressed to Sperm Donor and The Woman of the Week...




What region is this considered good manners?

[GaWd]

I won't explain myself besides pasting some of the text from www.weddingchannel.com which is where a majority of the etiquette subjects we didn't already know came from.

1. Including Partners
...
Envelopes addressed to a single friend may include "And Guest," indicating that he or she may bring an escort or friend. If it is possible to obtain the name of the guest, the name would be included on the invitation to the friend, or a second invitation may even be sent directly to the date at his or her home address instead...

Peggy Post


Now, for a few family members(not friends) whom we didn't know names of SOs, or weren't in any sort of communication with due to certain family dynamics, we used "guest". I'm satisfied with the propriety of its use. I'm sorry some of you aren't.

Sam

[BMalion]

Meanwhile my own wedding horror story...

My soon-to-be mother-in-law decided that we couldn't possibly be serious about not inviting all of her niehbors and friends to our wedding. So she saved us the trouble and printed her own invitations and brought 20 extra people!

She figured it was all right because she brought several foil trays of chip-chop ham on buns and some oreo cookies.

She (mom-in-law) came from a catholic family and seemed genuinely surprised we would skip all the ritual and frippery of a "big catholic wedding". At the rehearsal, which she was not invited to, and not a part of, she kept asking about when she would be escorted up the aisle, lighting candles and what not. I politely told her "Thanks, not necessary" so many times I lost count. By the way, she had not been involved in the planning at all and did not spend a dime, we paid for the wedding ourselves.

So then the ceremony starts, she is seated by an usher, then she gets up, walks to the front of the aisle, walks to the back, and then proceeds to march down the aisle unescorted and seats herself again! I must have mistakenly put on the invite that the wedding would be held in Fantasy-Land.

It's not like we were a young hippy couple or something, we were in our 40's and my wife was widowed. We just wanted a small wedding.

The mind boggles.

[GaWd]

My soon-to-be mother-in-law decided that we couldn't possibly be serious about not inviting all of her niehbors and friends to our wedding. So she saved us the trouble and printed her own invitations and brought 20 extra people!


:eek:

Thank GaWd our Moms are sane...

Sam

[auntie em]

BMalion, GaWd took the :eek: right out of my mouth.

[kung fu lola]

Originally posted by Goo
I didn't state that etiquette demanded or did not demand spouses or live-ins be invited. I didn't mention etiquette anywhere.

My point is, if you're not on the invite, you aren't invited. Yes, it may be rude and against all etiquette rules that A wasn't invited but B was. That doesn't mean that B can just say "Oh well, I'm bringing A anyway, because etiquette says blah, blah, blah." The people on the invite are the ones invited. Period. If you have any queries, consult the couple, don't just show up with who you think should've been invited. That's just arrogant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry, Goo. I thought you were defending the couple's right to not invite half of a married couple and that your post implied that people were justified in doing so.

I agree 100% that crashing a wedding is arrogant. The suggestions in this thread to call the b & g to correct the oversight seem like the most sensible ones.

[DeskMonkey]

Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan

Oh man, wedding etiquette is a nightmare. We finally decided that unless someone in your family is angry at you, your wedding is not legal. After trying our best to please, ours was legalized as well. We were pretty lucky with our RSVP's, though. We let all the single folks know they could bring someone if they wanted, kids were invited, and my in-laws aren't certifiable.

I have known many brides and grooms who in their daily lives never give two fucking shits about Emily Post or Letitia Baldridge or anyone/thing involved with formal etiquette and social niceties. They (like so many of us) go through life happily informal and blissfully ignorant of all the little rules and niceties. We get by without the rules, heathens that we are.

But by god, let those cream-colored invitations arrive in their neat little boxes, and suddenly the future Mr & Mrs. are up in arms about guests who "don't understand etiquette." I find it somewhat hypocritical.


Ain't it the truth!

Having spent some time at a wedding message board during my planning, I've come to the conclusion that weddings bring out the very worst in everyone involved. As much as I enjoyed it, I will never, ever do it again.

[DeskMonkey]

Whoops, only the bolded bit was a quote from Cranky. Is it bad etiquette of me to make a whole other post to point that out? Or would it be rude to let it slide? Oh, I just don't know any more!!

~runs out dramatically waving arms and sobbing like Jan Brady~

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by mrsface
Who exactly is doing who a favour here?
The bride and groom are.

When you hold a wedding, you are asking friends and relatives to make time to celebrate YOUR happiness, bring YOU presents, and generally help YOU to have a wonderful time. In my view, they should be allowed to bring who the hell they want. The quid pro quo is that if the guest is "unexpected", they bring something - wine or food - to keep the party flowing.
This is a social event, not a business deal. There is no "quid pro quo". If you don't think you're being treated fairly at the wedding, maybe you should sue for breach of contract :rolleyes:

Your attitude that honoring someone with your presence is a huge favor, and anyone lucky enough to be so graced should be so grateful as to accept whatever terms you decide upon, is conceited and quite rude.

And if you really feel this way, you shouldn't invite anyone to your wedding. A basic rule of etiquette is that the person extending the favor makes the offer, and the recipient of the favor accepts or rejects it. "Inviting" someone to do you a favor is quite rude.

As for the blissezine article, I find the idea of "mandatory" invitations silly. And while you should not ask the bride and groom to allow you to bring an additional guest, there is nothing wrong with asking if you may bring an additional gift. This is a subtle difference that many people do not understand.

[GaWd]

When you hold a wedding, you are asking friends and relatives to make time to celebrate YOUR happiness, bring YOU presents, and generally help YOU to have a wonderful time. In my view, they should be allowed to bring who the hell they want. The quid pro quo is that if the guest is "unexpected", they bring something - wine or food - to keep the party flowing.

I'd like to add to what The Ryan said.

If an "unexpected guest" decides to show their cheapskatin fucking ass at my wedding, unannounced, unwanted, unknown, and they bring me a cheap fucking gift, they deserve a punch in the mouth. Per person, my reception MEAL cost me $40. Add to that beer or other refreshments, the $300 of Hors d'oeuvres served pre-meal and other assorted costs including the reception rental.

10 unwanted, unwarranted, unknown, unannounced guests just cost me $750-1000 additional dollars. Unless they're paying their way in cash and making a substantial cash donation as a gift or during the money dance, forget it.

We got lucky and the additional guests evened out with the guests who didn't show and we only lost on on maybe $150.

Sam

[alice_in_wonderland]

This:

The quid pro quo is that if the guest is "unexpected", they bring something - wine or food - to keep the party flowing.

Is so positively absurd, I'm having trouble believing someone wrote it. I mean, imagine:

"Hey folks - sorry to gate crash on your wedding, causing you extra expense and discomfort for your invited guests as they try to make room for me, but look - I brought a macaroni salad - that makes it ok, right?"

<snork>

[Bippy the Beardless]

In a couple of weddings I have been to there has been a succesfull compramise.
There was a Wedding Cerimony and formal Wedding Reception on the day of the wedding. To which only very limited numbers of specificaly named people were invited. On another date there was a wedding party to which allmost anyone could come, and many many were invited, this was a bring a bottle event with food provided by a group of close friends working together. Though the invites to these weddings weren't written so, it would have worked to have made them very blunt as to the fact that only the named people were invited to the wedding&reception but anyone was invited to the party.

[PunditLisa]

GaWd, hope that last post didn't cause an aneurism or anything. It's a shame that you didn't register for a sense of humor. It would have served you better than those stupid monogrammed towels.

[Jodi]

I'm appalled by the rationale that an uninvited guest is possibly okay -- you know, so long as they bring an expensive gift to pay for themselves.

Uninvited guests are NOT okay.

And, SAM, you need to take a deep breath and recognize that just because you think something is okay under your rules of etiquette, that doesn't mean it's okay under everyone's rules of etiquette, and people who are sticklers to a greater degree than you are, are not that way to piss you off or make you look or feel bad.

My mother worships at the altar of Miss Manners and raised me to do the same. I also adore the Etiquette Grrls, because although they're a wee bit Pretentious with their Random Capitalization and their faux French, they're also amusing and take the extremely high road on matters of etiquette.

So if and when I marry, the only way I'll send out an invitation to "Bob Smith and Guest" is if Bob's SO's last name happens to be Guest, in which case it will read "Bob Smith and Joe Guest." And there will be a money dance, or a money tree, over my dead cold body. And I will not be registering for gifts, or in any way acting like I expect to be given gifts, and I will not be using response cards, though of course I see that both gift registries and response cards make life much, much easier.

This is not a reflection on anyone else's marriage or weddings. I don't expect everyone else to be such a tight ass in matters of manners on formal occasions, but I will reserve the right to have a wedding I think is tasteful and proper, and if that makes me a PITA in the eyes of some, so be it. I won't be doing it for anyone else, or to show anyone else up. But I'm also not going to act like I think dollar dances or requests for honeymoon donations or plastic champagne flutes or any number of other "traditions" are okay when IMO they are not.

[GaWd]

An aneurism? What makes you think I even got a blip on the old Sphygmo' while typing that last post out? Maybe you're reading into my bolding a bit much...

As for a sense of humor Lisa, How about you register for a clue, mmmkay? I know you wouldn't approach an extra $1000 leaving your pocket with a "sense of humor". No realistic, strapped-for-cash person would.

Sam

[GaWd]

And, SAM, you need to take a deep breath and recognize that just because you think something is okay under your rules of etiquette, that doesn't mean it's okay under everyone's rules of etiquette, and people who are sticklers to a greater degree than you are, are not that way to piss you off or make you look or feel bad

That's fine Jodi, but Scarlett came off as a mega-smartass "informing" me that I was incorrect and trying to eradicate ignorance. If I had not checked it out and spent so much time with my wife on this(and the whole wedding), I wouldn't have taken any offense at all to her statement. However, we did spend a lot of time, energy and money making sure to be etiquette-acceptable and that's why it strikes a nerve.

Money dance not acceptable? Hmm. Well, maybe it's regional or a family thing...

Sam

[Scarlett67]

Sam, there are all kinds of etiquette sites and sources proclaiming all sorts of things to be "according to etiquette." Some are appropriate to traditional etiquette, and some things are most decidedly not: money trees, registries that consist of a bank account number to which cash depoits can be made, having guests address their own thank-you notes. All sorts of things are promoted in the name of "etiquette." I am not saying that the sources you quoted were "good" or "bad"; just that (as others have correctly said) arbiters of etiquette are all over the map.

I was not attacking anyone's choices; in fact, as I recall, I did say that people are free to do things however they want. But some etiquette sources will disagree with the propriety of certain things. porcupine noted that Emily Post* approves the use of "and guest" (which surprises me); I wished to point out that Miss Manners does not. Yes, I quoted you as an example, but I did not call you names or call YOU incorrect -- I simply said that Miss Manners frowns on "and guest." Any use of "you" in my previous posts was intended as the generic "you" as in "any person." I also don't recall having indicated any personal offense (as you hinted) at how you worded your invitations.

You, however, were kind enough to to get all offended and call me a "PITA" (pain in the ass) for attempting to make sure that my point (namely, that it's a simple task to find out a prospective guest's name) was understood. If making sure that my point is clear makes me a "smartass," then yes, I am a smartass.

But thanks to Aholibah and Jodi for backing me up.

*With a copyright date of 2001, I suspect that this is Peggy Post talking, and not her late great-grandmother-in-law (or whatever) Emily Post. I suspect Emily would be rolling in her grave over the use of "and guest." Not to diss Peggy, of course; usually I agree with her.

[GaWd]

Scarlett-

You were being stubborn, which made you sort of a PITA, I'm sorry, for the last time if your more sensitive side was offended(this is the pit though-grow a skin).

I didn't say you were wrong, but I wanted to make sure that you understand that our sources of etiquette are just as "good" as yours.

Sam

[Zhen'ka]

GaWd,

Scarlett is not posting to eradicate your "ignorance." I saw her posts as being helpful. There are other posters, like me, who appreciated her comments and advice.

A couple of people have suggested that your reaction was maybe, I dunno, a little extreme? Just wanted to add my agreement. That opinion, and a $1.50 will get you a cup of Peets coffee.

Anyway, congrats on your wedding. Wish you many years of happiness.

Thanks to Scarlett, [b]Jodi[/] and everyone else with etiquette information.

[Shayna]

Jodi, I think you're confusing etiquette and traditions/preferences.

Having a gift registry is a tradition or preference. There really is no etiquette regarding having one or not. The etiquette comes in when you start getting into how it's executed and conducted. It would be completely improper to include one's registry information in the invitation, for instance. But inquiries by guests to the MOB or MOH can be directed to the registry without violating any etiquette guidelines.

While I agree that the money dance is tacky and that would've happened at my wedding over my dead body, as well, it's a matter of tradition. There are some cultures where that's what's done. To each their own as far as that goes.

Whether one has formal, engraved invitations, handmade ones, ones with calligraphy or computer printed with a fancy font -- whether they contain that silly little tissue paper or an inner and outer envelope; those are all matters of preference and style. The etiquette comes in with regard to how invitees are listed when one is addressing written invitations. And in this case, the experts are divided when it comes to the use of the words "and guest."

Therefore, it's not a matter of one person being "sticklers to a greater degree" than another. That alone implies that one is "more correct" than the other (even without coming right out and saying it -- and even if it's not intended). It is that air of superiority that is sticking in some of our craws. While you may be a Judith Martin worshiper, GaWd may be an Emily Post worshiper. Why would you even imply that because he is following one authority and you're following another that he is not as concerned with matters of manners?

Knowing you as I do from these boards, I'm quite certain that you do not mean to come across as condescending or superior at all. But, in fact, you are. I'm sure he feels his wedding was as tasteful and proper as one you would plan. And it's clear that he and his bride took great pains to research proper invitation etiquette when addressing their invitations. That they chose to abide by Emily Post's rules and not Judith Martin's is hardly a reflection of ill-manners on their part.

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Scarlett67

Just popping in to point out that the actual correct way to invite someone's SO is not "and guest," but rather to find out that person's name and send them an invitation.

---------

the officially correct method still stands. <snip>

Of course, you are free to publish your wedding invitation in the local paper, or make photocopies and staple them to light poles. But I'm just stating the Miss-Manners-correct way.

---------

Ah, I see. Your interest in etiquette surely does show.

I was not making judgment on your method, just adding some information (from an etiquette authority) to the discussion. I apologize for attempting to eradicate a bit of ignorance, as it was apparently not welcome in this thread. Scarlett, you can backpedal all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were attacking his choices. You came trotting in here claiming to be THE AUTHORITY on what's right and proper, completely ignoring a previous post that disproved your stance that YOUR way is the RIGHT way. You were NOT erradicating ignorance, you were BEING ignorant. And rude, condescending and insulting to boot.

As I said above, it seems to me that GaWd and his bride took great pains to follow as much proper etiquette as they could. You, on the other hand, could learn a few things.

[Zhen'ka]

Shayna,

With all respect, you've taken those posts out of context. The last was in direct response to GaWd's IMHO rude reply. Not that Scarlet needs my help, but I thought she showed remarkable restraint at being called a PITA.

IMHO, I saw Scarlet's post(s) as just adding information to this thread. I don't see that as a bad thing, even for a rant in the Pit. I learned something, anyway.

I don't think she was claiming to be an authority, don't think she was slamming GaWd's choices. Actually, I read her comments much like I read your statement about how money dances are "tacky" and how you'd only have one over your "dead body." You might agree that someone could take offense at that statement when none was intended.

Besides, in my opinion, etiquette (in all of it many forms) is best used as a guide, with the sole intention of providing polite or considerate interaction between people.

[mrsface]

Originally posted by The Ryan

Your attitude that honoring someone with your presence is a huge favor, and anyone lucky enough to be so graced should be so grateful as to accept whatever terms you decide upon, is conceited and quite rude.

And if you really feel this way, you shouldn't invite anyone to your wedding. A basic rule of etiquette is that the person extending the favor makes the offer, and the recipient of the favor accepts or rejects it. "Inviting" someone to do you a favor is quite rude.



First, The Ryan, I never said that I thought that I was doing people a favour by honouring them with my presence - quite the opposite, I said that at my OWN wedding, I felt honoured that people came. I was just trying to point out that there is another perspective on who is being done the favour. I am certainly not conceited, and I hope that I am not rude. Yes, the people giving the wedding get to set the rules, but they cannot be surprised if people are offended (or decline the invite) if significant others are excluded or made to feel unwelcome.

Generally, I can see that my view of weddings is out of synch with everyone else in this thread, so I'll leave (politely) after this, but I want to make one point:

There's been a lot of discussion about "etiquette". I don't know the first thing about etiquette, but I do have a view of what constitutes good manners, namely: putting people at their ease, making sure that nobody feels left out or uncomfortable, marginalised, embarrassed, unwanted or that they are some sort of social misfit. If you are the host, then you are responsible for making sure this does not happen to your guests. The guest's responsibility is to have a good time without embarrassing the host or other guests.

Someone said "a wedding is not a party". Well, the ceremony isn't, but the reception is, and the same general principles of good manners apply.

[Green Bean]

Originally posted by Futile Gesture
This is why Weddings are evil and best avoided by all.
I see quite a lot of people on this board claiming that traditional-style weddings are ridiculous. If an elopement or a very small and simple event is what works for you, then great. But there is no reason to think that a traditional-style wedding is automatically "evil."

I guess I think that there is some serious sampling bias going on here. You only hear about the weddings where something was unbelievably tacky or somebody freaked out or something went wrong. If everything went smoothly, there's not much to talk about. (Well, some people like to discuss wedding details ad nauseum, but fortunately, they're usually forced to seek out other people who are interested.) Since you really only hear the horror stories, it seems like the average wedding is an absolutely horrendous experience for everyone except the Bridezilla. It isn't always like that.

People in this thread are discussing the rude things their guests did in response to wedding invitations. Why would I have posted my experiences? They're irrelevant to the discussion because nobody did anything rude. Everybody RSVP'd more or less on time. Nobody brought any uninvited people. There were no no-shows. Every person was invited by name. Coupled people were invited with their partners. Single people were invited by themselves, but all of the single people that we invited knew plenty of others there and were seated with them. As far as I know, none of them were offended that they weren't asked to bring a "guest." Yawn. I'm boring myself even typing this.

So, it's not that weddings are "evil," it's that it's only the evil ones that are worth talking about.

[Guinastasia]

There's been a lot of discussion about "etiquette". I don't know the first thing about etiquette, but I do have a view of what constitutes good manners, namely: putting people at their ease, making sure that nobody feels left out or uncomfortable, marginalised, embarrassed, unwanted or that they are some sort of social misfit. If you are the host, then you are responsible for making sure this does not happen to your guests. The guest's responsibility is to have a good time without embarrassing the host or other guests.

Someone said "a wedding is not a party". Well, the ceremony isn't, but the reception is, and the same general principles of good manners apply.


Oh the fucking IRONY, especially the last part.

GOOD MANNERS MEAN NOT SHOWING UP TO A WEDDING UNIVITED, DUMBASS!!!!

[Jodi]

SHAYNA --

Having a gift registry is a tradition or preference. There really is no etiquette regarding having one or not. The etiquette comes in when you start getting into how it's executed and conducted. It would be completely improper to include one's registry information in the invitation, for instance. But inquiries by guests to the MOB or MOH can be directed to the registry without violating any etiquette guidelines.

I don't agree with this. According to Miss Manners, "[a]cknowledgement of the expectation that people will give you money, or any other present, when you marry is rude." Miss Manners' Guide for the Turn of the Millenium at 642 (emphasis added). I don't insist that you agree with this, but neither do I think it's wrong. And I don't think you're in a position to insist that I'm wrong about it.

Therefore, it's not a matter of one person being "sticklers to a greater degree" than another. That alone implies that one is "more correct" than the other (even without coming right out and saying it -- and even if it's not intended). It is that air of superiority that is sticking in some of our craws. While you may be a Judith Martin worshiper, GaWd may be an Emily Post worshiper. Why would you even imply that because he is following one authority and you're following another that he is not as concerned with matters of manners?

Look, surely you can see that if you are dealing with authorities that reach diametrically opposed conclusions -- one says a practice is correct, the other says it is not -- then agreeing with one is tantamount to concluding that the other is wrong. We are not talking about "cultural" or "traditional" differences. We are not talking about a traditional wedding among the Masai -- we're talking about two authorities dealing with the same exact question of modern American wedding etiqueet and decreeing different answers: One says it's okay, the other says it's rude. Agreeing with one automatically means you're disagreeing with the other.

Knowing you as I do from these boards, I'm quite certain that you do not mean to come across as condescending or superior at all. But, in fact, you are. I'm sure he feels his wedding was as tasteful and proper as one you would plan. And it's clear that he and his bride took great pains to research proper invitation etiquette when addressing their invitations. That they chose to abide by Emily Post's rules and not Judith Martin's is hardly a reflection of ill-manners on their part.

I do think my way is more correct! Obviously. Or else I wouldn't follow it, would I? If that by extension includes the implication that others who disagree with me are less correct -- well, I'd sure take assistance on how to state the opinion without the less palatable implication tagging along. But I don't see how you can convey one without the other. Certainly I would want to do so -- and in fact tried my very best to do so -- but the fact that you felt I was being "condescending" or "superior" indicates I was not successful. Do you have some suggestion for how I could be honest about my own opinions and still manage not to imply that others who do not hold them are -- if not wrong, at least not as strictly right? Because I'd do that if I could, but I don't see how it can be done.

The fact is, I do believe that such things as dollar dances and other appeals for gifts are improper, and equally improper is the idea that gifts are some sort of quid pro quo exchange for a catered chicken dinner and a glass of champagne. Gift registries and response cards are IMO okay because they are practical responses to common problems, but they are nevertheless less than perfectly proper. IMO. Obviously this means that I do believe some things are "more correct" than others, and while that is of course a matter of opinion, this happens to be mine.

I seems like you're asking me to say that things are okay that I do not in fact believe are okay, or to say that passable things are ideal when I don't think they're ideal. I do[/i in fact believe that my conclusions on these matters are "superior" or "better" than those reached by others. This should be obvious: If I didn't think one option was better than the other, I'd hardly have chosen that option and rejected the other, would I? But I CERTAINLY never said that ANYONE was ill-mannered. I only said what I would do, and what I believed was correct.

I was extremely careful to say that I speaking only of my own choices and what [i]I thought was proper. I have not presumed to pass judgment on anyone else's choices, except to the extent that they might have chosen to do something I've admitted I don't believe is strictly proper under the rules of etiquette that I adhere to. And even then I didn't say a word about what they would do, should do, or might have done, but only spoke for myself.

If you know of a way to convey that a given course of action is improper, in the presence of a person who followed that course of action, without coming across as superior or condescending, I would love to hear it, because that certainly is not how I intended to appear, nor, I daresay, how SCARLETT intended to appear. But you can hardly expect us to act like something is okay that we don't think is okay.

You yourself have declared that in your opinion dollar dances are tacky, and at least one poster here had one, so I guess you're as guilty of being "superior" and "condescending" as I was.

And don't get me wrong -- I'm not pissed off about this. I do see that I might have come off that way. I just don't see how I could have done any better than I did to try NOT to come off that way. How do you ever say IYO someone else is wrong and you are right, and not come across as believing you're "more correct" or "better" than they on that one particular issue? Because at the end of the day that's exactly what you do think.

And if people can't deal with others believing their behavior is not in every respect the acme of politesse all the time, then maybe as GAWD suggests they should "grow a skin."

[GaWd]

Well, at least I wasn't the only one that saw Scarlett and others as coming off a touch on the Huffy side. Thank you Shayna for putting it a little less...Cromagnon-esque than I could have. That's why I've always liked you :)

And if people can't deal with others believing their behavior is not in every respect the acme of politesse all the time, then maybe as GAWD suggests they should "grow a skin."

Word.

Sam

[ladydisco]

We plan to invite some single people to our wedding as singles. The ones we have on our list are coming with family members, so they're not going to be without company - just without a date. THAT is the easy part of making the guest list. If one of them misunderstands the invitation and replies that they'll bring a guest, I don't think we'll say anything about it.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Originally posted by mrsface


There's been a lot of discussion about "etiquette". I don't know the first thing about etiquette, but I do have a view of what constitutes good manners, namely: putting people at their ease, making sure that nobody feels left out or uncomfortable, marginalised, embarrassed, unwanted or that they are some sort of social misfit. If you are the host, then you are responsible for making sure this does not happen to your guests.


A-fucking-men. Well said.

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Oh the fucking IRONY, especially the last part.

GOOD MANNERS MEAN NOT SHOWING UP TO A WEDDING UNIVITED, DUMBASS!!!!

Oh for Christ's sake. No shit, Guin. Of course the unexpected guest (who, by the way, probably has no idea they were uninvited--was the guest to grill their date on the exact wording on the outside of the envelope?) is in the wrong. But what the very sensible mrsface's post would suggest is proposing is that if such an unofrtunate thing happens, the bride and groom fall back on their good manners and treat that person as kindly as anyone else.

You can stoop to the lowest common denominator of your least-considerate guest, if that's what makes your sanctimonious, unforgiving ass feel vindicated, and treat them rudely, look astonished at their arrival, judge their gift harshly, call them a dumbass behind their back, or whatever.

[lieu]

BMalion, I'm still reeling over your story. This woman needs a thread all her own in which you detail even more of her antics. There must, without a doubt, be plenty.

[BMalion]

I was man enough to stand my ground and insist on no "money dance" it just felt tacky.

I caved in to the pressure of my friends and we put ourselves on a gift registery. I still wince with regret when the subject comes up.

Yes, I and others have wedding "horror stories", but, then again, those are the stories I have the most fun telling. All in all I'm glad I got married. I enjoyed our wedding.

For me talking about the nuances of etiquette and protocol is something of a hobby, (I must have been C3PO in a previous life). I love to read Miss Manner's column the way sports fans pour over statistics, it's fun.

Maybe my mistakes or stories will help others or amuse. either way...

Please have a nice day.

Thank you

[BMalion]

Originally posted by lieu
BMalion, I'm still reeling over your story. This woman needs a thread all her own in which you detail even more of her antics. There must, without a doubt, be plenty.

to be fair to my wife, my own mother could inspire a thread or 2, God bless 'er.

What are the odds of 2 people marrying, from the same small town, whose own mothers live in the same small town, the wedding is held in that small town and yet they meet for the first time at the wedding itself!

Mother-in-law collects Bradford Elvis plates.:D

[Bippy the Beardless]

There seems to be a lot of etiquette in this thread, but very little civility or politeness. Go figure.

[mrsface]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Oh the fucking IRONY, especially the last part.

GOOD MANNERS MEAN NOT SHOWING UP TO A WEDDING UNIVITED, DUMBASS!!!!

Pleased to meet you too, Guinastasia. Just for the record, I'm English, so you've just called me a "voiceless horse". C'est la vie.

The appropriate terms in UK-speak would have been "stupid arse" or "stupid bottom" (see ongoing GQ thread on this topic).

[matt_mcl]

Jodi, in another book she states that a gift registry is okay because you're not telling the other person what to get you, you're merely conveying your wishes to a neutral business establishment which the other person can then frequent or not. There's "just enough distance for this to be acceptable."

I think it's in Excruciatingly Correct Behavior but I don't have it on hand to check.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by Jodi
And I will not be registering for gifts, or in any way acting like I expect to be given gifts, and I will not be using response cards, though of course I see that both gift registries and response cards make life much, much easier.

Jodi, what would you tell people that ask you where you are registered or what you want\need? Also, how on earth do you plan a reception if you haven't sent response cards? Do you just plan on everyone you invited attending and suck up the expense if they don't show?

[GingerOfTheNorth]

I believe the correct way to handle a gift registry is thus: Go ahead, just don't send notice out in the mail with the invitations. If someone asks, then tell them where you are registered.

If an invitation came to me addressed to me alone, I would assume that I was to attend on my own. Now that I am married, I would expect that an invitation would come to Mr. & Mrs Us. I would not assume that my husband was invited; I would call and ask the bride.

[Q.N. Jones]

Traditionally, one is supposed to respond to a wedding invitation not with a response card, but with a formal letter accepting or declining the invitation (Amy Vanderbilt, to throw another etiquette great into the mix).

However, most people won't know this, and so people include response cards to make the point that the invited need to RSVP.

I suppose that it's possible to make phone calls to everyone on the guest list to find out if they're coming. It would certainly work for a small wedding. Hey, if someone wants to make more work or expense for themselves so as to follow the rules of traditional etiquette, why should any of us care?

[Q.N. Jones]

Mostly, wedding seem to be about providing a plethora of excuses for people to get their panties in a bunch. In the last few years, all my friends got married and threw medium-to-large weddings. And just about everyone involved with the weddings got themselves into a god-awful snit about something courtesy or etiquette related.

When it comes to weddings, people in general need to relax and be more understanding of the pressures that coordinating such an event causes in just about everyone involved. People who pitch fits over wedding traditions just seem to drain the happiness and fun out of it for everyone, including themselves.

(I have one story over at Wedding Etiquette from Hell, or whatever that website is called, and I could list off about 20 more hideous bitchy fits that resulted just out of 3 weddings! Because of this, I'm now thoroughly convinced that weddings are a big waste of money and energy.)

[jeevmon]

Originally posted by adam yax
Jodi, what would you tell people that ask you where you are registered or what you want\need?

It probably doesn't matter because they won't listen anyway. My wife-to-be and I combined households when we got engaged. We already had a considerable volume of stuff. (Eva Luna, who helped me move, can testify to this.) Particularly a lot of basic housewares.

Because of this, we decided not to register anywhere, and tell people that in lieu of gifts, they should consider making donations to one of several charities that were important to us, such as the animal rescue/ shelter from which we obtained the amazing jeevdawg. Despite this, we still get people calling us saying "oh, but we still want to get you something!"

[jayjay]

I have no horse in this race (not expecting to be married for at least 20 years), but I do have two questions/opinions.

As far as registries go, I always thought the purpose of a registry was to give those who wish to gift the couple an easier time of it. Instead of 23 fondue pots, they can see what other people have bought and buy something different.

And as far as such things as dollar dances go, I've never been to a wedding that didn't have one. Every relative I've ever seen married has had a dollar dance. I always thought they were an accepted part of American wedding tradition.

Just a cautionary note...my step-cousin married into a family who totally dug themselves into a hole with our family at the reception. The way they looked down their noses at things that were, to us, age-old tradition, such as the dollar dance, the chicken dance (don't ask), and our tarantella dance (Italian family), made them permanent butts of our family grousing for years.

[Irish Rogue]

I'm not sure I'd have a strong opinion on this subject if not for my friend, Tina. She, her fiance, and their families planned a very large, very beautiful wedding ... at which I was genuinely honored to be the maid of honor. They sent invitations, requested RSVP's, the whole 9 yards. She was *extremely* into Miss Manners so, God love her, she did everything to the letter.

Nearly 350 people RSVP'ed ... only 76 showed up. Seriously, guys ... I've never seen a more devastated bride. Barely a third of the wedding cake was eaten ... the little "side" cakes (linked by little stairs), the extra sheet cake, and the entire bottom layer of the main tier weren't even touched. The next morning, we returned 13 untapped kegs to the liquor store ... I ate peanuts and mints for MONTHS afterward ... it was a total disaster.

It was OCTOBER ... no hurricanes ... no blizzards ... and NO reason for that kind of thoughtlessness. The worst part of it was that it wasn't even intentional ... it was like some kind of horrible alignment of the planets that 150 couples thought, "Hey ... let's blow off that wedding tommorrow ..." Some were professional associates of HER father, some co-workers of HIS mother and father, family members from BOTH sides ... if it weren't for the fifty or so friends that came, there wouldn't have been anyone there but the wedding party.

I learned one thing from it ... if you get a wedding invitation, look at the envelope ... if it says "and guest" then bring someone ... if it doesn't ... then come alone or don't come at all. And by-God if you RSVP, you BETTER SHOW UP unless you, or a member of your immediate family, is in the hospital. If there's a blizzard or some other weather-related calamity, then pick up a PHONE.

<Yet another reason why me and the hubster flew to Vegas and eloped years later ...>

[Guinastasia]

Cranky, mrsface, my point is, crashing a wedding is NOT okay. No, if I were the bride, I wouldn't be rude, I would be kind and gracious, although if said people acted like assholes, I'd have them thrown out (if they were drunk and disruptive).

BUT..."bringing extra food makes it okay"...who the hell does this?

[Jodi]

To accept a wedding invitation and then not show up is the height of rudeness. As Miss Manners says, the only excuse for blowing off such an occasion is serious illness or death, preferably your own. I'm not overstating it when I say if I invited 250 people who didn't show up for my wedding, that would be 250 people I'd never speak to again.

But my idea of a great wedding -- and here we're totally into matters of taste, not etiquette -- is a small one. Not "small" as some euphimism for "less than 100 people" but really small, like your immediate family, his immediate family, your best friends, his best friends, the minister, and that's it. I've neve been much for the six matching bridesmaids and a horse drawn carriage wedding, and I become less interested in that as I grow older. I know this is the dream of a lot of American girls and women, but really it's never been mine.

So the answer to "what would I do instead of register?" is probably tell anyone who inquired two or three suggested gifts (or have my mother or MIL do the same) and hope for the best, but really I'm never going to be in the position to get so many gifts I'd have to register for them. And this is a cultural thing, in which I freely admit I'm probably the freak, but there it is. (Plus, truth be told, any attempt at planning a full-scale wedding would probably result in the murder of my mother, who apparently didn't exhaust her tulle fantasies on my sister, and then I'd end up in jail, and that would just be bad all around.)

But I would like it known that nothing I have said here should lead anyone to believe I attend anyone's wedding and then sit in a corner sniffing disdainfully over all the "gauche" things they did that I wouldn't do. I firmly believe that the true test of good manners and good breeding is the ability to make people feel welcome and at ease, and that only a small-minded and small-hearted person would spend their time picking apart someone else's party. I bring good wishes to weddings, and the sincere hope that whatever the bridal couple chooses to do for their special day, it will be a perfect day for them and be everything they have dreamed. So do I think dollar dances are strictly correct? No. Do I pony up my dollar with a smile like everyone else, and enjoy it? Yes.

[Flashpaper Tiger]

On a much smaller scale than Irish Rogue's friend, only about 30% of the people who RSVPd to my mother's wedding showed up. The money spent catering for the 35 or so people who never showed up was significant. No excuse there either. no natural disasters - no deaths.

There were more people in the a capella choir that sang for the wedding, then guests attending the wedding - it was infuriating for me, even though Mum took it in stride.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Jayjay, the dollar dance is more a regional/ethnic thing, so it's not really "American." The Czech side of my family never had a wedding without it. Oh yes, it violates a lot of tenets of etiquette, and it would be found tacky by many, but it is very much an expected family tradition among some of us poor slavic farm folk.

[imthjckaz]

You're right cranky, the money dance is a regional/ethnic thing, and varies from wedding to wedding, family to family. Whether one finds it tacky, is a personal thing, if you find it tacky, just don't dance that dance.


The chicken dance however.......

[PunditLisa]

Sam: As for a sense of humor Lisa, How about you register for a clue, mmmkay? I know you wouldn't approach an extra $1000 leaving your pocket with a "sense of humor". No realistic, strapped-for-cash person would.

Gee, Sam, talk about getting a clue. No realistic strapped-for-cash person should be HOSTING a reception where a few extra people showing up will break the bank. It's fiscally irresponsible and a crappy way to start a new marriage.

Sam: The above situations will end up costing you $$, but as we found out in the case of our wedding, it almost balances out between those who don't show and those who overshow, and you'll only get burned for a hundred or two$$.

One word for you people who were "burned" by no-shows/overshows: buffet. No stress, no worries about extra guests, no making mental notes of who had the audacity to show up with an UNINVITED GUEST so that they can be on your lifelong shit list. Yes, your guests have to haul their ass out of their chair and stand in line, but THEY get to choose whether they want swiss or American on their roast beef sammich.

Not sophisticated? As my father used to say, it's way more classy to drive a VW you can afford than to drive a BMW you can't afford.

[GaWd]

Gee, Sam, talk about getting a clue. No realistic strapped-for-cash person should be HOSTING a reception where a few extra people showing up will break the bank. It's fiscally irresponsible and a crappy way to start a new marriage.


Did anyone say it would break the bank? No, I said it was annoying to watch money that didn't need to leave my pocket leave it. No, I'm not rich. No, my Mother in Law is not rich. Did the money I got screwed for ruin my financially? No, and never did I give you that impression.

And fuck you for your judgement. Irresponsible? Crappy? Feh.

You're a gem.

One word for you people who were "burned" by no-shows/overshows: buffet

It was a buffet, Smartass. You don't ask for a buffet from a caterer and they give you an unlimited number of people to feed. You give them a number, they give you a price per person. If you go over, they charge you. If you're under, you don't get your money back.

Maybe in OH-HI-OH, Buffets are free or not done per person, but nowhere here is it that way.

Sam

[PunditLisa]

Did anyone say it would break the bank? No, I said it was annoying to watch money that didn't need to leave my pocket leave it.

You had to pay a few extra bucks for these ill-mannered idiots, who were lucky you didn't punch them in the mouth because not only did they show up uninvited at the celebration in honor of your wedding, but they didn't bring a present equal to or exceeding the amount you paid for them. Not only did they cause you immeasurable annoyance, but it caused real cash money to leap will-nilly out of your wallet, squashing the many moths that have taken residence there.

Got it. Here in Oh-hi-oh, we call people like you "tight-asses." And while that may be a compliment in Californey, it ain't here.

If you go over (on a buffet), they charge you. If you're under, you don't get your money back. Maybe in OH-HI-OH, buffets are free or not done per person, but nowhere here is it that way.

Here in the backwater states, we order buffets in quantities of 25. Because they do not make trays of lasagna to feed THREE and it's impossible to precisely determine how many ounces each guest. If your caterer has done his job right, you'll have a buffer in case an extra 10 people show up. Or in case Aunt Dori gets in line first.

Things may be different in Californey, but our caterers don't have trays of extra heated roast beef waiting out in the van in case 300 people show up. If 300 people were to show, we'd simply run out of food. Which wouldn't be too much of an emergency because once the beer runs out the reception is pretty much over anyway.

[GaWd]

Whatever Lisa, it's pointless trying to have any type of discussion with you.

[Aankh]

What's this "money dance" everyone's been talking about?

[CrazyCatLady]

A money dance (also known in some quarters as the dollar dance or the apron dance) is a dance where guests pin money (or slip it into an apron pocket) to the bride and/or groom and dance with them. It's a cherished wedding custom for most Mediterranean and Slavic cultures that started as a means for a well-meaning community to help a young couple get started in life.

Some folks see it as a normal part of wedding tradition like showers or wedding presents, others see it as a crass gimme, gimme moment. The tradition/tacky controversy has led a great many brides to adapt the dance so that play money, notes with well wishes for the couple, or pieces of candy are used instead of money.

[Aankh]

*enlightened*
Thank you.

[Dinsdale]

Someone asked why I thought it was kinda inconsiderate to invite someone without a guest. Of course, I can imagine all kinds of different situations. But at the heart of my thought were my impressions of hospitality.

Speaking in generalities, I generally think invitations should be as free of conditions as possible. For example, one generally oughtn't invite someone into their home, and expect to dictate that the behave in a manner other than what is natural/confortable to them.

With weddings, different groups are often getting thrown together - each party's family, and friends they made at various points in their lives. Some people will travel a distance, and incur considerable expense to participate. I do not have difficulty imagining circumstances where an invitee would be more comfortable and would enjoy the experience more if they were able to travel and attend with a companion.

IMO, the bride and groom are hosts. And as a host, my aim is to make my guests - and myself - as comfortable and happy as possible. IMO, a gracious host allows his or her guests to make the choice of what would make them most comfortable and maximize their enjoyment.

Moreover, the inviter may not know the up-to-date specifics of a guest's social/romantic situation. Again, imagine the possibilities. 2 years ago you went to college with a guy. You were really good buddies and you want him at your wedding, but you haven't kept in touch as regularly since you got out of college. You don't realize that he has been in a torrid relationship over the past month with someone he considers may be his future lifemate. What a potentially uncomfortable situation you would be putting him in, having to expllain to his new sweetheart why he really wants to go to your wedding, but why she is not invited.

If finances are such an issue, then I suggest the preferable option is to scale down the invites. Or, cut down other expenses to permit you to invite more bodies. Or have a very small formal wedding/reception, and then a big low-budget party for everyone and their guests.

Speaking personally, I always wanted to attend weddings stag, as they were among the best opportunities to get laid. Hell, in high school and college, my buddy and I used to put on suits and head out to the hotels around the airport and crash weddings. A smorgasboard of open bars, live bands bands and DJs with no cover charge, and plenty of single women in party mode.

[Kalhoun]

The wedding reception is supposed to be a gift to your friends and family. I would never consider inviting guests and not letting them bring a date. And the "engaged" caveat is even more insulting. If you can't afford to invite couples, trim the number down or don't have a reception.

[doreen]

originally posted by PunditLisa
Here in the backwater states, we order buffets in quantities of 25. Because they do not make trays of lasagna to feed THREE and it's impossible to precisely determine how many ounces each guest. If your caterer has done his job right, you'll have a buffer in case an extra 10 people show up. Or in case Aunt Dori gets in line first.

What kind of buffet are you talking about, exactly? Here in NY, if I want to rent a American Legion hall or use my basement or backyard and hire a caterer, I can order by the tray or by a number of people. And if I order for 25 people, and know I can stretch it to 35, that's fine. It does not work that way if I have a buffet in an actual catering hall, where I will be charged for every person there, and I will pay a different price for forty people than I will for fifty and the catering hall will know how many people are there because they will have to set up an extra table for those ten people.

I put "and guest" on all of nearly all of my wedding invitations, but that was because of all our friends happened to be in significant enough relationships that we knew the other person.( The people I didn't invite "and guest" were some of my much younger cousins) But why, exactly, do some people treat weddings differently than any other event? I can't imagine anyone saying that if I invite a single friend to dinner at my house, I should expect him or her to bring a guest whom I've never met. Or that if I invite my cousin to stay at my home over Christmas, I shouldn't be upset if she decides (without asking me) to bring the guy she started going out with at Thanksgiving. What's different about a wedding?

[CrazyCatLady]

So, Dinsdale, are you saying that it's incumbent upon the couple to invite a bunch of total strangers to their wedding on the off chance that one of them might be a new long-term SO?

I would think it far more appropriate for the friend in question to mention the fact that he's in a hot-and-heavy relationship before the invitations go out. Otherwise, I'd have no problem whatsoever with him having to explain to the love of his life that he's never bothered to mention her to his friends, and that's why she wasn't invited.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that if people were truly that important to you, you actually kept in touch about important life events.

Of course, we had a very dear, close friend of DrJ's at our wedding who was so very dear and close that a) I had never heard of him in the 8 years we'd been together and b) he didn't know when or where we were getting married until someone else mentioned it to him three days ahead of time. So maybe it is just me.

[Q.N. Jones]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
The wedding reception is supposed to be a gift to your friends and family. I would never consider inviting guests and not letting them bring a date. And the "engaged" caveat is even more insulting. If you can't afford to invite couples, trim the number down or don't have a reception.

"Supposed to be a gift," huh?

Now, I'm single. Suppose I start dating some guy tomorrow. My best friend lives in California, so she doesn't get the chance to meet him. She wins the lottery. At Christmas, she sends me and all her "friends and family" a gift of $100.

Do I have a right to sulk and pout and be all offended because she didn't send $100 to my new boyfriend, even though she sent $100 to the spouses of her relatives and good friends?

What if she also sends $100 to fiance(e)s of her relatives and good pals? Do I have a right to sulk now?

What if she also sends $100 to the SOs of friends and relatives, if she's met those SOs before and knows them? Now can I sulk and get all offended?

Ever hear the expression, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth?"

If someone wants to invite certain people to their wedding, and not others, that's their business. If you don't like that you don't get to bring a guest, fine. Don't go. But don't tell someone they have no right to limit a guest list in this manner, because they damned well do.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Scarlett67
Re single invitees: If you are offended at being invited as a single, you are free to politely decline the invitation. Others have correctly pointed out that the guest list is not open to expansion, and that a wedding is properly not an occasion for a casual date.


...especially since weddings are often billed per-person and can be as high as $50 or $100/head.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by mrsface
In my view, they should be allowed to bring who the hell they want.

Well, you are welcome to pay for the extra several hundred dollars that it costs to accomodate them :rolleyes: My wedding was pretty cheap by formal wedding standards ($4,000 including dress, venue, food, photographer, videographer, etc.) but even with mine each extra guest was a sizable chunk of change.

Also... weddings are a personal thing. They are a life-changing event in the lives of two people. They are something you share with your friends and family... not with strangers and the world at large. Would you assume you could bring "who the hell you want" to any private ceremony? Or is it just weddings?

The rudeness of people never ceases to amaze me.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by alice_in_wonderland
"Hey folks - sorry to gate crash on your wedding, causing you extra expense and discomfort for your invited guests as they try to make room for me, but look - I brought a macaroni salad - that makes it ok, right?"

<snork>

Exactly! Sorry, but my wedding wasn't pot-luck. We went to a lot of effort deciding on exactly what food we wanted served and so on. It was served like this (http://fathom.org/opalcat/weddingcater.jpg) and someone plonking down some potato salad on the table would just NOT have been ok. :rolleyes:

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by jayjay
And as far as such things as dollar dances go, I've never been to a wedding that didn't have one. Every relative I've ever seen married has had a dollar dance. I always thought they were an accepted part of American wedding tradition.

Wow. Every one??

I didn't have one, and in fact had never even heard of such a thing until I went to my friend Peter's wedding, which was the first and only wedding I've ever seen one at. Maybe it's regional.

I think they're pretty tacky, personally.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
One word for you people who were "burned" by no-shows/overshows: buffet. No stress, no worries about extra guests...

Bullshit. My wedding was buffet and it was still priced per person.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by GaWd
Whatever Lisa, it's pointless trying to have any type of discussion with you.

This is good advice. I need to write this one down.

[CrazyCatLady]

I think what bothers me most about this discussion is that there's a lot of fussing about what being a good host entails, but pretty much nothing about what being a good GUEST entails. Yes, it's the responisibility of the host to make a reasonable effort to see that the guests have what they need to have a good time. It is, however, the guests' responsibility to make an effort to have a good time even under less than ideal conditions. That means eating food you might not like, being civil to people you might not like, and making an effort to take part in the provided entertainment, even if you think something else would be more fun. To do any less would be rude, and if you cannot manage that graciously, your ass needs to stay the fuck at home.

When one of DrJ's fellow residents had a Superbowl party, I probably would have found the gathering far more enjoyable if they had rented a movie instead of watching a boring-ass football game. My increased enjoyment, however, did not obligate them to make that change, and it would have been assholish of me to insist that they do so to accommodate me. I did not feel up to graciously watching football (I'd prefer to watch my toenails grow, personally) and listening to several hours of talk about the hospital and the other employees there, so I stayed home.

The guests at our wedding probably would have had a nicer time if I'd offered them filet mignon and caviar instead of jambalaya and poboys. That did not obligate me to cut some people off our guest list so we could give some few a more enjoyable meal. I had made a reasonable effort to make sure there was something everyone could eat, served at a time suitable for dinner (6pm, as my grandpa takes a headache when his meals are off schedule), and that it was what we could afford for the people we wanted there. Beyond that, it was up to them.

I also find it rather selfish to insist that you bring a date so you won't be bored, and then to further insist that your host/hostess spend time making chitchat with them so they'll feel welcome. A lot of times weddings are populated with relatives and friends the couple doesn't see as often as they like, and it's insensitive and inconsiderate to cut into the time they get to spend with their loved ones so they can make your guest feel included.

[Dinsdale]

Discussions like these make me hope my kids elope! :D