While I do find the entire structure of etiquette to be based on some flawed ideas, I am attacking specific points of that structure … namely, the protocol for sharing information. And I assure you, mine is not the only dissenting opinion on that point.
As for your party analogy, it is flawed because if parents receive a written missive indicating the kids cannot attend, there is no reason that they would show their child the invite… “See, Billy? No kids! We can get rid of you for three hours! Hahaha!” or that the child would even care. “I can’t go to the wedding, mother? I’m simply devastated… I… I’ll be in my room with my tinkertoys.”
No, you’re not. You’re attacking the entire concept of there being a protocol. What do you think the etiquette people are doing in this case other than setting up a standard protocol for sharing invite information? If you’re listed on the invite, you’re invited, if you’re not, then you’re not. That is a protocol.
Feel free to set up your conflicting rules, but you’ll have to convince everyone else to use it, and become a :shudder: manner maven in your own right.
What good is a protocol if nobody agrees on the same one? At least with Miss Manners, you get one set of rules, and if people learn just the basics of it, there isn’t misunderstanding, or hurt feelings. You get the best of both worlds, clearly communcated information, and no unnecessary negativity.
Nobody’s convinced me that there is agreement on the whole wedding-invite-children thing. Not amongst the general populace, at least.
Whoa… I see the special smilies. Nifty. When did that happen?
Anyway. my primary objection all along is that people are holding up the manners-books like shields saying ‘We don’t have to give you vital information! You’re a subhuman thing if you don’t read these books and abide by them!’ The problem is the information issue.
That said, though, there are a lot of those so-called manners rules that are nonsensical and impractical. And if you build a house out of broken bricks, you get a pretty crappy house.
Or, if one were to construct a more relevant analogy … let us say that Amy X sees Jane and John Doe on the street. Amy X is having a party. Amy’s party is for whatever reason a female-only affair. She approaches her friends, greets them, and mentions the party, invites Jane, and explains to John that she would invite him, but it’s a girl’s-night-out. John, being a reasonable and adult person, is not offended.
SO WHAT!!! The groom was GUILTED into saying he’d check after he specifically said NO KIDS. Jonathan should have shut his mouth the second he had the clarification he was seeking.
Ok, he didn’t. So now what? Well, you seem to contend that he should sit on his ass and expect the bride and groom to do all the work to make babysitting arrangements for them, and them exclusively, since no one else is bringing a kid, SINCE THE RULE IS, NO CHILDREN! What, they don’t have enough to do already with planning this whole thing? The guest has no obligation to even attempt to make his own arrangements since he knows the rule and knows how busy the bride is and since there’s a chance she may not get to it or may not be able to arrange it at all? He couldn’t have said, “No, no, don’t trouble her, I know how busy she must be. We’ll see what we can do on our end and let you know.” THAT would have been the polite thing to do, since we’re calling out “rudeness” now.
No, you’re incorrect. There’s been no change – the wedding is STILL NO CHILDREN. She MUST have a babysitter. The question then remained, who was going to try to find one. Mr. Chance left it up to the already busy and harried bride! He can wait 3 or 4 or even 5 damn days, given what else is on her plate right now, and especially given that he knows she didn’t want kids there in the first place (and this is probably exactly why – she knew she’d end up being the one stuck with making all the babysitting plans, which she didn’t want to have to do!). His inconsideration of her hectic schedule is what’s rude.
A few days’ wait was rude? That’s laughable. Honestly. We will never agree on that, that’s for sure. See above.
Sauron, you’re wrong. Since you won’t go back and read the OP as I suggested, I’ll copy and paste the relevant section here:
He was cheesed off to learn that his kid wasn’t welcome! This was LONG before he got the “huffy” attitude from the groom.
Yeah, in the middle of the most hectic time of all the wedding preparation and planning, the groom was put upon to modify his request that no children attend and then the bride was further put upon by the groom to now hunt for a babysitter and they’re the rude ones. Ok.
Yeah, you’re right about one thing – the groom should’ve just said no and stuck to no. But to call him “rude” for not jumping through hoops within your timeframe in an effort to make special arrangements for you is ridiculous.
I never said it was easy, but as I’ve said before, they didn’t even try!
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Ok, the groom knew there was distance to be travelled - check. The groom knew the Chances have a kid - check. The groom could assume there might be a question of childcare - check. That still doesn’t address why it was rude of HIM not to break his back to accomodate said hassles and not rude of the Chances to expect them to be accomodated.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. He was cheesed off from the outset, then got progressively more cheesed off when his friend didn’t respond immediately.
“Timely” by whose standards? Certainly not mine and certainly not the bride’s or the groom’s.
Listen, he can be cheesed off by any and all of the above all he wants. The bottom line is that kids aren’t invited to the wedding. Once he got confirmation of that, what to do with his kid was his problem and his problem alone. He let the groom take over the responsibility for it and then showed displeasure when the groom didn’t do it fast enough. Too bad. He was wrong.
You’re absolutely correct, Shayna. JC was upset about the childcare arrangements even before the conversation. My apologies.
You’re wrong about the groom’s responsibilities, though. Doesn’t matter how much he has on his plate, once he offers to check into arrangements, he’s obligated to follow through. The whole “etiquette” thing. Read what Emily Post has to say about obligations once a promise has been made.
Thank you. And finally, agreement! Of course he was obligated to follow through. But the question remains as to how quickly he should have done so. Remember, too, that it wasn’t him making these arrangements, he’d pawned that off on his bride-to-be (and in my opinion she’s the only person he was rude to, since it was her rule to begin with, he knew that, and didn’t respect it, but that’s a whole 'nother thread). That means he didn’t have any control over how fast it got done or not done.
I really do understand the Chance’s anxiety over wanting to know “as soon as possible.” But “as soon as possible” for the bride and groom obviously ended up being 5 days. In my opinion, that’s not an excessive or “rude” amount of time to wait to hear, especially given the circumstances. And if his anxiety level increased over that time, he always had the option of calling the groom, thanking him for looking into it and letting him off the hook and taking over the responsibility if it was that important to him to know sooner (which he really should have done the minute the groom offered in the first place, which would have saved this whole unfortunate situation from escalating, but I’ve already said that, so I won’t rehash it since that’s not what actually happened).
Aaaanyway, now that we’re done examining Jonathan’s social life under a microscope and picking it apart to death, what say we toast the bride and goom, as well as their lucky friends, the Chances, who get to share in their joyous day, and wish them all many more years of happiness and friendship (which ought to last a lifetime if they can keep resolving their misunderstandings better than we observers can, as they obviously did).
If they’re not married yet, it’s easy - traditionally, presents sent before the wedding are sent to the bride. If they are married, you would normally address it to both of them. You can ask her what her husband’s name is, or you can just send it to her and figure they’ll understand that if it’s a wedding present, it’s for both of them.
Thanks for the recommendations! I think I’ll be doing that - although we’re pretty sure the kids will participate in the dancing and fun stuff. Our ring bearer was my brother’s ring bearer last June and he spent half the reception dancing with us on the floor:). I offered to get a baby-sitter for the kids since I felt they might be bored, but the three siblings are fairly shy and won’t stay with a sitter - they’ll only stay with their parents, their daily sitter, my mother, or me. So I don’t want them with someone strange, especially when I know they’ll be fine. Thanks for the tips, though - I’ll definitely put some fun bags together for them:).
Out of curiosity, Sauron, has it never taken you more than a day or so to find an available baby-sitter? All the parents I know chronically lament how hard it is to find one, and they’re folks who are used to looking. Is it really so inconceivable that it would take someone who isn’t used to the whole baby-sitter-seeking bit more than a day or two to find one? To have someone offer to see what they can do and then bitch because it takes them a reasonable amount of time to do the necessary research and legwork is just stupid. Asking about it every single day, it’s like when you tell the Minions that you’ll do something later, and every ten minutes they ask you, “Is it later yet?”
Add that to the fact that the wedding is growing closer, your mother wants you to finalize the song list, your baker needs you to sign off on the cake, your caterer wants a final head count, you still have to finish your vows, your dress still needs to be fitted, you have a hair trial and makeup trial, bridal portraits, and you’re still working forty-fifty hours a week - and sometimes things take just a LITTLE longer than the regular guest expects.
So one of the beefs here is the groom not getting back to JC in his time frame about a baby-sitter when it was explicitly stated in the first place that children were not invited. Yes, it’s the bride and groom’s responsibility to make sure their guests have the information they need, but the bride and groom also have a LOT of other responsibilities, and they’re making a concession for you as it is.
Personally, I’d find a sitter for Baby Kate on your own - should that not be possible, decline the invitation. It’s as simple as that. And this is coming from a bride who has done as much as she possibly can to make sure her guests have every single bit of information that they need - and sometimes I’ve made sure they have more than they need. Give them a break.
Well, I don’t personally have anything against the rules of etiquette, or the necessity of such, I would agree that quite a bit of wedding etiquette is vague and misinterpreted or misused by quite a few people.
As an example, a few years ago Mr. Rich and I were invited to the wedding and reception of an old friend…or we kind of thought we might be. You see, I know that there is an etiquette rule about how to invite some guests to the reception and not to the wedding, and the invitation that we received was rather unclear as to whether we were being invited to both, or to just one with the announcement of the other included. I showed it to as many innocent bystanders as I could and everyone just scratched their heads and said “huh, damned if I know.” The wording was extremely vague and that’s not exactly something that you can just call the happy couple up and ask. “Say, did you mean to invite us to the wedding as well as the reception, or are we on the “only good enough to come and eat cake” list?” I had been strongly in the if-we-all-just-read-our-Emily-Post-the-world-would-be-a-better-place camp up until that point. Now, as much as I appreciate how good manners and proper etiquette can smooth over many a sticky situation, there are times when good old-fashioned directness would make everyone’s lives much easier.
If she’s changed her last name, I’d use the traditional “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” format on the envelope, and “Mary and John” on the inside (you can do the names on the inside in either order - might as well put hers first, since she’s your acquaintance).
If you’re going to do that, make extra, extra sure she has indeed changed her name. And it wouldn’t hurt to go on and address the package to Mary and Jon Doe. It’s equally correct, and far less likely to make her jump up and down shrieking, “I have an identity outside of him, goddammit!” Okay, most people don’t actually jump up and down screaming and cussing, especially when someone sends them presents, but the Mr. and Mrs. Hisname thing does make a lot of women feel like nonentities.
If she has not changed her name, put her name on one line, then his on the next. You can also address it to Her and Him, all on one line.
Bless you. 11 years later, and SOME PEOPLE still haven’t figured out that I’m still a person, and happen to exist outside of the identity that he deigned to bestow upon me. :rolleyes:
I didn’t change my damn name; get over it.
And I do jump up and down screaming and cussing over it. 11 years, goddammit! 11 years!