So I’m putting together my wedding program, but running into a problem naming the members of the wedding party. See, we’re going pretty damn large when it comes to the folks onstage: best man / maid of honor, our two sisters, and then five additional folks on each side. Making matters even wackier, my side consists of three guys and two girls. To summarize:
Bridesmaid x 5
Bride’s Sister
Maid of Honor
Bride
Groom
Best Man
Groom’s Sister
Groomsman x 3
???
My question is right up there. What do I call the two girls on my side? Groomsmaids? Groupies? Should I just call everyone Groomspeople? I can’t even think of a serious possibility!
Also, “Bride’s Sister” and “Groom’s Sister” are not recognized designations for members of a wedding party. The bride’s sister is one of the bride’s attendants or bridesmaids. The groom’s sister is one of the groom’s attendants. Attendants get no special billing for being immediate family members. (If the bride’s sister is essentially a co-maid of honor rather than just a regular bridesmaid, call them both “maids of honor”. )
By the way, all five of the groom’s attendants should be referred to by that name; don’t divide them into “groomsmen” for the males and “groom’s attendants” for the females.
And finally, although I don’t suppose you want to hear this, according to Miss Manners, the whole concept of having a wedding program with a named cast list, as though the event were a theatrical production instead of a solemn exchange of marriage vows, is in poor taste.
The only correct purpose for a wedding program is to serve as a sort of “order of the service” when the marriage is performed as a religious ceremony. That is, the program would list the hymns and prayers used, etc., and might include brief notes about particular religious rituals that would be unfamiliar to many of the guests.
The names and functions of members of the wedding party do not belong on the program—not even the names of the bride and groom, since all the guests know who they are anyway. If the guests want to find out who the other members of the wedding party are, let them introduce themselves after the ceremony, or ask other guests. That’s what the reception is for, and that’s exactly the sort of ice-breaking chit-chat that’s supposed to help the friends and families of these two unrelated individuals get acquainted with one another.
Besides, if you don’t put a cast list on the wedding program, then you don’t have to fret about all these nitpicky little details like how to classify a female groomsman.
How you figure? After all, the cast list doesn’t tell you how to identify the individual performers—excuse me, members of the wedding party—unless they have a special role like “Maid of Honor” or “Best Man”. So the “oldsters” are still going to be whispering to each other trying to figure out which name in the cast list matches up to which bridesmaid.
Or have bridal couples now started including little individual photos or descriptions of the various cast members to solve this problem? (“Bridesmaids: … Boadicea Smith. ‘Boody’ is the adorably plump bridesmaid with curly strawberry-blonde hair, carrying a bouquet of yellow calla lilies. She was the bride’s freshman-year roommate in college, and guess what, boys—she’s single!!!”)
It wouldn’t surprise me. Nothing would surprise me anymore when it comes to the ways people “get creative” with their weddings.
Jennifer SmithBridesmaid #4 Local weddinggoers may remember her from Stu and Trina’s nuptuals, Gary and Linda’s ceremony, or Cindy and Steve’s handfasting! She will doon be appearing in Mike and Brad’s wedding, unless the governor gets that bill signed in time. A graduate of Wedding Times, she enjoys reading and cooking in her spare time. She’d like to thank her mother for all her support during the wedding rehearsal process, and sends lots of love to her boyfriend Chad!
At the weddings I’ve attended recently the Bride’s and Groom’s attendents enter in the order they are listed in the program, except for the Maid of Honor and the Best man. No need for snarky biographies. This is also usually the order they enter the reception. Also, I’m guessing that when happywaffle says “on stage” he is talking about the head table at the reception, not the church.
I thought this was GQ not the pit. Maybe all wedding related questions should just start in the pit.
happywaffle: Welcome to the board. Hope you have a great wedding.
Well, as long as we’re quoting Miss Manners, we should also note that she makes an exception for people who correct others about etiquette when those others are asking for etiquette advice.
Otherwise, she’d be rude herself every time she does her job by correcting somebody who writes in to ask her opinion about their incorrect behavior.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Actually, I’m guessing that he was just making a joke. However, if for purposes of argument we’re taking his remark seriously, I have to point out that even at a reception, these theater-type expressions are still not in very good taste. The bridal couple and their attendants are hosting and/or attending a celebratory party with their friends and families, not putting on an entertainment event for an audience.
Maybe they should. However, if somebody shows up in GQ—which is a forum specifically for seeking objective answers to factual questions—asking how they ought to handle a particular situation in their wedding plans, they’re going to get responses telling them what the recognized etiquette is for that situation. That’s the closest thing to a factual answer that’s available.
If what happywaffle really meant to ask was, “What do you think would be a cool and clever way for me to refer to female members of the groom’s side of the wedding party on my wedding program?”, he should have taken his question to IMHO instead.
From what I can tell, he’s asking what term he should use in referring to his attendants, in the context of the wedding program.
The question was not “should I have a wedding program”, or anything involving an opinion on the tackiness or nontackiness of a wedding program in the first place. It was “Since I DO have a wedding program, what words do I use?”
A wedding is a special day in someone’s life, and if they want a nudist underwater wedding, or want to ride in on ostriches, it’s their personal choice. Stop dumping on the wedding program, for goodness’ sake. You don’t like it, don’t use it at your wedding.
Of course it is. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a recognized etiquette for wedding customs.
You’re mixing up your complaints here. If you want to reprimand me for broadening my factual answer to include an issue that happywaffle wasn’t directly asking about, fine. But your major beef seems to be different: something like “the recognized etiquette doesn’t matter as long as the bridal couple are doing whatever makes them happy”.
Which may be perfectly true, but is irrelevant in GD.
I apologize for my snarky biography entry. It was meant to amuse, not offend or put anyone down. (And, FTR, I thought we were in IMHO, where teasing is more appropriate.) I am very sorry if I caused offense to the OP* and I apologize for causing offense to you, sinjin.
*This isn’t an attempt at one of those weasly non-apology “if” apologies. The OP hasn’t let me know whether or not he’s offended.
No problems, this thread should probably be in IMHO anyway, but the starter is a guest and probably posted in the wrong place. I’ve thought about asking a mod to repositition it but haven’t gotten around to it yet. :wally My power, internet keeps going in and out because of thunderstorms.
And IMHO, I like to know who the players are in a wedding. I like to know who the priest is, the lector, the persons giving the readings, the vocalists, the attendants, etc. On many occasions I’ve heard the names of the people involved before, but don’t have faces to put with them. I guess every guest could make up a crib sheet beforehand and refer to it during the service so they know who’s who. However, it seems to me that the program provided by the wedding couple solves this problem by delineating the participants. Maybe this was not a problem when you only married into “your clan” and invited those in “your” church. My friends and family are more diverse than that. To me a wedding program makes it a little more personal, YMMV. If Kimstu and Miss Manners prefer that the wedding participents be anonymous, more power to them.
It’s right there. The OP asked for information about the correct way to refer to female attendants of the groom. That’s a subject on which the closest thing to a factual answer is provided by wedding etiquette.
The OP made it clear that he was using accepted designations for members of the wedding party such as “bridesmaids” and “groomsmen”, and was looking for a similarly accepted designation for a female groomsman.
If he didn’t care about using an accepted term, he could just call them “Groomschicks” or any other made-up name that suits his fancy. In that case, he needn’t bother to show up in GQ asking “What do I call them?”
Yes, I did give him more etiquette advice about wedding-party designations than he was actually asking for, but answering a bigger question than the one that was asked is a pretty common practice in Great Debates. Like WhyNot, I’m certainly prepared to apologize to happywaffle if he says that he considered my comments offensive or intrusive.
Maybe he did. In any case, now that the thread is in IMHO, everybody can disregard everything I posted previously. If people just want to consider wedding customs as expressions of their own personal preferences, which they have a perfect right to do, then etiquette rules are irrelevant.
