Etiquette

Adults-only wedding

13

Re: Adults-only wedding

  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:

    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Where I am from you don't have to put the names of a person's children for them to assume that their kids are invited. People I know think if they're invited somewhere then their children automatically are too even if they're not on the official invite. Common sense is not common in NYC
    Well that is rude of them and if you know of specific cases where certain people assume their kids are invited then you should probably put a line saying "X seats are reserved in your honor" on the RSVP and spread the adults only by word of mouth so that it gets to them. 

    Also don't use where you are from as an excuse for poor etiquette. There are so many brides who say things like "I'm from the south so cash bars and pre-wedding fundraisers are just part of what's expected" or "I'm Catholic so gaps are accepted in my group" and you know what for every bride who claims one of those things there are several brides on here from the south who say that it isn't the case that cash bars are accepted or who are catholic and know not to have a gap. I'm sure there are plenty of people with common sense in NYC who know that if their kids name isn't on the envelope they aren't invited!
    I agree with you that it's a rude attitude for the people she's describing to have, but I didn't read that she was excusing the attitude-only claiming that in NYC there are many people who seem to think that their children are included whenever they receive an invitation.  (Note: I used to live in NYC and this is not a "regional" attitude. Some people have it (and they're rude); some don't.)
    Yes exactly! I'm not excusing it by any means I'm  merely sharing my  experiences. 
    Actually, claiming in the post above that "the majority of people from the outer boroughs) don't understand the etiquette of weddings" is making a prejudiced remark about how it's "regional thing" which it is definitely NOT.  

    I seriously doubt that you have met and know what the "majority of people in the outer boroughs" in a city of over 8 million people "understand."
    What you do not understand is growing up where I am from. For the most part we are from the lower income spectrum and can not afford to have lavish weddings, so when there are weddings this etiquette is not common and hardly recognized. When I say lower income I'm speaking for my own up bringing as well. So with all due respect I can make that claim without knowing 8 million people. Everyone assumes Nyc is this lavish city because of movies but all you're really seeing is Manhattan. There is a lot of poverty in the outer boroughs (and some parts of Manhattan too) and a lack of education because of the poverty. I'm not saying it to put anyone down at all I just want everyone to understand that these kinds of things you all consider to be common sense is not as common as you would think.
    You're the one doing "ridiculous generalization." I used to live in NYC (in an outer borough) so don't fucking tell me what I do or don't understand.  

    Your personal experiences do not qualify you to determine for everyone else in the outer boroughs of NYC whether or not the majority of people there "understand etiquette" unless you are personally acquainted at all times with every single person in that majority is thinking at all times. (Not to mention that they are <i>childhood</I> and "growing up" experiences (and you still have some to do) if you're going to base generalizations about what other people understand on themwhile simultaneously accusing others of "ridiculous generalizations" ( hypocritical much?)
    I'm really not sure how I'm being hypocritical here or why you assume I have growing up to do. You're being pretty hostile , using profanity and I have not been rude to you at all. So as far as the growing up idea its looking more like you have to. As I stated a few times there ARE people who do know over here but culturally these things don't really apply. If you read my other responses you would see that. 
    Your other response do not indicate that.  What they indicate is that you are attributing to millions of people whom you could not possibly know the belief that they don't understand etiquette.  Sorry, but drop the "growing up" idea.  Your argument doesn't work.

    Perhaps you should go back and read it over again objectively. Ultimately we're going to have to agree to disagree. You clearly are not even trying to understand  what I'm saying. I'm not here to argue so I'm going to politely excuse myself from engaging in conversation with you. I don't mind a debate but this is becoming an argument and I'm not really interested in that. 
    Sorry, but I've read it through, and I still don't agree with you.  What you're saying is a generalization, based on your childhood, attributed to the "majority" of several million people in a geographical area whom you couldn't possibly know.

    Makes no sense whatsoever-rationally or otherwise.

    Buh-bye.
    KnickerGold
  • edited February 2016

    A little off topic, but I was wondering if there are any people on this board that can comment on how many of their guest RSVP'd "wrong," meaning rsvp'd with kids or other people not specifically stated on the invite. 

    We sent out our invites and I happened to be at a friend's house when she opened it.  She said (after telling me they were lovely), you forgot to put "No children."  I replied that the inner envelope stated who was invited specifically, and that I had spread the word that we were focusing on an adults only atmosphere through word of mouth.  She thinks I am going to have to make a lot of phone calls to people.  I think I am probably good. 

    So I am just wondering, how many of you had to make calls on "uninvited" guests?  Thanks!

    I've always wondered ( this may sound dumb) but what is an inner  envelope? I've never understood. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member

    A little off topic, but I was wondering if there are any people on this board that can comment on how many of their guest RSVP'd "wrong," meaning rsvp'd with kids or other people not specifically stated on the invite. 

    We sent out our invites and I happened to be at a friend's house when she opened it.  She said (after telling me they were lovely), you forgot to put "No children."  I replied that the inner envelope stated who was invited specifically, and that I had spread the word that we were focusing on an adults only atmosphere through word of mouth.  She thinks I am going to have to make a lot of phone calls to people.  I think I am probably good. 

    So I am just wondering, how many of you had to make calls on "uninvited" guests?  Thanks!

    I've always wondered ( this may sound dumb) but what is an inner  envelope? I've never under 

    Stuck in box

    The most formal invitations come inside an envelope (the "inner envelope") that is then inserted into a larger envelope used to mail the invitations.  This is to provide extra protection for the engraving on the invitations from exposure to the elements.

    When they are used, the names of those persons included in the invitation are listed on the inner envelope ("Mr. and Mrs. John Smith/Ms. Jane Smith") whereas the outer envelope is addressed for postal delivery purposes (Mr. and Mrs. John Smith).  

    This example is how to address a formal invitation to a married couple an their minor child.
  • She later clarified her statement by saying she was speaking primarily about people who grew up in the Bronx coming from low income families. She clearly misspoke and has stated she's speaking about her own experience growing up. 

    As someone who grew up in a suburb of Detroit from a low income family, I can totally see what she's saying. I too have attended cash bars, tiered receptions, received invitations that state "adults only" or "child free."  I think one could make a case that people from lower socio economic circles aren't exposed to the same level of etiquette upbringing as those in higher classes. When you're returning bottles to buy a can of Chef Boyardee you don't really care which fork you use.

    I learned most of my manners from my best friends in college and some of the things I didn't know or ignorantly took advantage of were embarrassing. I joined this site because despite now being in a higher class, I didn't know a lot of basics about weddings.

    This is precisely what I was trying to explain 
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • I get what Sarini was trying to say. But I have also met a fair number of wealthy people who have poor etiquette! 

    I think following or not following etiquette has more to do with what is common in ones social circle, based on the way one was raised vs. wealth or not. 
    JediElizabeth[Deleted User]kimmiinthemitten
  • ernursej said:

    @CMGragain I would generally agree that income and etiquette aren't tied to each other, but your own statement indicated that your private school education taught you the basics of etiquette. Depending on one's background and experiences, etiquette may not be front and center . I also think there are levels of etiquette (saying thank you at the time of a dinner party, sending a thank you after attending a dinner party and knowing the correct way to address an invitation to such a dinner party). I think it is wonderful that there is the internet and forums such as this to help people that may not have had the opportunity for etiquette lessons.

    Agreed. I also think that it's fair to say that etiquette is subjective to culture. For instance in western countries slurping your soup is rude but in counties like Japan slurping your soup is politie because it shows that you are enjoying the soup given to you. What I'm getting at is that to some circles writing "no kids" on your invite is rude but for other circles of people it's no big deal. 
    ernursej
  • SP29 said:
    I get what Sarini was trying to say. But I have also met a fair number of wealthy people who have poor etiquette! 

    I think following or not following etiquette has more to do with what is common in ones social circle, based on the way one was raised vs. wealth or not. 
    You're totally right I referenced income because often times in lower income situations you have to forfeit etiquette to make due with what you have. (I'm speaking from personal experience, as well as   Different peoples I've known or do know now) I'm learning a lot from this website 
    kimmiinthemitten
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
    SP29KnickerGold
  • Sarini91 said:

    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Where I am from you don't have to put the names of a person's children for them to assume that their kids are invited. People I know think if they're invited somewhere then their children automatically are too even if they're not on the official invite. Common sense is not common in NYC
    Well that is rude of them and if you know of specific cases where certain people assume their kids are invited then you should probably put a line saying "X seats are reserved in your honor" on the RSVP and spread the adults only by word of mouth so that it gets to them. 

    Also don't use where you are from as an excuse for poor etiquette. There are so many brides who say things like "I'm from the south so cash bars and pre-wedding fundraisers are just part of what's expected" or "I'm Catholic so gaps are accepted in my group" and you know what for every bride who claims one of those things there are several brides on here from the south who say that it isn't the case that cash bars are accepted or who are catholic and know not to have a gap. I'm sure there are plenty of people with common sense in NYC who know that if their kids name isn't on the envelope they aren't invited!
    I agree with you that it's a rude attitude for the people she's describing to have, but I didn't read that she was excusing the attitude-only claiming that in NYC there are many people who seem to think that their children are included whenever they receive an invitation.  (Note: I used to live in NYC and this is not a "regional" attitude. Some people have it (and they're rude); some don't.)
    Yes exactly! I'm not excusing it by any means I'm  merely sharing my  experiences. 
    Actually, claiming in the post above that "the majority of people from the outer boroughs) don't understand the etiquette of weddings" is making a prejudiced remark about how it's "regional thing" which it is definitely NOT.  

    I seriously doubt that you have met and know what the "majority of people in the outer boroughs" in a city of over 8 million people "understand."
    What you do not understand is growing up where I am from. For the most part we are from the lower income spectrum and can not afford to have lavish weddings, so when there are weddings this etiquette is not common and hardly recognized. When I say lower income I'm speaking for my own up bringing as well. So with all due respect I can make that claim without knowing 8 million people. Everyone assumes Nyc is this lavish city because of movies but all you're really seeing is Manhattan. There is a lot of poverty in the outer boroughs (and some parts of Manhattan too) and a lack of education because of the poverty. I'm not saying it to put anyone down at all I just want everyone to understand that these kinds of things you all consider to be common sense is not as common as you would think.
    Yeah, you are generalising based on region.

    I've been to weddings on all sides of the spectrum, from cake and punch receptions to big blow out black tie events, etiquette is etiquette. 

    Money does not necessarily buy you class and manners, just as being brought up poor does not preclude you from having either. To generalise a lack of etiquette based on region or income is not going to go over well, and is not a good argument.
    InLoveInQueensPrettyGirlLost
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    CMGragain said:
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.

    Thanks for the condescending history lesson. I appreciate your attempt to educate me on things I full well know, but you're wrong. The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."
    I disagree with the bolded.

    "Etiquette" doesn't refer exclusively to the rules and manners "known only to people who are not 'those' people."  It is meant to include everyone.

    Certainly, some aspects of etiquette are not going to be well-known to people who are lower on the economic or social scales, and some aspects that affect only one subgroup, like one religion, culture, or geographic region, won't be well-known to others. 

    But there is no intent to "exclude" anyone from any aspect of etiquette.  It applies to all who happen to be in situations covered by that aspect.  Japanese etiquette applies to Western visitors to Japan, just as Western etiquette applies to non-Westerners.

    "Those people" (offensive term) are subject to the same rules of etiquette as everyone else.  If, say, one can't afford a black-tie wedding, then one doesn't have one.  But that doesn't prevent whoever falls in that category but is able to afford a black-tie wedding from having one, and it doesn't exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for black-tie weddings if they do have one.  Nor does it exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for whatever occasions they can afford and do host or participate in.  It's just as rude for people who fall in that category to, say, have a PPD as it is for people who don't fall in that category.
    CMGragain
  • Jen4948 said:
    CMGragain said:
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.

    Thanks for the condescending history lesson. I appreciate your attempt to educate me on things I full well know, but you're wrong. The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."
    I disagree with the bolded.

    "Etiquette" doesn't refer exclusively to the rules and manners "known only to people who are not 'those' people."  It is meant to include everyone.

    Certainly, some aspects of etiquette are not going to be well-known to people who are lower on the economic or social scales, and some aspects that affect only one subgroup, like one religion, culture, or geographic region, won't be well-known to others. 

    But there is no intent to "exclude" anyone from any aspect of etiquette.  It applies to all who happen to be in situations covered by that aspect.  Japanese etiquette applies to Western visitors to Japan, just as Western etiquette applies to non-Westerners.

    "Those people" (offensive term) are subject to the same rules of etiquette as everyone else.  If, say, one can't afford a black-tie wedding, then one doesn't have one.  But that doesn't prevent whoever falls in that category but is able to afford a black-tie wedding from having one, and it doesn't exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for black-tie weddings if they do have one.  Nor does it exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for whatever occasions they can afford and do host or participate in.  It's just as rude for people who fall in that category to, say, have a PPD as it is for people who don't fall in that category.

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?


    Mmmhhhhmmmm.  Sure, many etiquette rules amount to treating people well. But many others are gatekeeper rules. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    Jen4948 said:
    CMGragain said:
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.

    Thanks for the condescending history lesson. I appreciate your attempt to educate me on things I full well know, but you're wrong. The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."
    I disagree with the bolded.

    "Etiquette" doesn't refer exclusively to the rules and manners "known only to people who are not 'those' people."  It is meant to include everyone.

    Certainly, some aspects of etiquette are not going to be well-known to people who are lower on the economic or social scales, and some aspects that affect only one subgroup, like one religion, culture, or geographic region, won't be well-known to others. 

    But there is no intent to "exclude" anyone from any aspect of etiquette.  It applies to all who happen to be in situations covered by that aspect.  Japanese etiquette applies to Western visitors to Japan, just as Western etiquette applies to non-Westerners.

    "Those people" (offensive term) are subject to the same rules of etiquette as everyone else.  If, say, one can't afford a black-tie wedding, then one doesn't have one.  But that doesn't prevent whoever falls in that category but is able to afford a black-tie wedding from having one, and it doesn't exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for black-tie weddings if they do have one.  Nor does it exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for whatever occasions they can afford and do host or participate in.  It's just as rude for people who fall in that category to, say, have a PPD as it is for people who don't fall in that category.

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?


    Mmmhhhhmmmm.  Sure, many etiquette rules amount to treating people well. But many others are gatekeeper rules. 
    The bolded assertion is BSC.

    Many different people, of many different backgrounds, have made the rules over millennia.
    InLoveInQueens
  • Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    CMGragain said:
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.

    Thanks for the condescending history lesson. I appreciate your attempt to educate me on things I full well know, but you're wrong. The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."
    I disagree with the bolded.

    "Etiquette" doesn't refer exclusively to the rules and manners "known only to people who are not 'those' people."  It is meant to include everyone.

    Certainly, some aspects of etiquette are not going to be well-known to people who are lower on the economic or social scales, and some aspects that affect only one subgroup, like one religion, culture, or geographic region, won't be well-known to others. 

    But there is no intent to "exclude" anyone from any aspect of etiquette.  It applies to all who happen to be in situations covered by that aspect.  Japanese etiquette applies to Western visitors to Japan, just as Western etiquette applies to non-Westerners.

    "Those people" (offensive term) are subject to the same rules of etiquette as everyone else.  If, say, one can't afford a black-tie wedding, then one doesn't have one.  But that doesn't prevent whoever falls in that category but is able to afford a black-tie wedding from having one, and it doesn't exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for black-tie weddings if they do have one.  Nor does it exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for whatever occasions they can afford and do host or participate in.  It's just as rude for people who fall in that category to, say, have a PPD as it is for people who don't fall in that category.

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?


    Mmmhhhhmmmm.  Sure, many etiquette rules amount to treating people well. But many others are gatekeeper rules. 
    The bolded assertion is BSC.

    Many different people, of many different backgrounds, have made the rules over millennia.


    Millennia?!? I don't even know where to begin. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    CMGragain said:
    CMGragain said:
    Income and etiquette have nothing to do with each other.  My father was a truck driver.  My parents didn't own a home until I was 10.  I had the wonderful opportunity to attend (on scholarship) a private school in Memphis, TN for three years, where I was taught etiquette.  The other students were from upper middle class to upper class families, and the only way I could fit in was to learn to conform to the manners and etiquette of the old south.
    I must say that these girls were the kindest, most friendly I have ever known.  There was one girl who teased me about my clothes, and she was expelled because she didn't meet the school's behavior standards.  (Translation:  She didn't behave like a lady.)

    Completely disagree. Kindness, compassion, courtesy- those have nothing to do with income. Knowing that tuxedos aren't worn before 6 and that they are properly referred to as dinner jackets? Understanding inner envelopes? Eating asparagus with your fingers? All etiquette. More accessible to people of any background than ever, thanks to the internet, but large swathes of etiquette are just apeing the manerisms of The Edwardians. And that absolutely has quite a bit to do with income. 
    Not really.  The entire purpose of etiquette is to make the rules of behavior accessible to everybody, not just a privileged few.  I have seen posts by brides who seem to think that following proper etiquette is somehow snobbish.  No, treating people with politeness is not snobbish.

    I think you are confusing etiquette with tradition, plus a hefty dose of The Wedding Industry.  Remember, the Edwardians were all about relaxing the rules while keeping up appearances.  Their predecessors, the Victorians, were much more rigid and judgmental.

    Unfortunately, many modern brides seem to think that having a wedding means "It's MY DAY, and I can do whatever I want!  If my guests love me they won't be offended."  This is not good etiquette, and has nothing to do with income.  During my many years as a church organist, the tackiest weddings I saw were also the most expensive.

    By the way, Edwardian brides were married in the daytime, and nobody wore tuxedos to any Edwardian wedding.  Tuxedos weren't even allowed at weddings until the mid-1960s.  Dark suits were standard wedding attire for men.  Upper class men would wear a cutaway (morning coat) to a very formal wedding.  Of course, they already owned this daytime, formal attire.  Middle class and working class men did not own formal clothes, so they simply wore their good suits.

    Modern brides can easily have a perfectly proper Edwardian wedding.  They write out their formal invitations in their own handwriting to a dozen or so family and friends.  They ask their closest friend to be a bridesmaid.  The guests arrive at their home on the appointed afternoon and assemble in the front parlor, sitting on chairs borrowed from the neighbors.  The minister arrives and performs a simple ceremony for the young couple.  The wedding couple wears their "Sunday best" clothes, and flowers might come from the garden.  After the ceremony, everyone congratulates the couple, and goes to the dining room, where cake (home made), coffee, tea and punch are offered.  No alcohol.  No dancing.  This is how many of your great-grandmothers were married, and it is still perfectly OK today.

    Thanks for the condescending history lesson. I appreciate your attempt to educate me on things I full well know, but you're wrong. The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."
    I disagree with the bolded.

    "Etiquette" doesn't refer exclusively to the rules and manners "known only to people who are not 'those' people."  It is meant to include everyone.

    Certainly, some aspects of etiquette are not going to be well-known to people who are lower on the economic or social scales, and some aspects that affect only one subgroup, like one religion, culture, or geographic region, won't be well-known to others. 

    But there is no intent to "exclude" anyone from any aspect of etiquette.  It applies to all who happen to be in situations covered by that aspect.  Japanese etiquette applies to Western visitors to Japan, just as Western etiquette applies to non-Westerners.

    "Those people" (offensive term) are subject to the same rules of etiquette as everyone else.  If, say, one can't afford a black-tie wedding, then one doesn't have one.  But that doesn't prevent whoever falls in that category but is able to afford a black-tie wedding from having one, and it doesn't exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for black-tie weddings if they do have one.  Nor does it exempt whoever falls in that category from the rules of etiquette for whatever occasions they can afford and do host or participate in.  It's just as rude for people who fall in that category to, say, have a PPD as it is for people who don't fall in that category.

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?


    Mmmhhhhmmmm.  Sure, many etiquette rules amount to treating people well. But many others are gatekeeper rules. 
    The bolded assertion is BSC.

    Many different people, of many different backgrounds, have made the rules over millennia.


    Millennia?!? I don't even know where to begin. 
    Yawn.

    It sounds like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.  You're not usually so aggressively hostile about etiquette.  In fact, you're one of the regulars who comes down the hardest on new posters for failing to abide by it.

    So don't bother "beginning" -- just go catch up on your sleep or whatever it takes for you to grow up and lose the unnecessary hostility.
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    STARMOON44 said, "The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?"

    Who the hell told you this shit?  It is completely untrue, and it is also snobbish to think that "rich people" (a tacky term) want to exclude others. 

    I have known lovely people from all different classes.  The kindest, nicest lady I ever met was a Senator's wife who was visiting the country club where I was working as a maid.  We became friends, and she saw  me occasionally when I married and moved to Washington.  The rudest, most awful person I ever met was also wealthy, and wanted to be sure that everyone knew how superior he was, and how much money he had!  This is NOT good etiquette!  (No, I'm not talking about the DONALD.)

    The privileged girls from the private school I attended on scholarship never excluded me, or made the class difference known in any way.  The girls in the public school teased me for not having fashionable clothes and the "right" shoes.  Who was being snobbish and exclusive?

    I am surprised at you, STARMOON44.  I thought you knew better than this.  The most important rules of etiquette were taught by a working class carpenter's son from Galilee.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  •   STARMOON44 said,   "Mmmhhhhmmmm.  Sure, many etiquette rules amount to treating people well. But many others are gatekeeper rules."

    Name some! 
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    CMGragain said:
    STARMOON44 said, "The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?"

    Who the hell told you this shit?  It is completely untrue, and it is also snobbish to think that "rich people" (a tacky term) want to exclude others. 

    I have known lovely people from all different classes.  The kindest, nicest lady I ever met was a Senator's wife who was visiting the country club where I was working as a maid.  We became friends, and she saw  me occasionally when I married and moved to Washington.  The rudest, most awful person I ever met was also wealthy, and wanted to be sure that everyone knew how superior he was, and how much money he had!  This is NOT good etiquette!  (No, I'm not talking about the DONALD.)

    The privileged girls from the private school I attended on scholarship never excluded me, or made the class difference known in any way.  The girls in the public school teased me for not having fashionable clothes and the "right" shoes.  Who was being snobbish and exclusive?

    I am surprised at you, STARMOON44.  I thought you knew better than this. The most important rules of etiquette were taught by a working class carpenter's son from Galilee.

    Well, actually, an adopted Pharaoh's son carved them in stone first...

  • What the fuck? Jesus didn't die to bring us no tuxes before 6 and special forks for oysters. My point is that etiquette is more than just courtesy, and that some of the rules have traditionally served as a way of distinguishing social classes. 
    ShesSoColdsouthernbelle0915
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    What the fuck? Jesus didn't die to bring us no tuxes before 6 and special forks for oysters. My point is that etiquette is more than just courtesy, and that some of the rules have traditionally served as a way of distinguishing social classes. 
    Go have some ice cream or something to chill out.
    CMGragain
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited February 2016
    Etiquette has absolutely NOTHING to do with distinguishing social classes.  There are no etiquette rules that exclude anyone because of their class, only their behavior.  One of the most important rules of etiquette, especially wedding etiquette, is to treat all of your guests equally.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
    Jen4948KnickerGold
  • drunkenwitchdrunkenwitch
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary First Answer
    member
    edited February 2016
    CMGragain said:
    STARMOON44 said, "The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?"

    Who the hell told you this shit?  It is completely untrue, and it is also snobbish to think that "rich people" (a tacky term) want to exclude others. 

    I have known lovely people from all different classes.  The kindest, nicest lady I ever met was a Senator's wife who was visiting the country club where I was working as a maid.  We became friends, and she saw  me occasionally when I married and moved to Washington.  The rudest, most awful person I ever met was also wealthy, and wanted to be sure that everyone knew how superior he was, and how much money he had!  This is NOT good etiquette!  (No, I'm not talking about the DONALD.)

    The privileged girls from the private school I attended on scholarship never excluded me, or made the class difference known in any way.  The girls in the public school teased me for not having fashionable clothes and the "right" shoes.  Who was being snobbish and exclusive?

    I am surprised at you, STARMOON44.  I thought you knew better than this.  The most important rules of etiquette were taught by a working class carpenter's son from Galilee.
    Other religions, besides yours, also have ettique. I have also known atheists who are wonderful people. Shocking. What in the bloody blue blazes does Jesus have to do with this?

    Jen4948SP29STARMOON44JediElizabeth
  • CMGragain said:
    STARMOON44 said, "The purpose of etiquette has never been making good manners accessible to everyone. It has always been a method of excluding "those people."

    Rich people made the rules, and now all of us have to follow them or we are being rude?"

    Who the hell told you this shit?  It is completely untrue, and it is also snobbish to think that "rich people" (a tacky term) want to exclude others. 

    I have known lovely people from all different classes.  The kindest, nicest lady I ever met was a Senator's wife who was visiting the country club where I was working as a maid.  We became friends, and she saw  me occasionally when I married and moved to Washington.  The rudest, most awful person I ever met was also wealthy, and wanted to be sure that everyone knew how superior he was, and how much money he had!  This is NOT good etiquette!  (No, I'm not talking about the DONALD.)

    The privileged girls from the private school I attended on scholarship never excluded me, or made the class difference known in any way.  The girls in the public school teased me for not having fashionable clothes and the "right" shoes.  Who was being snobbish and exclusive?

    I am surprised at you, STARMOON44.  I thought you knew better than this.  The most important rules of etiquette were taught by a working class carpenter's son from Galilee.
    Other religions, besides yours, also have ettique. I have also known atheists who are wonderful people. Shocking. What in the bloody blue blazes does Jesus have to do with this?

    Jesus wasn't about etiquette at all. Dude totally negged on a dry wedding and insisted that they serve wine instead and waltzed into the temple and just threw over other people's perfectly good tables. 
    drunkenwitchCMGragainHeffalumpSP29
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards