Head Table

lringue

I wanted to know if ushers and groomen are the same and if not do ushers sit at the head table with groomsmen? I also want to know about the flower girl and ringbeare. would be rude for me to not have them at the head table. I only do this because their mom wont be sitting nex to them and my mom will be constantly up from her table to check on them. I feel like this is distracting and to prevent this would be to sit them with my mom or their dad.

aurianna

Well if you're going to have all the other bridesmaids/groomsmen at the head table (assuming all their SOs are seated with them) then it's nice to put the ushers and their SOs there too so they don't feel like also-rans.
But depending on your bridal party size and how many of them have dates/SOs that can get out of hand.

We had three bridesmaids, three groomsmen and two ushers, most of which had SOs. So we just ended up doing a sweetheart table and set the wedding party with the various social groups they were closest to.
Another good option is bride, groom, best man, best man's date, maid of honor, maid of honor's date, just at one table.

IMO it's less important to get the children at the head table as they need to be seated with their parents.
I would try to get the ushers and their SOs at the head table if possible, and if not, consider sweetheart or just BM/MOH and their dates.

goodplan86

Ushers and groomsmen are different. Ushers greet guests, hand out programs and seat guests. Groomsmen are usually closer to the groom and stand up front with him. However, sometimes groomsmen also serve as ushers and do these roles before standing up front. Personally, I've never seen ushers at the head table, unless they were also groomsmen, but that may differ for each person's wedding. Depending on the size of your wedding party, that could lead to a very large head table. I would suggest seating them at a separate table but still near the front. As for the kids, I've always seen them seated with a parent rather than at the head table. Again, this is just from my personal experience, I don't know if there are exact rules for this but I hope my imput helps.

hordol

I asked this question the other day as well and it seemed like the general consensus was that you don't need to sit ushers at the head table, unless you want to I guess.

Weezy56

I would put the ushers with the rest of the bridal party so they don't feel like "leftovers". It'd be a nice thing to do. I would sit flower girl and RB with their parents. Be sure to have everyone sitting with their significant others.

artbyallie

Weezy56 said:

I would put the ushers with the rest of the bridal party so they don't feel like "leftovers". It'd be a nice thing to do. I would sit flower girl and RB with their parents. Be sure to have everyone sitting with their significant others.

This is the most important thing, and if you cannot fit them all at the head table, you shouldn't have one. You can do a sweetheart table, where just you and your new husband sit together (a good idea anyway, since you really won't get any other time to yourselves while at the wedding.)

lyndausvi

Instead of putting ushers with the WP, I say put the WP with the other guests.    

 While I know head tables are "traditional" I just don't get them.   I'm sure most WP do not want to be sitting at a head table anyway.   I suggest a sweatheart table or sitting at a table with your MOH/BM or something similar.

Sorry for the random tangent.   I just think people "always" seem them and think they are necessary, when the really are not.  It's one of those trends I wish would just go away.  They serve no real purpose as most B/G are not there for very long anyway.

[Deleted User]

I think you have to look at your situation. Will the ushers be wearing the same outfits at the groomsmen? If so they would stand out if they aren't seated with the other groomsmen. At my wedding since my husband wanted all of his guys with him the whole time we asked my two nephews who are in their early twenties to be our ushers. They just wore regular dress clothes unlike the groomsmen who wore tuxes so they didn't stand out as part of the bridal party. I didn't sit my nephews at the head table because they were more comfortable sitting at a table with their cousins (all the same age group) then at the head table with the older adults (40-50 year olds).

lyndausvi

double post

lringue

so to add some more detail. I have 13 in the wedding incl. me and fi a MOH, 2BM, 1JBM,1Flower Girl, 1RB, My Fi has a BM, 2GM possibly 3 if one ever decides to show up and 1Usher who is my brother. I wanted him as a male BM but was told it would be stupid so he got moved to my fi side as an usher. I guess I should ask him if he woud like to sit on my side my fi side or with the friends he knows at a table. I have a feeling he would say it dosent matter and it what i want. My mom has put sooooo much pressure on me about seatting i want to cry.

Xstatic3333

I agree with PP. We have a large wedding party too, and that would have been way too crazy. I'm sorry someone said it would be "stupid" to have your brother on your side; there would have been nothing wrong with that!

Besides sweetheart, which is what we are doing, you could also consider having you and FI sit with immediate family and SO's at a round table, provided its not too many people and everyone gets along.

SnowWhite334

I don't think I've ever been to a wedding where the ushers were at the head table (though most I've been to, there weren't separate ushers--the groomsmen greeted/sat guests).  I've also never been to a wedding where significant others were seated at the head table.  That just seems like it would get really crowded and awkward.  The head table (if you choose to have one) is for the people you've chosen to honor by having them stand up with you on your wedding day.  I've never heard someone complain about not getting to sit with their date for dinner, and most of the bridal party ends up scattering after that anyway and sitting wherever their date/friends/family is anyway.

Kate61487

SnowWhite334 said:

I don't think I've ever been to a wedding where the ushers were at the head table (though most I've been to, there weren't separate ushers--the groomsmen greeted/sat guests).  I've also never been to a wedding where significant others were seated at the head table.  That just seems like it would get really crowded and awkward.  The head table (if you choose to have one) is for the people you've chosen to honor by having them stand up with you on your wedding day.  I've never heard someone complain about not getting to sit with their date for dinner, and most of the bridal party ends up scattering after that anyway and sitting wherever their date/friends/family is anyway.

exactly, and then they awkwardly don't have a seat where they actually want to be: by their date.

I have been both the one at the head table and the one left at a guest table while H was at the head table.  Did it totally ruin my night? no.  Would I have preferred to sit with him? absolutely.

artbyallie

Kate61487 said:

SnowWhite334 said:

I don't think I've ever been to a wedding where the ushers were at the head table (though most I've been to, there weren't separate ushers--the groomsmen greeted/sat guests).  I've also never been to a wedding where significant others were seated at the head table.  That just seems like it would get really crowded and awkward.  The head table (if you choose to have one) is for the people you've chosen to honor by having them stand up with you on your wedding day.  I've never heard someone complain about not getting to sit with their date for dinner, and most of the bridal party ends up scattering after that anyway and sitting wherever their date/friends/family is anyway.

exactly, and then they awkwardly don't have a seat where they actually want to be: by their date.

I have been both the one at the head table and the one left at a guest table while H was at the head table.  Did it totally ruin my night? no.  Would I have preferred to sit with him? absolutely.

+1

I find it ironic and rather sad that people want to split up couples on a day that's about a lifetime commitment.

lringue

Most of the wedding party isnt going to have a guest any way. they either dont have one or their partner cant make i.t i only have 2 that have a guest one is the Bridesmaid and her husband is the Best Man and the other one sad she doesnt mind sitting away from her husband because the kids would be with him and she would get a break from them for a short while. My fi said he would feel weird with a sweetheart table. At this point i wish i had finger foods and chairs all around with no seating lol

lringue

My sister would be around her kids most of the day for pics ect. because they are the flower girl and RB and she has told me that it would be nice to not have to keep an eye on them for dinner and my mom offered them to have the option to sit with her or they can sit with the father or at he head table. My sister dosent really care she does try to go with the flow but she figures people end up moving around after they eat anyways.  I havent been to a wedding where they sit the guests of the wedding party at the head table too is this just a lacation thing or what?

SKPM

lringue said:

My sister would be around her kids most of the day for pics ect. because they are the flower girl and RB and she has told me that it would be nice to not have to keep an eye on them for dinner and my mom offered them to have the option to sit with her or they can sit with the father or at he head table. My sister dosent really care she does try to go with the flow but she figures people end up moving around after they eat anyways. I havent been to a wedding where they sit the guests of the wedding party at the head table too is this just a lacation thing or what?

It's a politeness thing. It's rude to split up couples, particularly at an event celebrating your relationship, and especially for your WP who has likely already spent the day apart from their SO while they get ready with you, stand in the ceremony, pose for photos, etc.

Edited for typos.

Gumby68

lringue said:

My sister would be around her kids most of the day for pics ect. because they are the flower girl and RB and she has told me that it would be nice to not have to keep an eye on them for dinner and my mom offered them to have the option to sit with her or they can sit with the father or at he head table. My sister dosent really care she does try to go with the flow but she figures people end up moving around after they eat anyways.  I havent been to a wedding where they sit the guests of the wedding party at the head table too is this just a lacation thing or what?

We are in the same boat. We had said we were going to do a sweetheart table because our wedding party has so many children (a total of 13 and only 4 of the 8 have children). Word quickly spread, and each person requested we do a "regular" head table without spouses because each of their spouses had others they could sit with. Apparently, they were all looking forward to all of us sitting together, and they thought it was weird we would have the spouses sit with us, especially when they were sort of looking forward to a day off from "kid duty." I was surprised to find out the spouses were all ok with this too when I checked with them to make sure they weren't just telling their wives/husbands they were ok with it. They agreed that their spouse deserved a day off. 

We are leaving a spot open at each of the spouses tables for the wedding party members so they can keep their belongings with their families after dinner rather than having things separated between the table and the head table. They also won't be taking someones seat if everyone at that table wants to remain seated. 

I know that you are supposed to keep spouses together, but I didn't feel right going against their wishes just to follow etiquette if it would make them unhappy.