ty

zachnjess2010 · March 2010

Thanks

amagwire · March 2010

If your fiance doesn't have many friends, how many are in your wedding party? Is there room for your WP and dates (therefore the mother) to sit together? I'm not having a head table, per se, but the WP and dates will be sitting at the same table as us. Honestly, I can see why she'd be upset - not tantrum worthy. But, this is a big day for her and she probably wants to be close to her husband.

banana468 · March 2010

Well, it's beyond rude to split up a social unit because you want the wedding party at the head table. That you're doing this to your FI's parents is so rude, I'm not sure how you can justify it.

Either do away with a head table, or have the head table appropriately - with your WP there with their SOs/dates.

There is no way to split up FIL from MIL at the wedding reception if they're married without it being totally unacceptable.

deepcovejackie · March 2010

The situation you just described does not make your FMIL a monster. Not by a long shot. She feels that her feelings are being disregarded (and they are). Listen to pp, what you are doing is rude.

KD+BC · March 2010

Definitely put her with her husband. Would you want to be split up from yours?

[Deleted User] · March 2010

Actually, you're the monster in this case. Why would anyone want to go to a wedding knowing they can't sit next to their significant other? that is rude, unreasonable, and flat out stupid.

Either do a sweetheart table with just you and your FI, let everyone sit wherever they want, or have your WP PLUS their partners at the table with you. We're dong the third, it will be me, FI, MOH, best man and wife, and my brother (usher) and his girlfriend.

mob112710 · March 2010

Wait a minute, since when is it rude to have only members of the BP at the head table? That's the way it's been at every wedding I've attended over the past 30+ years with the exception of one wedding where the B & G had a sweetheart table. There's usually a table for the BP's spouses/dates for dinner. IMHO there's something wrong with a couple that refuses to be parted for, at the most, two hours while dinner is served. The BP usually moves after dinner when the dancing starts to sit with their spouses/dates/friends anyway. The difference in this case is that the FOG has two roles -- BM and FOG, so in this case if the MOG insists on being difficult, either have a sweetheart table or have the FOG/BM sit at a table with the MOG and their guests. Quite frankly, if I were the MOB and the MOG and FOG were seated at the head table, I'd pitch a fit and be justified in doing it!

banana468 · March 2010

MOB, it's ALWAYS been rude to split up established social units.

That it was done before is no excuse.

I deal with this sort of mentality at work when we go through a procedural change: "But we've always done it THAT way!" Those repeating a pattern of bad behavior often don't think about why it's bad until they examine it.

It never was nor will it ever be appropriate to split up an established social unit for the sake of the seating arrangement at a wedding.

When it becomes OK to do that, the bride and groom get to sit at separate tables too.

deepcovejackie · March 2010

In any case, I think it's overreacting to call MOG a monster in this situation. I'm just cautioning this bride that starting off a relationship like that is going to lead to problems in the future.

mob112710 · March 2010

Dear Banana,

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, splitting up an established social unit (interesting terminology btw) for the purposes of facilitating the seating arrangements at an event is unacceptable. However, there are exceptions to this rule and one of these (perhaps the only one) is the seating of the WP at a wedding reception. I believe that there are certain expectations for those who accept roles in the BP and one of these is that they will sit at the Head Table (if there is one) with the Bride and Groom for the duration of the dinner. In my experience, there is also an understanding on the part of the non-BP part of the social unit that one's SO/spouse/date will be seated at the Head Table (if there is one) during the dinner portion of the reception.

However, the scenario to which Zachnjess2010 refers is fairly unique in that the Best Man is also the FOG. If the MOG feels so strongly aobut wanting to sit with the FOG during the dinner portion of the reception, then the FOG should sit with her as opposed to at the Head Table next to his son. IMO under no circumstances should both parents of the Groom be seated at the Head Table unless the parents of the Bride are seated there as well.

I understand that you feel strongly about the seating arrangements of the BP and their SOs/dates/spouses, but I don't understand why your response is so vitriolic. Surely if one's SO is close enough to the B or G to be a member of the BP then there are plenty of people with whom you're familar that you can get along without him/her for the duration of a meal -- it's not as though you're separated for the entire evening.

deepcovejackie · March 2010

I'm not going to answer for Banana, but to me the disturbing thing is the way this bride referred to her future MIL in the post. It just spells trouble to me, and she was clearly giving no thought to the needs and feelings of others.

FWIW, I don't think Banana was vitriolic at all, she's trying to keep the OP from making a mistake.

anne.azano · March 2010

I'm 100% with banana here. I think head tables that split up couples are terrible and if they split up the mother and father of the groom, that's even worse! This seems like a horrible idea to me. Maybe you could get away with it IF she was ok with the situation. However, she clearly isn't and has every right to feel that way. I would never even consider splitting up my parents or my FI's parents at the wedding regardless of who is in the wedding party. And when my half-brother got married, he had his 3 dads, our father, and his two step-dads... (his mom's had a crazy love life, long story) as his groomsmen and did not split any couples up either.

Here's what we're doing. Our "head" table is me, my FI, my parents, his parents, and my sister and her date if she chooses to bring one. My other bridesmaid has two kids and a husband so she will be seated with them, her parents, and her husband's parents, regardless of the fact that she's a bridesmaid. My third bridesmaid is also married and will be seated with her husband (also a groomsmen), the other groomsmen and his girlfriend and several other friends that are in the same social circle.

Head tables are done, but they are uncomfortable for a lot of the people involved. I wouldn't do it, esp when your mother in law (who may be a monster for other reasons, but not for her reaction to this) is upset by this decision.

By the way, what do your father-in-law and your FI think?

caseylynne21 · March 2010

i am guessing that by the description on the title isn't only refering to this case. chances are they dont get along well anyway. but i am with the person who suggested the problem of the bride's parents not getting to sit at the table as well. especially if they are contributing at all (which i don't know if they are). i know that my parents would have been horribly insulted to be slighted in this way.

You are in a really tough spot here. I appreciate this. I don't know what advice to honestly give you, but a sweetheart table might be your best solution. it might not be exactly what you want but it might save you from some pretty hurt parents

amagwire · March 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_moms-maids_monster-mog?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:357Discussion:04164cf3-40eb-497b-8f7b-d15bda8ea33dPost:2e338b49-783f-424c-8951-3603c85c5e6f">Re: Monster MOG!</a>:
[QUOTE]<strong>Wait a minute, since when is it rude to have only members of the BP at the head table</strong>? That's the way it's been at every wedding I've attended over the past 30+ years with the exception of one wedding where the B & G had a sweetheart table. There's usually a table for the BP's spouses/dates for dinner. IMHO there's something wrong with a couple that refuses to be parted for, at the most, two hours while dinner is served. The BP usually moves after dinner when the dancing starts to sit with their spouses/dates/friends anyway. The difference in this case is that the FOG has two roles -- BM and FOG, so in this case if the MOG insists on being difficult, either have a sweetheart table or have the FOG/BM sit at a table with the MOG and their guests. Quite frankly, if I were the MOB and the MOG and FOG were seated at the head table, I'd pitch a fit and be justified in doing it!
Posted by mob112710[/QUOTE]

<div>Eh, I don't know - I've always considered it rude to split up partners. It's not fun for the WP and it's not fun for their dates who have to sit with other people (they may not know). Obviously there are exceptions where everyone is OK with it, but every wedding that had a head table and I've known the WP, people do not like it. Just because "that's the way things are done," does not mean people like it. </div>

banana468 · March 2010

I'd say I'm passionate about things that I think are in such bad taste that there is no way to excuse the behavior. But I don't think that makes the statement vitriolic.

What's interesting to me MOB is that you think signing up to be split from your SO is part of the "honor" of being in a wedding party.

Beyond that, it's acceptable if the FOG accepts said honor and he's split from his spouse, potentially the parent of the groom as well at the reception.

However, while it's acceptable in your opinion to split up established social units, and it's acceptable to seat ONE parent of the bride or groom at the head table away from his/her spouse, it's completely out of line to seat both parents of one member of the couple at the head table and not the other set...because that's bad.

While I understand that a bit, what would your opinion be if the groom's BM was his father and the bride's MOH was her mother?

The bottom line though is that I don't think when one agrees to be in the wedding party that the person agrees to be split from his/her SO. As I said above, that it was done before is no excuse to continue with such a rude practice. Even before I came to TK, I thought to myself, "Banana, why do brides and grooms split their nearest and dearest from THEIR nearest and dearest on a day that's about uniting them in everlasting love? "

Beyond that, the reception is the TY to all the guests including the WP. Their "job" is over once the reception begins. Therefore, to keep them "doing" something is also being rude to those who are so close to the couple.

duckie1905 · March 2010

::bows to banana::

also, totally not cool to delete your post just because you didn't get the answers you wanted.

lalap69 · March 2010

I never thought I'd see the day when banana is accused of vitriol.

banana always has the most balanced and nicest answers I've ever seen.

banana468 · March 2010

Aww thanks ladies!

ty

Re: ty

Choose Another Board

Search Boards