Head Table

EmilyAnderson

I have been reading these boards for a while now and have a question of my own. I see a lot of people hate it when there is a head table with only the Bride, Groom and BP (putting SOs of the BP at a table next to the Head Table). In my situation, the SOs/Husbands of our BP all know eachother and spend time together on a regular basis (we all went to high school together), so I don't see a problem with sitting them separate from their SOs and I certainly don't plan on the BP having to do anything but eat at the Head Table, after eating they are free (and I hope they do) to roam. I guess I am asking - what am I missing? Why is it such a rude, horrible idea? I get that if someone's SO doesn't know anyone that it may be kind of awkward, but in my example above, is it really so bad?

lc07

Yes, it is so bad. I recently attended a wedding where one of the SO's was really upset about it. She was complaining about it but asked me not to tell the couple. So it's true that people get very upset about it but won't tell the couple to their face. It's more than just eating dinner. It's right after the grand entrance, it's during dinner - which usually takes a while, it's during toasts, it's while eating cake, it's "home base" for people and to separate them is completely against etiquette. If you don't want SO's at your head table, that's fine. Just seat your bridal party at tables where their SOs are already seated. 

lyndausvi

I have yet to hear a good reason why the ENTIRE guest list gets to sit with their dates,  but the WP, those who are suppose to be the closest to you, have to sit apart from their dates?     

If the table is a long table the couple can only sit next to one other WP member anyway?   Don't get me started on the bride and groom rarely sitting more than 10-20 minutes.

Seriously, there is no good reason to have a HT in general, definitely not one without the dates of those who are closest to you.

kmmssg

EmilyAnderson said:

I have been reading these boards for a while now and have a question of my own. I see a lot of people hate it when there is a head table with only the Bride, Groom and BP (putting SOs of the BP at a table next to the Head Table). In my situation, the SOs/Husbands of our BP all know eachother and spend time together on a regular basis (we all went to high school together), so I don't see a problem with sitting them separate from their SOs and I certainly don't plan on the BP having to do anything but eat at the Head Table, after eating they are free (and I hope they do) to roam. I guess I am asking - what am I missing? Why is it such a rude, horrible idea? I get that if someone's SO doesn't know anyone that it may be kind of awkward, but in my example above, is it really so bad?

I think so.  The B&G monopolize the wedding party all day with getting ready and pictures before, pictures after the ceremony.  That SO/FI/SPOUSE has been on their own all day while their bridal party partner has been monopolized, the least the couple can do is to either have the partners at the head table or do a sweetheart table.  Let them enjoy dinner together.

JellyBean52513

Why even allow your WP members to attend with someone if you're going to make them sit apart? That makes zero sense.

banana468

Your FI most likely knows a ton of guests at the wedding. How about you both sit away from each other just for dinner?

phira

I agree with previous posters, but I want to put it a little differently.

Consider your wedding party to be your honored guests. That means, treat them like your other guests, but give them some kind of elevation. Walking down the aisle, reading during the ceremony, holding the rings, and giving a toast are all great ways to show that someone is an honored guest.

But honored guests are still guests. When I think about attending a wedding with my partner, I'm thinking about attending with my partner. Like, I'm super happy for the couple getting married, and that IS why we're all gathering together, and that IS who we're celebrating. But I'm coming as part of a social unit.

I think that lots of brides and grooms try to justify choices they're making by focusing on how their friends or family would be totally okay with something that other people are not okay with. OP, you've mentioned that you've seen plenty of complaints about head tables from people in wedding parties who are upset that they can't sit with their significant others. Or maybe you've read up on the Worst Weddings thread, and you see how many people did not like attending weddings when their dates were in the wedding party and were seated at the head table without them.

Instead of thinking, "Here's why I'M SURE they wouldn't mind being seated separately," I'd treat the situation as if all of them would mind and just aren't telling you.

I also wouldn't consider, "They only have to sit there during dinner" to be a plus in the situation. That's true of all head tables. Consider that their significant others have spent the ceremony and likely cocktail hour alone and mingling--now they have to wait even longer and can't share a meal with the person they love?

AddieCake

I love how Banana put it. You and your groom can sit apart from each other, too, since it's fine to make your WP do it. Lynda also makes a good point. You wouldn't do that to any other guests, so why the WP?

msuprincess04

It's a day to celebrate love. Why separate couples on a day like that? "Pretty pictures" is a lame excuse (why would you have pictures of them eating anyway?).

sandrabrooke

And for my wedding, we had a sweetheart table.  After the main course I started mingling anyways!  I made sure to focus on my guests rather than hanging out with people I see a lot, likely.  

HisGirlFriday13

Ditto all PPs. Also, please page a Knot God (@KnotPorscha, for example) to get your screen name changed from something that isn't your real first and last names. 

@banana468 said it best. 

Also, your WP duties end with the end of the ceremony -- at which point they become regular guests, who (apparently at your wedding) then get the privilege of sitting with their SOs.

Blergbot

To me it's not just rude but super awkward as well. For one, it's like the WP are on display for the other guests. And two, it's as if the WP are somehow royalty that can't be seen eating/socializing with the commoners who were just invited as guests. Also, it screams 80s wedding to me.

PrettyGirlLost

kmmssg said:

EmilyAnderson said:

I have been reading these boards for a while now and have a question of my own. I see a lot of people hate it when there is a head table with only the Bride, Groom and BP (putting SOs of the BP at a table next to the Head Table). In my situation, the SOs/Husbands of our BP all know eachother and spend time together on a regular basis (we all went to high school together), so I don't see a problem with sitting them separate from their SOs and I certainly don't plan on the BP having to do anything but eat at the Head Table, after eating they are free (and I hope they do) to roam. I guess I am asking - what am I missing? Why is it such a rude, horrible idea? I get that if someone's SO doesn't know anyone that it may be kind of awkward, but in my example above, is it really so bad?

I think so.  The B&G monopolize the wedding party all day with getting ready and pictures before, pictures after the ceremony.  That SO/FI/SPOUSE has been on their own all day while their bridal party partner has been monopolized, the least the couple can do is to either have the partners at the head table or do a sweetheart table.  Let them enjoy dinner together.

This is the case even if the couple is in the WP together.  I was recently in a OOT wedding where FI and I were both in the WP and there was a head table, and sadly FI and I were not even seated together then!  The Bride and Groom were in the center and the GM's sat to the left of the groom and we had to sit to the right of the bride.  I didn't get to spend time with my FI until like 9pm that night. . . and I had been up doing WP things since 9am that morning.

LisaA2014

Ahh my current war with my FMIL. She insists on a head table and that 'nobody cares'. I insist on a sweetheart table so our friends can sit with their SOs. I think she likes telling me my ideas are stupid but she means well, I guess

Blue_Bird

What is your rationale for forcing the bridal party to sit at the head table, especially without their partners?

Amyzen83

This is my view on the bridal party in general, when I was a child I loved playing with Barbie Dolls, and I loved weddings, so I would always pretend my Barbie Dolls were getting married, and of course the bridesmaids were dating or married to the groomsmen, and I think in a perfect world that's how it would be. When I became a teenager - adult, and went to more weddings, reality showed that this is usually not the case. Most likely your best friend is going to date or marry someone you have never met until your friend introduced them, and chances are that person is not going to even know your FI. So most likely few if any SOs are going to actually be in the bridal party and it's likely 1 or two of your bridal party members have non-bridal party children. 

I'm trying to think of the logistics of a head table and for mine, it would be a pretty long table of 26 people! So I'm thinking in this situation a sweetheart table may be the best way to go, and I'd seat the rest of the bridal party amongst the rest of the guests.

If your bridal party is small and you want to do a head table then you absolutely must seat them with their SOs. The only way that I could see a head table working with the Bride and Groom in the middle with their bridal party on either side, is if ALL of the bridesmaids and groomsmen are single, which is highly unlikely and since these people are in your bridal party and are spending a lot of time with you, they should also be allowed plus ones even if you aren't extending that to the rest of your guests. I hope this makes some bit of sense.

AshleyNicole1218

Another one against. The last wedding I was in had a head table on a stage. I didn't even get to eat because no one at the head table sat for dinner, and I didn't want to be the only one eating. ON THE STAGE.

My FI was allll the way at the other end of the room, and I couldn't even see him. I felt so horrible for him sitting with people he has never met before. Not to mention he had to share his food since I was embarrassed to carry my plate across the dance floor to a place I could enjoy. There's no good, rationale reason for a head table seperating SOs.

manateehugger

Nope - don't do it. It's awkward and annoying and rude to the people you are supposed to care about the most. 

If you want a head table, explore a king's table that has enough room to fit in dates and S/O's.

Bbk1211

See i am trying to do a sweet heart table instead cause not only does my bp have so's my one is my cousin she has a so and 6 kids to tend to and i refuse to take her from her kids especially cause of past events which caused the kids and her to have ptsd but i am worried that my venue will have a huge table on a stage so i am planning against that with other ideas cause i want my bp to have fun and enjoy themselves as much as i am

melbelleup

So, I'm going to throw myself under the bus. The only people in my WP that would not be with their SO would be my best friend and my 2nd cousin/friend. I asked them if they wanted their SO to sit at the head table with them and both said no. So, I'm leaving it where the girls will be on my side and the guys will be on my FI's side. It's how I've always seen weddings in my area and the one person who did do a sweethearts table my family basically was beyond confused.

cruffino

I don't like head tables for all the reasons listed. FI and I didn't want a sweetheart table either, so we'll be sitting at a regular table.

Theres only so much pomp and circumstance I can stand in a wedding before it becomes a spectacle.

Bubblegum5586

Blergbot said:

To me it's not just rude but super awkward as well. For one, it's like the WP are on display for the other guests. And two, it's as if the WP are somehow royalty that can't be seen eating/socializing with the commoners who were just invited as guests. Also, it screams 80s wedding to me.

I have gone to about 20 weddings in the past 4-5 years and I have only seen sweetheart tables. Head tables seem out of date to me too. And I loved having my sweetheart table, it gave a few minutes alone with my hubby (granted everyone could see us so it was not a private moment) but just a few minutes to talk and take it all in was awesome, because as soon as dinner was over we didn't get anytime to talk again until that night when we got back to the hotel!

tcnoble

@cruffino how did you decide which table to seat yourselves at/what guests are you sitting with? I, too, am not keen on a sweetheart or head table so this might be the solution!

lyndausvi

tcnoble said:

@cruffino how did you decide which table to seat yourselves at/what guests are you sitting with? I, too, am not keen on a sweetheart or head table so this might be the solution!

I've seen table with just the MOH/BM.   Our table was with the younger members of our WP (unique situation, but it worked for us).   I've seen the couple sit with their siblings or parents.  There are a lot of different ways you can pick who to sit with.

vt&dt

OP, this is how we solved that problem - we didn't want to exclude the SO's of our BP at all.

We're sitting at a smaller "HT" with us, maid of honor and her boyfriend, best man and his wife (so 6 of us all together) and then have two "Bridal Party" tables right off to the sides of the "head table" where the BP and their dates will sit with each other.  This also helps a couple of people in our wedding party that have young kids - there's plenty of room for their kids at the bridal party tables as well.

We insisted that we wouldn't separate our closest people from their closest people.

ETA: grammar.

PrettyGirlLost

melbelleup said:

So, I'm going to throw myself under the bus. The only people in my WP that would not be with their SO would be my best friend and my 2nd cousin/friend. I asked them if they wanted their SO to sit at the head table with them and both said no. So, I'm leaving it where the girls will be on my side and the guys will be on my FI's side. It's how I've always seen weddings in my area and the one person who did do a sweethearts table my family basically was beyond confused.

I wonder if they talked to their SO's before making this declaration, lol?!

They probably don't know any better, as the norm for most people are these awful head tables with the BM's on the Bride's side and the GM's on the Groom's side.

We aren't having assigned seating or a formal sit down meal- we are having food stations with many tables, high boy tables, and other seating areas throughout the venue, and when we met with the venue coordinator FI asked if we could have a sweetheart table.  At first I was opposed to the idea because I thought guests would think it was rude and we would come off as acting better than everyone or something, but after reading posts on TK, I think it is a nice idea and no one will perceive us as being rude. 

Many brides have said that having a sweetheart table allowed them to spend 15 to 20mins alone with their Husband to talk and eat in "peace" before having to make their rounds to greet guests, and cut the cake, etc.

photokitty

OP, I always hated when I was seated at the head table away from my SO, but I didn't know it was rude (aka everyone hates it and it shouldn't be done) until this forum. It doesn't matter if you know everyone else, you still want to sit with your SO. Personally I hate head tables for the reason you pointed out - they are empty the rest of the night, but on display and in the forefront. This is why I choose to do a sweetheart table. GL!

PrettyGirlLost

vt&dt said:

OP, this is how we solved that problem - we didn't want to exclude the SO's of our BP at all.

We're sitting at a smaller "HT" with us, maid of honor and her boyfriend, best man and his wife (so 6 of us all together) and then have two "Bridal Party" tables right off to the sides of the "head table" where the BP and their dates will sit with each other.  This also helps a couple of people in our wedding party that have young kids - there's plenty of room for their kids at the bridal party tables as well.

We insisted that we wouldn't separate our closest people from their closest people.

ETA: grammar.

That set up is called a King's Table because it is reminiscent of how the tables were set up at dinner in a king's court.  The King and Queen and their guests of honor or closest advisers sat at a head table, and then right below them and to either side sat the rest of the court ranked by their status in the court; the closer you sat to the King the higher your status was.

grumbledore

EmilyAnderson said:

I have been reading these boards for a while now and have a question of my own. I see a lot of people hate it when there is a head table with only the Bride, Groom and BP (putting SOs of the BP at a table next to the Head Table). In my situation, the SOs/Husbands of our BP all know eachother and spend time together on a regular basis (we all went to high school together), so I don't see a problem with sitting them separate from their SOs and I certainly don't plan on the BP having to do anything but eat at the Head Table, after eating they are free (and I hope they do) to roam. I guess I am asking - what am I missing? Why is it such a rude, horrible idea? I get that if someone's SO doesn't know anyone that it may be kind of awkward, but in my example above, is it really so bad?

It's the worst. I don't want to sit away from my FI at someone else's wedding. Why would your separate couples on a day when you are celebrating your own relationship?

vt&dt

PrettyGirlLost said:

vt&dt said:

OP, this is how we solved that problem - we didn't want to exclude the SO's of our BP at all.

We're sitting at a smaller "HT" with us, maid of honor and her boyfriend, best man and his wife (so 6 of us all together) and then have two "Bridal Party" tables right off to the sides of the "head table" where the BP and their dates will sit with each other.  This also helps a couple of people in our wedding party that have young kids - there's plenty of room for their kids at the bridal party tables as well.

We insisted that we wouldn't separate our closest people from their closest people.

ETA: grammar.

That set up is called a King's Table because it is reminiscent of how the tables were set up at dinner in a king's court.  The King and Queen and their guests of honor or closest advisers sat at a head table, and then right below them and to either side sat the rest of the court ranked by their status in the court; the closer you sat to the King the higher your status was.

Thanks for that info!  I know I've heard of that setup before but couldn't remember the name for it

I'll have to decide whether or not I'm going to tell FI that... he'll declare himself a king and that might get old  Haha!!

  

Cookie Pusher

I have hated head tables since my parents wedding back in the early 90s. They each only had one honor attendant, so they had them with their SOs at the head table with them. They put me and my sisters at one of the kids tables. Well, the MOH's daughter thew a fit and insisted on sitting with her parents, so MOH and her husband dragged chairs and place settings so both of their kids could sit at the head table. I was only 11, but I felt really hurt that my parents didn't want us sitting with them but were okay with someone else's kids there. (As an aside, MOH also put her daughter in a dress that looked suspiciously like the dresses my sisters and I were wearing and pushed her into a TON of the wedding pictures.)