Head Table - Just Don't - Rant

themuffinman16

  To me, it is not whining. I went to my FBIL's wedding, and I was not in the wedding party, but my Fiance was... along with the rest of their brothers and sisters. I was the oddball. I was stuck at the Second cousin once removed table, where the guests were MUCH older than me, and I didn't know anyone in the vicinity. I sat in silence for an hour because other people were not really receptive to conversing with me, as much as I tried to start a conversation. You have dinner, toast, and spotlight dances, and sometimes the bridal party dances to kick off the dance floor.  In reality it is 2 hours, not to mention the getting ready, the ceremony and photos.

  If everyone you know is in the wedding party or parent's table, it makes for a pretty crappy day. FI argues with me that it wasn't that bad. Maybe when someone puts me in a head table, someday, he will feel know how it makes people feel. I really just seems weird to split up couples.  Nobody requests that the bride sits with her bridesmaids and NOT her husband... so why do it to your wedding party and their SOs.

schellzinator

I don't really care either way about head tables if I'm in the wedding party. HOWEVER, I'll put a plug in for the Knot regs. I had no preference prior to my October 2013 wedding on seating arrangements.  But after coming here and reading the different posts regarding separating SOs and having a head table - I opted to just do the sweetheart table for me and the Mr. It was strategically placed to the side so we didn't feel like we were front and center - and let's be honest - I believe the sea bass and the piggies totally upstaged us at our own wedding. Our bridal party sat with friends/family we thought they would want to sit with.  Sisters were together, high school bridesmaid/groomsmen were with respective high school friends and same with college/work bridesmaids/groomsmen.  

In my circle, now that we are all a bit older - we don't get to see our close friends/families as much so I wanted to make sure that everyone was seated somewhere that they would enjoy themselves. My one seating error was placing my pregnant college friend with some post college friends who she knew - but wasn't super close with. One of them had just experienced a rather complicated birth unbeknownst to me - and she told horror stories throughout dinner about her birth experience. 

AddieCake

themuffinman16 said:

  Nobody requests that the bride sits with her bridesmaids and NOT her husband... so why do it to your wedding party and their SOs.

This. And I often have to attend things without my husband where I barely know anyone, and it is very awkward and uncomfortable.

melbenso

This is why we did a King's Table.  Wedding party, their SOs and their kids all sat at the table with us (total of 16 people).  We wanted to be able to spend some time with our wedding party at dinner, since everyone in it traveled at least 100 miles - and some from the other side of the country - to be with us for our wedding.

No one was separated from their SO or family. No one was on display.  Everyone got to talk to everyone else.  And the layout of the room looked really great.

MobKaz

There are so many logical and sensible reasons for NOT having a head table.  What is the argument FOR having a head table?   The wedding party was honored and prominent during the ceremony.  I don't know why that needs to be extended into the reception.  The reception is for the guests.  Once the ceremony ends, the members of the bridal party have fulfilled their roles and should be allowed to enjoy themselves as guests.

Ndelible

So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.

thisismynickname2

MobKaz said:

There are so many logical and sensible reasons for NOT having a head table.  What is the argument FOR having a head table?   The wedding party was honored and prominent during the ceremony.  I don't know why that needs to be extended into the reception.  The reception is for the guests.  Once the ceremony ends, the members of the bridal party have fulfilled their roles and should be allowed to enjoy themselves as guests.

"Because the venue coordinator said, 'That's where the head table goes,' and everyone else I know did it that way too, so it must be right. She's the professional, after all."  

ashleyep

Ndelible said:

So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.

As soon as you invite other people, the day is no longer just about you. Your bridal party are not props. They are real people, most of whom would like to sit with their dates.

Is it the end of the world? No. But you shouldn't subject your bridal party to it.

My mom thinks our sweetheart table is dumb. I don't really care what she thinks, I wasn't going to make the bridal party sit separate from their guests after they spent the cocktail hour apart for pictures, the ceremony apart, and most of the afternoon apart before the wedding. The bridal party is split between 3 different tables and are seated with other family and friends of theirs.

JellyBean52513

Ndelible said: So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.
 
---------------------------- quote box acting stupid.
Actually, the reception is all about the guests. The reception is the "thank you" to the guests for attending the ceremony. That's why it's called a reception, you're receiving your guests as husband and wife. Making your guests--including the honored ones in the bridal party--sit apart from the people they attended with, traveled with, probably spent money with to get you a gift, is a pretty crappy "thank you for coming!" if you ask me. 

Besides, a reception really is just a big party that's only necessary if you invite people to the ceremony. Sure, you get to choose what food is served. You get to choose what type of music is played. You even get to decide if you want to serve alcohol or not. You wouldn't throw a dinner party at your house and tell the couples to sit on opposite sides of the dining room table, would you? Assigning tables at a wedding reception makes sense only because it's typically a much larger group of people, and having some organization to where people will sit is logistically wise. However, seating arrangements in that sense are for making sure everyone has a place to sit, not for the aesthetics. Forcing people to sit away from their dates during dinner is terribly rude.

Besides, I may be the only one, but I don't like to eat in front of a ton of people. Also, my SO and I *love* having dinner together. We frequently "cheers" our glasses during our meals and come up with cute, silly toasts to make to each other. We just celebrated our two-year anniversary, and this is how we spend dinner every night that we can. I would hate more than anything to spend a dinner watching him eat alone and watching him text me some "cheers" because we couldn't sit together. If I knew in advance the event we'd be attending would keep us separate during dinner, I'd decline. Judge me all you want for "not being able to spend a few hours away from my partner," but that's just the way it is!

MobKaz

Ndelible said:

So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.

Did I miss your logical and reasonable explanation as to why a head table is necessary?

AddieCake

Ndelible said:

So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.

Nope. You are completely missing the point(s) being made.

ohannabelle

Ndelible said: So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake. Edit. SIB

You must be a genuinely terrible hostess.  Like a whiny five year old going,  "It's myyyyyyy birthday! We have to play what I want!"

Not the attitude for giving a successful party. Especially a party like a reception, the purpose of which is to thank your guests. People's lives are busy and complicated. They've taken time to dress up, buy you gifts, driven or flown or made the effort to let you know they care for you.

Is it really such a terrible hardship to make an effort for them? Just too damned much effort to take a little time and thought with your seating arrangements? 

By the time I was four, by the time my children were four, we had been taught and understood the basic rule of hosting. Two words. "Company First." It meant that when a friend came, you let them choose which toy they wanted to play with, if they wanted to play outside or in, if they wanted to choose the blue or green game piece. They got to choose the first cupcake. 

Brides and grooms seem to fall into two different categories. The first is The "We're Number One," category, which usually puts the couple in the crappy host category. They do what pleases themselves most, and guests second. It's all about who they want to sit next to, can everybody see me, the day revolves around me. They are "above" the guests. Sometimes literally. (These are people that my Grandma would say of, "That child wasn't raised right. Poor thing." This is how Grandmas say, "What an asshole.") 

The second type of couple doesn't view it as a hardship to be good hosts. Happy guests mean a damned good party, and then the guests are the ones thinking, hey, you're number one! You are thoughtful people, and I love that you took the small amount of time to seat me where I had people to converse easily with, and I wasn't left to wander around awkwardly on my own. 

These happy guests don't leave early, are more enthusiastic, and all around have a better time. (Shockingly, when this happens, the hosts have an even better time. Frikking awesome concept.)

Which couple gives the best parties, and which couple is more valued and respected by their friends and family? Someone forgot to teach you things. You never lose by thoughtful and caring. You don't host great parties by making the host number one. It's a golden rule thing.  Kindness, love and consideration rule. Win win win. Win. 

You have one day to be a kickass hostess. It isn't hard. Suck that up. 

lyndausvi

It's my mission to change the minds of couples over the HT.

If you have a HT every other guest gets to sit with their SO. EVERY SINGLE ONE except those who are the nearest and dearest to you who are in the WP.    It makes ZERO sense.    

Besides most HT I sat out I wasn't even near the couple.    I didn't see them let alone talk to them.   How is sitting at the end of a long table "sitting with the couple"?  Sure you are at the same "table" (not really because HT are made up of smaller tables), but that's it.  You are not conversing with all your WP members.  Normally just the MOH and BM who are sitting next to you.

littlemushroom

@MobKaz said:  There are so many logical and sensible reasons for NOT having a head table.  What is the argument FOR having a head table?   The wedding party was honored and prominent during the ceremony.  I don't know why that needs to be extended into the reception.  The reception is for the guests.  Once the ceremony ends, the members of the bridal party have fulfilled their roles and should be allowed to enjoy themselves as guests.

I don't understand the bolded.  The thought is that that they have been honored enough during the ceremony that they don't need to be during the reception?  I think this attitude makes them more like props than otherwise.  It is basically saying they were only important for the ceremony for pictures, but otherwise are just like everyone else.  That shouldn't be true.  They should be the bride's and groom's  nearest and dearest, and the couple should want to honor them during the reception as well.  

When we were considering a sweetheart table, our friends couldn't understand why they weren't important enough to us to want to share a meal and have some time with just them after the ceremony to celebrate.  They are our closest friends and family.  They were and are sincerely looking forward to the time they would have with us while we were eating.  

After dinner and on the dance floor, our attention will be pulled a million different ways by different people.  Dinner is a time we could focus on them.  That is the reason they didn't want their SO and kids with them at a King table as well.  Their attention would have been pulled by their small children and infants, instead of being to celebrate with us for a time.  After dinner their kids would be their priority, but they wanted time to celebrate with us first.

When there is a head table the bridal party is generally served or released to the buffet first, followed by family, followed by the other tables.  Being served first is another thank you to the bridal party for being so important to the couple being married and an honor that I think they deserve.  If they are seated randomly around the room with everyone else, it is not an honor and thank you they can receive.

As I said before, after coming to TK FI and I were deciding between a King table and Sweetheart table.  I do understand the reasoning behind those options.  It does make sense.  But there are reasons why a head table can work, and our party made it known for months that they didn't like the King or Sweetheart options and would much prefer a Head table.  Since the purpose of choosing the seating arrangements is to make our honored guests comfortable and happy, we are doing a Head table when originally we weren't considering it.

ohannabelle

Okay. What on earth is a King Table? Did I miss this?

lyndausvi

NikkiJay3333 said:

@MobKaz said:  There are so many logical and sensible reasons for NOT having a head table.  What is the argument FOR having a head table?   The wedding party was honored and prominent during the ceremony.  I don't know why that needs to be extended into the reception.  The reception is for the guests.  Once the ceremony ends, the members of the bridal party have fulfilled their roles and should be allowed to enjoy themselves as guests.

I don't understand the bolded.  The thought is that that they have been honored enough during the ceremony that they don't need to be during the reception?  I think this attitude makes them more like props than otherwise.  It is basically saying they were only important for the ceremony for pictures, but otherwise are just like everyone else.  That shouldn't be true.  They should be the bride's and groom's  nearest and dearest, and the couple should want to honor them during the reception as well.  

When we were considering a sweetheart table, our friends couldn't understand why they weren't important enough to us to want to share a meal and have some time with just them after the ceremony to celebrate.  They are our closest friends and family.  They were and are sincerely looking forward to the time they would have with us while we were eating.  

After dinner and on the dance floor, our attention will be pulled a million different ways by different people.  Dinner is a time we could focus on them.  That is the reason they didn't want their SO and kids with them at a King table as well.  Their attention would have been pulled by their small children and infants, instead of being to celebrate with us for a time.  After dinner their kids would be their priority, but they wanted time to celebrate with us first.

When there is a head table the bridal party is generally served or released to the buffet first, followed by family, followed by the other tables.  Being served first is another thank you to the bridal party for being so important to the couple being married and an honor that I think they deserve.  If they are seated randomly around the room with everyone else, it is not an honor and thank you they can receive.

As I said before, after coming to TK FI and I were deciding between a King table and Sweetheart table.  I do understand the reasoning behind those options.  It does make sense.  But there are reasons why a head table can work, and our party made it known for months that they didn't like the King or Sweetheart options and would much prefer a Head table.  Since the purpose of choosing the seating arrangements is to make our honored guests comfortable and happy, we are doing a Head table when originally we weren't considering it.

In theory you are right.   Reality it's not the case.  Like at all.  Maybe you will get to focus on the person next to you (normally the groom on one side and the MOH on the other), but  2 down and beyond from you will have pretty much no contact with you.

I was able to hang out with my BM's HOURS before the ceremony, during the ceremony and after the ceremony.   Plus the day and night before.   They were not lacking special time with me by the time the reception came along.       

The GM's all took DH out the Thursday before the wedding.  They all played golf with DH the day before.  They all hung out after the RD together.  They went to both breakfast and lunch the day of our wedding.     Again, they were not lacking special time with DH by the time the reception rolled around.    

I've been in a lot of weddings and pretty much what happen at my wedding happened in the weddings I've been in.   The day and night before hang out with the couple, hours before the ceremony and after the ceremony,    I never once lacked special time with any couple.  By the time the reception came I was looking forward to hanging with other family and friends I do not get to see often.   I hated being stuck at the end of a long table only talking to some random BM or GM I've only know because of the couple and have never seen again.

jenijoyk

The purpose of the HT, which none of its defenders admit, is to make the Bride and Groom feel like royalty. They get to show off their attractive wedding party. They get to sit in a line, facing out, on display. The Bride and Groom get to be Queen and King. This is seriously the ONLY possible benefit of having one. You don't get to talk to your wedding party, except for whoever is sitting next to you, so that's obviously not it. I would wager that the people who are super into HTs are also the same brides who freak out over whether their bridesmaids' nail polish all matches and throws a hissy fit if they don't. And it is so not about not being able to be alone for hours. I am perfectly capable of attending events without my fiance and I do it all the time. It's about the fact that weddings are often uber expensive to attend, especially if you are in the wedding party. If my fiance and I have spent hundreds of dollars renting his tux, buying our gift, flying to your wedding, renting a car, shelling out for a hotel... and then we arrive at your wedding and I'm stuck alone for hours, knowing no one, and have to shlep through a ceremony/cocktailhour/meal/toasts/first dances on my own... it blows. When I am not introducing myself to people, I will be daydreaming about the money I spent to be here, bored and annoyed. It seriously blows. I am perfectly capable of attending events without my guy, but would I choose to drop several hundred to spend an afternoon and dinner on my own? On the weekend? Definitely, definitely no.

Senecaf

I think a kings table is where B & their wedding party and SOs are all at one table. Like at HT with SOs. Right?

We are undecided but I don't want to split up cpuples. I think we are actually going to do a sweet heart table with our kids. The 4 of us at a rectangle table like we do for dinner every night. It will be such a busy day and the kids will spend the night with someone else. It will be nice to sit as a family and connect for a little while. Even if it is only 10 minutes while we inhale some food.

theartistformerlyknownas

I don't really see where Ndelible has much room to squawk about what a wedding is and is not about considering she's not actually planning a wedding, but a PPD. Your opinions on etiquette are invalid.

The WP is special to us. Their SOs are special to them which means by extension, they're special to us. If the WP should continue to be honored with special seating at the reception (which I personally think they should), their SOs need to be with them. To me, it's not at all about whether they can bear to be apart for a few more hours. It's because as the invited guest of a WP member, they are a guest of honor.

littlemushroom

@lyndausvi  I think it is a problem when  you have a large party, certainly.  When  you have small party, you can talk to everyone.  My friend had 4 BMs, and the only one she didn't talk to was the one on the end.  My other friend had 3, and she talked to them all.  We are having 2 GM on one side and maybe 3 BMs on the other (FIs sister may feel more comfortable with her parents).  We can certainly speak to everyone without an issue.  

FI's GMs are all out of town and he won't see them until they show up dressed for pictures on our wedding day.

I have never had time to just hang out with the bride when getting ready.  I was MOH for my BFF (who is also in my bridal party) and I saw her for about 5 minutes where we could talk before the ceremony actually started.  Otherwise, she was getting ready, or I was getting ready, or I was needed for pics with the groom, or she was getting pics done.  There was no time to just enjoy celebrating with her and actually talking to her until dinner at the reception.  

My wedding will likely go the same way.  I will be getting hair and makeup done, get into my dress and leave for a first look.  Then we will all have to get pictures done and then line up for the ceremony.  She may have her 4 month old with her for the getting ready portion of the day.  There is not going to be a lot of time sitting around chatting.  Maybe that is why she is so invested in the idea of the head table without her kids.

I certainly understand the reasoning behind not doing a head table.  But for people who have never heard of or seen a Sweetheart table or King table in real life, they are more offended at the idea of not sitting with us than they are of being separated from their kids and SO.  The purpose of the different seating options is to make the people most important to you happy.  That's what people should be concerned with in making those decisions.

lyndausvi

@flantastic - I never got that either.   We were in the middle of the room at a normal table.  Guest could see us, but we were not in "hey look at me" location.    

danamw

When I was a MOH, there was a head table with the BP, but it was only for the official things like the first dance, the toasts, the introductions.

After that was all over, everyone left the head table and never went back! I didn't have a date but my mom was there, and plenty of friends, and I socialized at all the other tables.

Someone can't be apart from their husband, or date, or fiancée for a couple of hours? They don't have to agree to be in the BP.

kmmssg

lyndausvi said:

It's my mission to change the minds of couples over the HT.

If you have a HT every other guest gets to sit with their SO. EVERY SINGLE ONE except those who are the nearest and dearest to you who are in the WP.    It makes ZERO sense.    

Besides most HT I sat out I wasn't even near the couple.    I didn't see them let alone talk to them.   How is sitting at the end of a long table "sitting with the couple"?  Sure you are at the same "table" (not really because HT are made up of smaller tables), but that's it.  You are not conversing with all your WP members.  Normally just the MOH and BM who are sitting next to you.

@lyndausvi The bold is the best statement regarding HTs EVERRRRRRR.  Oh, and you were an incredibly gorgeous bride!

lyndausvi

kmmssg said:

lyndausvi said:

It's my mission to change the minds of couples over the HT.

If you have a HT every other guest gets to sit with their SO. EVERY SINGLE ONE except those who are the nearest and dearest to you who are in the WP.    It makes ZERO sense.    

Besides most HT I sat out I wasn't even near the couple.    I didn't see them let alone talk to them.   How is sitting at the end of a long table "sitting with the couple"?  Sure you are at the same "table" (not really because HT are made up of smaller tables), but that's it.  You are not conversing with all your WP members.  Normally just the MOH and BM who are sitting next to you.

@lyndausvi The bold is the best statement regarding HTs EVERRRRRRR.  Oh, and you were an incredibly gorgeous bride!

*****SITB ****

AddieCake

danamw said:

When I was a MOH, there was a head table with the BP, but it was only for the official things like the first dance, the toasts, the introductions.

After that was all over, everyone left the head table and never went back! I didn't have a date but my mom was there, and plenty of friends, and I socialized at all the other tables.

Someone can't be apart from their husband, or date, or fiancée for a couple of hours? They don't have to agree to be in the BP.

Have you read the whole thread?

lyndausvi

AddieCake said:

danamw said:

When I was a MOH, there was a head table with the BP, but it was only for the official things like the first dance, the toasts, the introductions.

After that was all over, everyone left the head table and never went back! I didn't have a date but my mom was there, and plenty of friends, and I socialized at all the other tables.

Someone can't be apart from their husband, or date, or fiancée for a couple of hours? They don't have to agree to be in the BP.

Have you read the whole thread?

I know right?

Because you know, I'm someone who can't be apart from my husband   ::eye rolls::

It's crazy for me to want to sit with my husband on our anniversary even though he is in a wedding that day.   Crazy,  I say.  

(again, I do not know if they are having a HT or not, just using us as an example if they do, it will cause us to be separated at dinner on our anniversary).

PrettyGirlLost

danamw said:

When I was a MOH, there was a head table with the BP, but it was only for the official things like the first dance, the toasts, the introductions.

After that was all over, everyone left the head table and never went back! I didn't have a date but my mom was there, and plenty of friends, and I socialized at all the other tables.

Someone can't be apart from their husband, or date, or fiancée for a couple of hours? They don't have to agree to be in the BP.

A couple = 2.

When you are in a wedding party, you are NOT separated from your SO for only 2 hours. 

You have to get your hair and make up done with the Bride, get ready with the bride so she can get all of those totes adorbs photos of everyone in lingerie, stand aroud in a secluded bridal room and watch/help the Bride get dressed and take more photos, participate in the wedding ceremony, participate in photos after the ceremony, and then suffer through dinner at a head table which frequently involves multiple toasts, spotlight dances, etc.

I've been in about 10+ weddings and all that I described to you above never took 2 hours. . . everything took about 7+ hours.

After spending around 7+ hours with you, the Bride, why on earth do you feel the need to force me to eat with you and the wedding party? 

It's not like the Bride and Groom socialize with the WP at the head table- hell, for the most part they are flitting about the room talking to people, while the rest of us sit and eat with everyone staring at us.  And most WP members eat as fast as they can so they can get up and go sit with people they actually want to socialize and spend time with- like our SO's, leaving that stupid head table empty.

To Brides and Grooms who say we should just suck it up, we are only separated from our SO's for a couple of hours, I say get the fuck over yourselves, get out of the goddamn 1980's, and admit that head tables are lame and no one enjoys sitting at them.

misshart00

Just to offer another perspective, sometimes there are kids involved. I've been watching the baby all day while my husband is off taking pictures, socializing with other groomsmen, etc. I've kept her quiet and occupied during the ceremony. It's nice to have the help of my husband while I'm trying to eat my dinner.

melbenso

flantastic said:

ohannabelle said:

Okay. What on earth is a King Table? Did I miss this?

I just discovered it. Basically it's a large rectangular table (or set of tables made into a rectangle) where everyone sits. So instead of a head table in a line, it's a head table in a rectangle. A normal round table would work for this too. So you actually do get to talk to more than just the people on either side of you, unless you've got a billion people up there.

Like this wedding (click)

It looks like most people who do this include SOs at the table.

*******

Stuck in the box...

Yes, that's pretty much it.  Although I didn't look at the picture in the link - too many pictures on the page to find it. 

A King's Table is a long, rectangular table, much like a head table.  But, instead of it being up at the front with all those seated at it facing the other diners, as though they are the audience, it is in the midst of the other tables at the reception, and those sitting at it sit on all sides of the table.

DH and I wanted to sit with our closest friends, who had all traveled quite a bit to see us.  We also didn't want to separate them from their SOs and families.  And we didn't like the idea of being on display, either at a Head Table or a Sweetheart Table.  The King's Table allowed us to eat with all of our friends, and allowed them to eat with their families and loved ones as well.

And yes, it was a little hard to talk to the people at the other end of the table (just as it would have been to talk to someone on the other end of any table with 16 people at it), but everyone had someone they knew next to them and across from them, so no one was left out. 

I've attached some pictures our DOC took of our King's Table and the rest of the set up at our venue before the reception began.  You can see the KT fully in the photo on the left and see its position relative to other tables in the bottom right picture (near the server that is setting up).

ETA - @misshart00 one of the main reasons we picked the King Table set up was so that our bridal party members who had young children could sit with their families at the table and not just have one parent juggling the little ones all day. Plus, it's just nice for families to eat together.

southernbelle0915

ohannabelle said:

Ndelible said:

So, in other words, the reception is about you and your SOs and how you can't handle being alone for a day, surrounded by people? And not the B&G? Their party, their preference. Sorry that personal situations seem to outweigh the day, in total. Still sounds like whining, without personal details. Geesh, as often echoes here, suck it up. It's one day, for goodness sake.

You must be a genuinely terrible hostess.  Like a whiny five year old going,  "It's myyyyyyy birthday! We have to play what I want!"

Not the attitude for giving a successful party. Especially a party like a reception, the purpose of which is to thank your guests. People's lives are busy and complicated. They've taken time to dress up, buy you gifts, driven or flown or made the effort to let you know they care for you.

Is it really such a terrible hardship to make an effort for them? Just too damned much effort to take a little time and thought with your seating arrangements? 

By the time I was four, by the time my children were four, we had been taught and understood the basic rule of hosting. Two words. "Company First." It meant that when a friend came, you let them choose which toy they wanted to play with, if they wanted to play outside or in, if they wanted to choose the blue or green game piece. They got to choose the first cupcake. 

Brides and grooms seem to fall into two different categories. The first is The "We're Number One," category, which usually puts the couple in the crappy host category. They do what pleases themselves most, and guests second. It's all about who they want to sit next to, can everybody see me, the day revolves around me. They are "above" the guests. Sometimes literally. (These are people that my Grandma would say of, "That child wasn't raised right. Poor thing." This is how Grandmas say, "What an asshole.") 

The second type of couple doesn't view it as a hardship to be good hosts. Happy guests mean a damned good party, and then the guests are the ones thinking, hey, you're number one! You are thoughtful people, and I love that you took the small amount of time to seat me where I had people to converse easily with, and I wasn't left to wander around awkwardly on my own. 

These happy guests don't leave early, are more enthusiastic, and all around have a better time. (Shockingly, when this happens, the hosts have an even better time. Frikking awesome concept.)

Which couple gives the best parties, and which couple is more valued and respected by their friends and family? Someone forgot to teach you things. You never lose by thoughtful and caring. You don't host great parties by making the host number one. It's a golden rule thing.  Kindness, love and consideration rule. Win win win. Win. 

You have one day to be a kickass hostess. It isn't hard. Suck that up. 

SITB:

 ETF: BOXESSSSS!!!! Argh!