Wedding Etiquette Forum

Am I Being Mean to my Brother?

2

Re: Am I Being Mean to my Brother?

  • I won't touch on your rando rule, because the others have that covered.

    But if I were you I would let my brother bring a date regardless if you know her or how long he has known her or if she is just a friend or potentially more and he doesn't want to say.  He is your brother, not some random 3rd cousin that you have only met twice.

  • To get to the heart of the issue - if your brother really wants to bring this friend of his, I think it's worth bending your guidelines for him. As others have pointed out - he's immediate family, so it doesn't open up a can of worms for other guests. 

    You mentioned your brother is in his late 20s, so I assume the friend is in that age range as well. It's unlikely her inclusion would make for any awkward situations at the party, to be honest. I imagine she has social skills and will be able to participate in any of the joyous discussions going on at your wedding. 

    As an aside, my brother is note dating anyone seriously and is bringing one of his buddies to our wedding. Obviously my brother knows many family members and friends we're inviting, but it was important to us that he enjoy himself, so if that meant bringing a friend - so be it!
  • I think it would be okay if you bent just a little and let your brother invite this friend.  It wouldn't really open a can of worms in my opinion because it's a clear circle line between immediate family and all other guests. 

    If you want to stick to your guns about not inviting the friend because she's not in a relationship with your brother, that's your prerogative.  Certainly, etiquette does not force you to extend an invitation to anyone who isn't in a relationship with your invited guests.  With your family dynamic, from what you've said on here about him continuously trying to get you to issue him a guest so he can bring this woman friend of his, I would probably cave and extend the plus one. 

    Maybe she'll have a conflict with work or another social engagement.  Maybe she won't want to go to a wedding where she'll only know one person.  Maybe she likes parties and would love to come, even as a friend who doesn't know anyone else there.  Maybe she'll come and have a great time and meet all the people he talks about from his past and they'll end up in a relationship and eventually get married.  But to save yourself on stressing about whether he'll try to sneak her in or just keep bugging you, maybe you should just say she can come.  Then tell him he owes you one because this is a huge favor to him.
  • huskypuppy14huskypuppy14 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited August 2014
    My husband and I are both in our 30s and most of our guests were either married or in a relationship, so we extended plus ones to all remaining single people.

    I respect people's decision to not give all singles plus ones, because it's not wrong by etiquette. But I think it just makes everything easier. We didn't have one person put additional people on their RSVP card.

    If you have a medium-large wedding (more than 50 guests) I would give your brother a plus one. He is immediate family, and you are not obligated to give every other single guest a plus one.

    I would also have a sweetheart table and let your bridal party sit at their own tables with their dates.

    If you are having a smaller intimate wedding, I would understand why you wouldn't want this non SO there. 
    But a larger wedding means you probably won't even notice her that much.
    image
    image

    image


  • edited August 2014
    Oh my gahhhhd this poor girl has gotten an earful on an issue that has no actual bearing to her- I say no harm, no fowl. If I'm understanding correctly, her "rule", regardless of the reason they felt the need to make a rule, did not actually exclude anyone's SO at all so, while I understand maybe a quick "Hey, just FYI my hubby and I knew we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together after just three months- maybe something to think about for anyone considering implementing a similar '1 year' or similar time-limit based rule", I don't really see the point of berating her about the issue. I'm just a little confused about the conventional wisdom on one point- if someone I invited as a single-without-plus-one guest subsequently gets into a relationship after I send out the invites (which is, as I understood it, what happened to one of the OP's guests whose new SO she has chosen to accommodate), are you SERIOUSLY saying I am expected to now invite that person? As in, when I choose my venue, I literally need to plan for the possibility that every single one of my single guests is going to enter into a relationship prior to my wedding and I will therefore need to add their new SOs to my guest list? Please forgive me if I misinterpreted the initial scenario and the advice that followed... but I can't believe the "must invite SO's" rule is supposed to be taken that far. OP- as many others have said, you have no obligation to allow your brother to bring a friend if you never offered him a plus one. Do it if you really think it'll making him happy- if you think he's just pushing buttons, feel free to stand your ground. You know best... and to be honest, I totally understand not loving the ideas of randos at your wedding. Also side note: overall I have found this to be a super helpful community but I HATE HATE HATE when people feel like it's their place to comment on the amount someone is choosing to spend on some aspect of their wedding when that figure was in no way a part of the OP's query. Like, who are any of us to say "Maybe you shouldn't be spending $300 a person for dinner and should have put some of that money towards allowing more wiggle room to bring plus-ones"? I could ask you- why don't you host your wedding in the town park and serve hot dogs so you can invite everyone you know? What people think is reasonable to pay and how they choose to budget with regard to going with a nicer venue/food versus a larger guest list is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Rant over.
  • UGH THE KNOT Y U NO ALLOW PARAGRAPHS!? That whole previous block of text looked much friendlier when it was appropriately spaced out, my apologies...
  • I hate weddings where everyone is not provided a plus one personally.  It may not be etiquette standard to give everyone a plus one, however, if your guest list is 100 people how do you know about everyones personal life?  Also, one of my biggest goals for my wedding is to have all my guest enjoy themselves and be comfortable.  If that means they bring a date then they bring a date!  Especially someone as close to me as a sibling.  

    I think people who do not allow people to bring boyfriends/girlfriends or even allow single friends to bring a plus one should have rethought their venue/budget to allow ALL their guest to have the best time possible.  That may mean inviting less guest then they would have to allow for plus ones in the budget.

    Your wedding day is NOT just about you.  It is also about the loved ones you want to share it with.
  • Oh my gahhhhd this poor girl has gotten an earful on an issue that has no actual bearing to her- I say no harm, no fowl. If I'm understanding correctly, her "rule", regardless of the reason they felt the need to make a rule, did not actually exclude anyone's SO at all so, while I understand maybe a quick "Hey, just FYI my hubby and I knew we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together after just three months- maybe something to think about for anyone considering implementing a similar '1 year' or similar time-limit based rule", I don't really see the point of berating her about the issue.


    I'm just a little confused about the conventional wisdom on one point- if someone I invited as a single-without-plus-one guest subsequently gets into a relationship after I send out the invites (which is, as I understood it, what happened to one of the OP's guests whose new SO she has chosen to accommodate), are you SERIOUSLY saying I am expected to now invite that person? As in, when I choose my venue, I literally need to plan for the possibility that every single one of my single guests is going to enter into a relationship prior to my wedding and I will therefore need to add their new SOs to my guest list? Please forgive me if I misinterpreted the initial scenario and the advice that followed... but I can't believe the "must invite SO's" rule is supposed to be taken that far.


    OP- as many others have said, you have no obligation to allow your brother to bring a friend if you never offered him a plus one. Do it if you really think it'll making him happy- if you think he's just pushing buttons, feel free to stand your ground. You know best... and to be honest, I totally understand not loving the ideas of randos at your wedding.


    Also side note: overall I have found this to be a super helpful community but I HATE HATE HATE when people feel like it's their place to comment on the amount someone is choosing to spend on some aspect of their wedding when that figure was in no way a part of the OP's query. Like, who are any of us to say "Maybe you shouldn't be spending $300 a person for dinner and should have put some of that money towards allowing more wiggle room to bring plus-ones"? I could ask you- why don't you host your wedding in the town park and serve hot dogs so you can invite everyone you know? What people think is reasonable to pay and how they choose to budget with regard to going with a nicer venue/food versus a larger guest list is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Rant over.

    My wedding isn't until October of next year, and when making my rough draft guest list to go shop for a venue I held place for +1s for all singles. This is 13 people. If by the time invitations go out these people are not in relationships I have the option to include the +1, or not. If they are in a relationship then I've accounted for it. I don't see why it's so difficult to do this. I want my guests to be comfortable and enjoy themselves, and if that means bringing someone to share their time at my wedding with, I am in no place to judge that.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • Yeah...I'm with Landa in that I made my guest list accounting for plus ones for all single people.  My wedding is 9 months away.  That is more than enough time to start a relationship, so it would be foolish to not plan for that.

    Also, my little sister will be 14 at my wedding.  She isn't even allowed to date.  She's bringing two friends.  Little sis is MOH, so her two friends will be able to hang and entertain each other while we're doing pictures and stuff.  I am so excited!  13 and 14 year olds think weddings are just the coolest thing EVA!!




    image
  • I hate weddings where everyone is not provided a plus one personally.  It may not be etiquette standard to give everyone a plus one, however, if your guest list is 100 people how do you know about everyones personal life?  Also, one of my biggest goals for my wedding is to have all my guest enjoy themselves and be comfortable.  If that means they bring a date then they bring a date!  Especially someone as close to me as a sibling.  

    I think people who do not allow people to bring boyfriends/girlfriends or even allow single friends to bring a plus one should have rethought their venue/budget to allow ALL their guest to have the best time possible.  That may mean inviting less guest then they would have to allow for plus ones in the budget.

    Your wedding day is NOT just about you.  It is also about the loved ones you want to share it with.
    That was MY belief when I got married. I invited everyone with their SO..and single people with a guest.

    this is MY personal philosophy: I think us engaged/married folks sometimes forget how hard it can be to be single, especially at a thing like a wedding where love is the focus. I was perpetually single when I was in my 20's, so I HATED attending wedding if I had to go alone. I felt uncomfortable.

    For THAT reason, I invited every single person to my wedding with someone. Truth be told, I only had ONE person bring a "friend". I was totally fine with it.

    The way I look at it, its for your guest "comfort" level. People who could care less about being single, won't use the "plus one" and the ones who truly DO feel uncomfortable going alone will benefit because they now have an option to not go alone. win/win

    Also, keep in mind, it helped with planning, too. ...I didn't have to stress in the end whether my venue was going to be "big enough" if people entered relationships with anyone after I created my liste. When you give a "plus one" from the start, you already now what your MAX will be without any questions. In fact, it will make you feel like you SAVE money when suddenly you have less people than you expected because people of PLUS ONES not being used. win/win!, again

  • I hate weddings where everyone is not provided a plus one personally.  It may not be etiquette standard to give everyone a plus one, however, if your guest list is 100 people how do you know about everyones personal life?  Also, one of my biggest goals for my wedding is to have all my guest enjoy themselves and be comfortable.  If that means they bring a date then they bring a date!  Especially someone as close to me as a sibling.  

    I think people who do not allow people to bring boyfriends/girlfriends or even allow single friends to bring a plus one should have rethought their venue/budget to allow ALL their guest to have the best time possible.  That may mean inviting less guest then they would have to allow for plus ones in the budget.

    Your wedding day is NOT just about you.  It is also about the loved ones you want to share it with.
    That was MY belief when I got married. I invited everyone with their SO..and single people with a guest.

    this is MY personal philosophy: I think us engaged/married folks sometimes forget how hard it can be to be single, especially at a thing like a wedding where love is the focus. I was perpetually single when I was in my 20's, so I HATED attending wedding if I had to go alone. I felt uncomfortable.

    For THAT reason, I invited every single person to my wedding with someone. Truth be told, I only had ONE person bring a "friend". I was totally fine with it.

    The way I look at it, its for your guest "comfort" level. People who could care less about being single, won't use the "plus one" and the ones who truly DO feel uncomfortable going alone will benefit because they now have an option to not go alone. win/win

    Also, keep in mind, it helped with planning, too. ...I didn't have to stress in the end whether my venue was going to be "big enough" if people entered relationships with anyone after I created my liste. When you give a "plus one" from the start, you already now what your MAX will be without any questions. In fact, it will make you feel like you SAVE money when suddenly you have less people than you expected because people of PLUS ONES not being used. win/win!, again

    Yes, I did exactly the same thing. We invited all singles with a plus one (which was only about 7-10 extra people), and only 1 person (my bridesmaid) brought a friend. 

    When you budget based on your max guest list like this, you can only go down from there. 
    image
    image

    image


  • Oh my gahhhhd this poor girl has gotten an earful on an issue that has no actual bearing to her- I say no harm, no fowl. If I'm understanding correctly, her "rule", regardless of the reason they felt the need to make a rule, did not actually exclude anyone's SO at all so, while I understand maybe a quick "Hey, just FYI my hubby and I knew we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together after just three months- maybe something to think about for anyone considering implementing a similar '1 year' or similar time-limit based rule", I don't really see the point of berating her about the issue. I'm just a little confused about the conventional wisdom on one point- if someone I invited as a single-without-plus-one guest subsequently gets into a relationship after I send out the invites (which is, as I understood it, what happened to one of the OP's guests whose new SO she has chosen to accommodate), are you SERIOUSLY saying I am expected to now invite that person? As in, when I choose my venue, I literally need to plan for the possibility that every single one of my single guests is going to enter into a relationship prior to my wedding and I will therefore need to add their new SOs to my guest list? Please forgive me if I misinterpreted the initial scenario and the advice that followed... but I can't believe the "must invite SO's" rule is supposed to be taken that far. OP- as many others have said, you have no obligation to allow your brother to bring a friend if you never offered him a plus one. Do it if you really think it'll making him happy- if you think he's just pushing buttons, feel free to stand your ground. You know best... and to be honest, I totally understand not loving the ideas of randos at your wedding. Also side note: overall I have found this to be a super helpful community but I HATE HATE HATE when people feel like it's their place to comment on the amount someone is choosing to spend on some aspect of their wedding when that figure was in no way a part of the OP's query. Like, who are any of us to say "Maybe you shouldn't be spending $300 a person for dinner and should have put some of that money towards allowing more wiggle room to bring plus-ones"? I could ask you- why don't you host your wedding in the town park and serve hot dogs so you can invite everyone you know? What people think is reasonable to pay and how they choose to budget with regard to going with a nicer venue/food versus a larger guest list is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Rant over.
    Yes.   I think when you're planning your wedding venue a good year away from your wedding date (on average) you need to factor that your single wedding guests will have SOs by the time you're sending invitations.   It happened to several of our wedding guests that they were single when we announced our engagement but they were together at the time we got married.    Yes, it may mean an increased cost but you need to host your guests properly.
  • banana468 said:

    This is one of those times that:

    1) Emily Post Institute is again, wrong.    Why are those living together ranked higher than those in love who aren't living together?   It's a bullshit justification and penalizes those who make a choice not to live together before marriage.

    2) You can be "right" on paper but your brother may be seriously uncomfortable attending alone and for one person, is it really that big a deal?   I understand that it's $300 but I'd spend that if I thought it would mean my brother was far more comfortable attending my wedding.
    Yeah the Emily Post Institute has its head up its ass.

    I have been with my FI for almost 13 years and we have never lived together prior to this year. We have been in a serious relationship for longer than any of our married friends have known their spouses, let alone dated them or have been married.

    You make your guest list up and you assume all your singles will have an SO and you build them into your guest list. Then you pick your venue.

    Then prior to the invitations going out you contact your family and friends and ask them if they are seeing anyone. At that point you can decide if you want to give singles Plus Ones. There are good arguments both for and against.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


  • I hate to be an asshole, but I just want to point out how very fervently we insist not to judge the seriousness of relationships regardless of length of time, yet there's another thread going on where a bunch of posters are getting on someone's case for referring to a guy that she "only dated for 4 months" as her ex. I think consistency would be really helpful for the people who come here seeking advice.

    What? If you dated or were martied to someone and then ended that relationship, that person is your ex. The length of the relationship is irrelevant.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


  • I hate to be an asshole, but I just want to point out how very fervently we insist not to judge the seriousness of relationships regardless of length of time, yet there's another thread going on where a bunch of posters are getting on someone's case for referring to a guy that she "only dated for 4 months" as her ex. I think consistency would be really helpful for the people who come here seeking advice.

    What? If you dated or were martied to someone and then ended that relationship, that person is your ex. The length of the relationship is irrelevant.
    Exactly my point, but that "Ex wants to come to my wedding" thread has some posters trying to discredit the OP's ex-relationship because it only lasted 4 months. Meanwhile, on this thread, everyone is rightfully reminding the OP that her rule of one-year relationships is wrong (even thought that rule didn't actually exclude anyone's SO from her guest list). I made my post that you quoted to point out these discrepancies in how we're responding to people here, and to make a point that we should be consistent in how we advise people to regard relationships (the universal bottom line being: it is up to the individual to define/label their own relationship).
  • Oh my gahhhhd this poor girl has gotten an earful on an issue that has no actual bearing to her- I say no harm, no fowl. Fowl means birds.  You mean foul.  If I'm understanding correctly, her "rule", regardless of the reason they felt the need to make a rule, did not actually exclude anyone's SO at all so, while I understand maybe a quick "Hey, just FYI my hubby and I knew we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together after just three months- maybe something to think about for anyone considering implementing a similar '1 year' or similar time-limit based rule", I don't really see the point of berating her about the issue. Because it's an inappropriate rule, and we're speaking not just for the benefit of the OP but also any lurkers reading the thread who might do the same if they don't know that it's inappropriate.  I'm just a little confused about the conventional wisdom on one point- if someone I invited as a single-without-plus-one guest subsequently gets into a relationship after I send out the invites (which is, as I understood it, what happened to one of the OP's guests whose new SO she has chosen to accommodate), are you SERIOUSLY saying I am expected to now invite that person?  No, if they get into a relationship after you send out your invitations - assuming that you have a normal 6-8 week invitation schedule and don't send invitations ridiculously early -  you do not have to accommodate their guest.  That said, it's a nice gesture that we would recommend if you are physically able to do so.  As in, when I choose my venue, I literally need to plan for the possibility that every single one of my single guests is going to enter into a relationship prior to my wedding and I will therefore need to add their new SOs to my guest list?  Yes, you do.  Because if they get into a relationship between the time you choose your venue and when you send your invitations you need to invite their Significant Others.  You need to invite both halves of a couple, or neither half.  Please forgive me if I misinterpreted the initial scenario and the advice that followed... but I can't believe the "must invite SO's" rule is supposed to be taken that far. OP- as many others have said, you have no obligation to allow your brother to bring a friend if you never offered him a plus one. Do it if you really think it'll making him happy- if you think he's just pushing buttons, feel free to stand your ground. You know best... and to be honest, I totally understand not loving the ideas of randos at your wedding. Also side note: overall I have found this to be a super helpful community but I HATE HATE HATE when people feel like it's their place to comment on the amount someone is choosing to spend on some aspect of their wedding when that figure was in no way a part of the OP's query. I agree, that's irrelevant to the issue.  Like, who are any of us to say "Maybe you shouldn't be spending $300 a person for dinner and should have put some of that money towards allowing more wiggle room to bring plus-ones"? I could ask you- why don't you host your wedding in the town park and serve hot dogs so you can invite everyone you know? What people think is reasonable to pay and how they choose to budget with regard to going with a nicer venue/food versus a larger guest list is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Rant over.



  • We're not doing +1s at our wedding. If you're dating, engaged, married, you and your SO are invited as a unit. Singles are not given a date.

    I'd be fine telling him that we can't just let him have a +1, then everyone would need a +1, and it's too late for all that as invites have already gone out.

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • I hate to be an asshole, but I just want to point out how very fervently we insist not to judge the seriousness of relationships regardless of length of time, yet there's another thread going on where a bunch of posters are getting on someone's case for referring to a guy that she "only dated for 4 months" as her ex. I think consistency would be really helpful for the people who come here seeking advice.
    What? If you dated or were martied to someone and then ended that relationship, that person is your ex. The length of the relationship is irrelevant.
    Exactly my point, but that "Ex wants to come to my wedding" thread has some posters trying to discredit the OP's ex-relationship because it only lasted 4 months. Meanwhile, on this thread, everyone is rightfully reminding the OP that her rule of one-year relationships is wrong (even thought that rule didn't actually exclude anyone's SO from her guest list). I made my post that you quoted to point out these discrepancies in how we're responding to people here, and to make a point that we should be consistent in how we advise people to regard relationships (the universal bottom line being: it is up to the individual to define/label their own relationship).
    For me the issue in that thread is whether the person is just an ex or is a friend that she once dated. I have a friend I dated 12 years ago for 4 months. He is an ex, but I don't call him my ex, I call him my friend from college. DH knows we dated, he also knows neither of us have any residual feelings and we are strictly friends.

    The issue was if 8 years of post dating friendship trumps dating. People were not questioning the validity of the past relationship, but rather if the current friendship trumped the brief romantic history 8 years ago. All SO's are ex's, but some ex's become friends and should receive that mantle over the one of ex.

    In the end it was a moot point bc the OP was using the term friend in the absolute loosest sense of the word.
    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • MegEn1 said:
    We're not doing +1s at our wedding. If you're dating, engaged, married, you and your SO are invited as a unit. Singles are not given a date.

    I'd be fine telling him that we can't just let him have a +1, then everyone would need a +1, and it's too late for all that as invites have already gone out.
    So people who have been dating for years don't get to come with their SO because you don't deem it serious enough? Dating means they are in a relationship not single. It's really shitty of you to judge your friends relationships. What if a couple don't want to get married but still intends to stay together forever? They aren't serious enough for you? 


  • MegEn1 said:
    We're not doing +1s at our wedding. If you're dating, engaged, married, you and your SO are invited as a unit. Singles are not given a date.

    I'd be fine telling him that we can't just let him have a +1, then everyone would need a +1, and it's too late for all that as invites have already gone out.
    So people who have been dating for years don't get to come with their SO because you don't deem it serious enough? Dating means they are in a relationship not single. It's really shitty of you to judge your friends relationships. What if a couple don't want to get married but still intends to stay together forever? They aren't serious enough for you? 
    But this person is inviting people who are dating. She's saying she's not giving +1s to truly single people.
    Oops. I misread. My bad.


  • I hate to be an asshole, but I just want to point out how very fervently we insist not to judge the seriousness of relationships regardless of length of time, yet there's another thread going on where a bunch of posters are getting on someone's case for referring to a guy that she "only dated for 4 months" as her ex. I think consistency would be really helpful for the people who come here seeking advice.
    What? If you dated or were martied to someone and then ended that relationship, that person is your ex. The length of the relationship is irrelevant.
    Exactly my point, but that "Ex wants to come to my wedding" thread has some posters trying to discredit the OP's ex-relationship because it only lasted 4 months. Meanwhile, on this thread, everyone is rightfully reminding the OP that her rule of one-year relationships is wrong (even thought that rule didn't actually exclude anyone's SO from her guest list). I made my post that you quoted to point out these discrepancies in how we're responding to people here, and to make a point that we should be consistent in how we advise people to regard relationships (the universal bottom line being: it is up to the individual to define/label their own relationship).
    For me the issue in that thread is whether the person is just an ex or is a friend that she once dated. I have a friend I dated 12 years ago for 4 months. He is an ex, but I don't call him my ex, I call him my friend from college. DH knows we dated, he also knows neither of us have any residual feelings and we are strictly friends.

    The issue was if 8 years of post dating friendship trumps dating. People were not questioning the validity of the past relationship, but rather if the current friendship trumped the brief romantic history 8 years ago. All SO's are ex's, but some ex's become friends and should receive that mantle over the one of ex.
    In the end it was a moot point bc the OP was using the term friend in the absolute loosest sense of the word.
    But you and other posters are making these issues up when they do not exist for the OP. All she asked was how to tell her friend/ex in a polite way, for the umpteenth time, that he was not going to be invited to her wedding. This in-depth analysis by posters on friendship vs. ex-relationship, like yours I just quoted, are irrelevant because the OP and her FI had already mutually agreed not to invite anyone with the label "ex." That's their choice. End of discussion.

    Also, I can't wrap my head around the fact that people are telling the OP to question this blanket rule of "no ex's" when it might affect her friendship with ex, why should a friend of 8 years not get an invite just because of a brief romantic history, etc. when we tell people all the time that BLOOD RELATION doesn't even entitle someone to an invite! Now, all of sudden, everybody wants to convince the OP that her ex deserves an invite since they've been friends for 8 years and it's really unfair to exclude him just because he carries the label of "ex" for a 4-month relationship?! It just seems so hypocritical.
  • MegEn1 said:
    We're not doing +1s at our wedding. If you're dating, engaged, married, you and your SO are invited as a unit. Singles are not given a date.

    I'd be fine telling him that we can't just let him have a +1, then everyone would need a +1, and it's too late for all that as invites have already gone out.
    So people who have been dating for years don't get to come with their SO because you don't deem it serious enough? Dating means they are in a relationship not single. It's really shitty of you to judge your friends relationships. What if a couple don't want to get married but still intends to stay together forever? They aren't serious enough for you? 
    But this person is inviting people who are dating. She's saying she's not giving +1s to truly single people.
    Oops. I misread. My bad.
    LOL! I was about to say - hey wait I'm not that guy!

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • Also, if OP and her FI made the rule that an ex is an ex, they both need to respect that restriction. Whatever we, the internet, might have to say about that restriction is one thing. But if it's something they've agreed to as a couple, they need to stick with it.

    Achievement Unlocked: Survived Your Wedding! 
  • I gave any guest who's status I was unsure of the +1 option, and all relationships I knew of I invited both by name.

    My brother was among the singles.  His RSVP card came back with a comment about how since he'd lost some weight he wouldn't be requiring two seats (he was never that big, just joking around).

    He also made some comments about hiring an escort to attend with him (also jokes), to which I responded that he could bring any date he didn't have to pay for.

    That said, if he wants to bring someone, it's his concern whether or not she's bored, or what she does while he's busy with wedding related events.  He's a grown up, leave it to him.
  • MegEn1 said:
    Also, if OP and her FI made the rule that an ex is an ex, they both need to respect that restriction. Whatever we, the internet, might have to say about that restriction is one thing. But if it's something they've agreed to as a couple, they need to stick with it.
    Amen.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


  • Oh my gahhhhd this poor girl has gotten an earful on an issue that has no actual bearing to her- I say no harm, no fowl. If I'm understanding correctly, her "rule", regardless of the reason they felt the need to make a rule, did not actually exclude anyone's SO at all so, while I understand maybe a quick "Hey, just FYI my hubby and I knew we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together after just three months- maybe something to think about for anyone considering implementing a similar '1 year' or similar time-limit based rule", I don't really see the point of berating her about the issue. I'm just a little confused about the conventional wisdom on one point- if someone I invited as a single-without-plus-one guest subsequently gets into a relationship after I send out the invites (which is, as I understood it, what happened to one of the OP's guests whose new SO she has chosen to accommodate), are you SERIOUSLY saying I am expected to now invite that person? As in, when I choose my venue, I literally need to plan for the possibility that every single one of my single guests is going to enter into a relationship prior to my wedding and I will therefore need to add their new SOs to my guest list? Please forgive me if I misinterpreted the initial scenario and the advice that followed... but I can't believe the "must invite SO's" rule is supposed to be taken that far. OP- as many others have said, you have no obligation to allow your brother to bring a friend if you never offered him a plus one. Do it if you really think it'll making him happy- if you think he's just pushing buttons, feel free to stand your ground. You know best... and to be honest, I totally understand not loving the ideas of randos at your wedding. Also side note: overall I have found this to be a super helpful community but I HATE HATE HATE when people feel like it's their place to comment on the amount someone is choosing to spend on some aspect of their wedding when that figure was in no way a part of the OP's query. Like, who are any of us to say "Maybe you shouldn't be spending $300 a person for dinner and should have put some of that money towards allowing more wiggle room to bring plus-ones"? I could ask you- why don't you host your wedding in the town park and serve hot dogs so you can invite everyone you know? What people think is reasonable to pay and how they choose to budget with regard to going with a nicer venue/food versus a larger guest list is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Rant over.
    Typically people choose the venue about a year out, and send the invites about 6-8 weeks out. When choosing the venue, yes, you should absolutely make sure you can accommodate (both space-wise and budget-wise) a potential significant other for every one of your single guests. 

    Typically, with almost a year between choosing a venue and sending invites, there will be some changes to your guest list in terms of significant others (as well as addresses if people move, etc.). I have 5 guests who were single when I made the guest list, and are now in serious relationships as I'm getting ready to send the invites! We're talking totally single then, and now living together, engaged, married, etc! I guess that's what happens in your 30's. :-)

    However, if someone gets in a relationship between the invites going out and the wedding itself, you are under no obligation to invite them then. It would be a nice thing to do if your guest asked, but you don't have to. 
  • As to the original question...have you actually talked to your brother about this? Sometimes people just don't think things through. 

    "Hey, I want you to have fun at the wedding, but I'm concerned that if you bring your friend she'll just be sitting there alone and bored for hours. Pre-wedding we're going to do X, Y, and Z and she'll just have to be waiting for you while we do that. The other significant others will be more involved, since they're part of the family. They'll be plenty of people for you to mingle and dance with at the reception if that's what you're concerned about. I just don't want you to be worried about leaving your friend/date alone for so much of the day, instead of enjoying it with the rest of us! I wasn't sure if you realized how much there would be for you to do. Of course, knowing this, if you'd still like to bring her please go ahead. Just let me know by X date for sure, so I can count her in with the seating arrangements and the dinner or not."
  • Dude...do you not like your brother?


This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards