Head Table vs. Sweetheart Table

jkingley2015

Thoughts? Opinions? 

Long story short, my MOH is my sister but she is pregnant and is due 20 days before the wedding and lives 1,200 miles away. She is not sure if she is coming or not at this point due to the new baby. I am saving a spot for her in the wedding party and if she doesn't make it we will have 3 BM instead of 4. We will still have 4 GM. 

Would a sweetheart table work better or would a head table still be okay?

southernbelle0915

You can definitely do a head table, but just make sure if you do that you include the SOs of your wedding party. If you don't have enough space to do that, a sweetheart table would be a better fit. 

jkingley2015

I am curious too, when did the sweetheart table become a thing? Out of all the weddings I've been to, only one of them had a sweetheart table, the rest were a head table with just the bridal party. 

MobKaz

jkingley2015 said:

I am curious too, when did the sweetheart table become a thing? Out of all the weddings I've been to, only one of them had a sweetheart table, the rest were a head table with just the bridal party. 

It's not that the sweetheart table became a "thing". The "trend" is that more couples are realizing that your wedding party are also your nearest and dearest friends. Slapping a wedding "title' on your wedding party should not be equated with being thoughtless or inconsiderate. Traditional head tables are thoughtless and inconsiderate. They prevent couples from sharing a day that represents love and togetherness. A sweetheart table allows your friends to sit together with their SO's. After the ceremony, your bridal party has fulfilled their obligation. The reception should afford your bridal party the opportunity to enjoy themselves, and their SO's, as honored guests. If you still prefer the head table concept, all you have to do is broaden it to include SO's.

MobKaz

jkingley2015 said:

I am curious too, when did the sweetheart table become a thing? Out of all the weddings I've been to, only one of them had a sweetheart table, the rest were a head table with just the bridal party. 

The couple that chose to have a sweetheart table showed that etiquette and friendship trumped tradition. They put their friends above an antiquated and pointless vision.

PrettyGirlLost

jkingley2015 said:

Thoughts? Opinions? 

Long story short, my MOH is my sister but she is pregnant and is due 20 days before the wedding and lives 1,200 miles away. She is not sure if she is coming or not at this point due to the new baby. I am saving a spot for her in the wedding party and if she doesn't make it we will have 3 BM instead of 4. We will still have 4 GM. 

Would a sweetheart table work better or would a head table still be okay?

As a former BM from like 10 weddings I can tell you that I HATE head tables!  It's awkward to sit in front of everyone and have them watch you eat, and it sucks because you are typically seated with the bridal party only, not your SO's, and you can only talk to the person on either side of you. .. which you may not want to do at all.

Even if you would have the bridal party SO's sit at the head table with you all, head tables still suck in my opinion because, again, it's awkward to have everyone watch you eat and you can only talk to two people.

Have a sweetheart table and let your bridal party sit with other guests that they know.

southernbelle0915

jkingley2015 said:

I am curious too, when did the sweetheart table become a thing? Out of all the weddings I've been to, only one of them had a sweetheart table, the rest were a head table with just the bridal party. 

I don't really know when it became a thing. We had a sweetheart table and then a banquet table on either side. The one on my side had enough space for my BMs and their SOs and the one on DH's side had enough room for his GMs and their SOs. 

Separating people makes me think of 80s and 90s and weddings. And also, it's shitty. DH has been in several weddings. There was only one where we were separated (the B&G were super rude at best about this and other things). It sucked. I basically just chilled and ate by myself the whole night. 

I guess I feel like, if you're going to ask your best friends to stand up next to you, you should treat them (and their SO!) with basic respect.

jkingley2015

I will agree with you there. My fiance was in a wedding last summer, I didn't know anyone at the wedding at all  except for my fiance and the bride and groom and was seated with a bunch of other couples by myself. I hated it. 

We had also played around with the idea of having a separate reserved table right next to the parents table for all the SOs of the bridal party, because they would at least have one thing in common their SO is in the bridal party. 

But because of the way I felt sitting alone at that wedding is why I started to question the head table in the first place. 

southernbelle0915

jkingley2015 said:

I will agree with you there. My fiance was in a wedding last summer, I didn't know anyone at the wedding at all  except for my fiance and the bride and groom and was seated with a bunch of other couples by myself. I hated it. 

We had also played around with the idea of having a separate reserved table right next to the parents table for all the SOs of the bridal party, because they would at least have one thing in common their SO is in the bridal party. 

But because of the way I felt sitting alone at that wedding is why I started to question the head table in the first place. 

I wouldn't do a table for the SOs. I agree with you to seat them all together - however it works out. Whether the head table can include them or whether it makes more sense to have a sweetheart table and then the WP with their SOs at tables nearby.

lyndausvi

We did neither.   We just sat at a regular table.  It was in the middle of the room.  We sat with the younger members of our WP.   We were only there about 20 minutes.  The other WP members and their SOs were spread out across the room sitting with people they would have sat with had they not been in the WP.

For example, my siblings (and in-laws) in the WP sat with my parents and siblings who were not in the wedding.  His siblings and their dates sat with his mom.   Friends in the WP sat with a group of people they hang out with.

lovegood90

Anything you choose is fine. The only "must" is that you need to make sure your wedding party is able to sit with their SOs. If your head table can fit that many people, great. If not, you should probably do a sweetheart table or a king's table.

wrigleyville

MobKaz said:

jkingley2015 said:

I am curious too, when did the sweetheart table become a thing? Out of all the weddings I've been to, only one of them had a sweetheart table, the rest were a head table with just the bridal party. 

It's not that the sweetheart table became a "thing". The "trend" is that more couples are realizing that your wedding party are also your nearest and dearest friends. Slapping a wedding "title' on your wedding party should not be equated with being thoughtless or inconsiderate. Traditional head tables are thoughtless and inconsiderate. They prevent couples from sharing a day that represents love and togetherness. A sweetheart table allows your friends to sit together with their SO's. After the ceremony, your bridal party has fulfilled their obligation. The reception should afford your bridal party the opportunity to enjoy themselves, and their SO's, as honored guests. If you still prefer the head table concept, all you have to do is broaden it to include SO's.

Another thing to consider is that the sweetheart table allows you to chat with and focus on your new husband. It gives you a little time to let it all sink in. People might approach the table to talk to you, but it's still a nice chance to have some "couple" time.

MandyMost

Ugh, traditional head tables are the WORST. Just the bridal party (no significant others) sitting in a line? TERRIBLE. You feel like everyone is watching you eat (especially since you typically get the food first at the head table), and you can only talk to the person on either side of you. And the bride and groom probably eat quick and then get up and do table visits/mingle, so you're stuck sitting there until it seems like enough people are moving around that you can get up without being rude. And if you have a significant other, he's likely stuck at a table with a bunch of strangers, trying to make small talk. And then when dinner's finally over you essentially have no seat to go back to, because you have no interest in going back to the head table and you don't want to leave your SO again. 

There are really only 2 options: sweetheart table, or "regular" table with the bridal party or family or anyone you damn well please (you make the seating chart!). If you want to make it a "kings table" and do a long table instead of a round one, that's your choice.

We chose to sit with some of our guests because we didn't invite 150 people to have dinner with us just to sit alone. That just seems so odd to me. I've never understood it. I mean, you wouldn't throw a regular party and invite your most important friends and relatives, and then sit alone and away from them, would you?

PrettyGirlLost

jkingley2015 said:

I will agree with you there. My fiance was in a wedding last summer, I didn't know anyone at the wedding at all  except for my fiance and the bride and groom and was seated with a bunch of other couples by myself. I hated it. 

We had also played around with the idea of having a separate reserved table right next to the parents table for all the SOs of the bridal party, because they would at least have one thing in common their SO is in the bridal party. 

But because of the way I felt sitting alone at that wedding is why I started to question the head table in the first place. 

Ugh, please don't do this.  It just screams awkward to me.

There's no reason why the bridal party can't eat dinner with their SO's.  You as the Bride and Groom don't need them to be with you during dinner, which will go by quickly for you.  Let your bridal party relax and eat at their own pace with their loved ones.

[Deleted User]

I always suggest a sweetheart table.  As a member of the bridal party, I don't want to be on display to an entire room of people I probably don't know very well. I have a thing about people watching me eat and I dread sitting in front of a room of stranger while eating dinner.  I've always been more comfortable at a table off to the side and out of the spotlight.  I always appreciate it when the couple picks a sweetheart table over a head table. 

jkingley2015

This just seem like such a stupid detail of the wedding. Either way most people are going to be sitting at tables for only 20 mins or so to eat and then they are going to get up and mingle, and by that time they will start clearing tables and taking some down to make room for the dance floor. 

Why are people so sensitive to everything at a wedding? Its not about other people its about the couple getting married, that's the whole reason you are there. 

BlueBirdMB

lovegood90 said:

Anything you choose is fine. The only "must" is that you need to make sure your wedding party is able to sit with their SOs. If your head table can fit that many people, great. If not, you should probably do a sweetheart table or a king's table.

This exactly.  Head tables do not automatically mean that SOs aren't included.  You can have everyone at one table, with people on two sides if needed (King's table).  Or you can have a King's table so the bridal party doesn't feel like they are out on display.

I personally detest sweetheart tables.  They seem like a symptom of what weddings have become- me, me, me days with no thought to the guests.  I think if you have guests, you should be seated with some of them and not at a separate table presiding over their guests like a king and queen.  You have the rest of your life to be alone together, but limited occasions to spend time with your guests.  

Options that aren't rude and don't include a sweetheart table or having the bridal party on display:

1. King's table that includes wedding party and their SO's

2. King's table for your immediate family's and yourselves

3. Regular table (everyone knows who the girl in the big white dress is without having to have a special table) with wedding party (if it's small) and their SOs

4. Regular table with immediate family 

We had a regular table with our immediate family.  Obviously there is nothing rude about sweetheart tables, but all I can think is "king and queen who are too good to sit with us lowly surfs".  There other options besides a rude head table and a sweetheart table.

PrettyGirlLost

jkingley2015 said:

This just seem like such a stupid detail of the wedding. Either way most people are going to be sitting at tables for only 20 mins or so to eat and then they are going to get up and mingle, and by that time they will start clearing tables and taking some down to make room for the dance floor. 

Why are people so sensitive to everything at a wedding? Its not about other people its about the couple getting married, that's the whole reason you are there. 

Ugh, major eyeroll.

The wedding ceremony is all about the couple getting married.  The reception is a party hosted in honor of the guests who attended the wedding ceremony in order to thank those guests for supporting and witnessing the marriage.

Furthermore, the bridal party are ceremonial roles of honor. . . so once the ceremony and pictures are over, their "duties" are over as well and they should be able to enjoy the reception like anyone else.

Have you ever been in a bridal party and had to sit at a head table?  Did you read @MandyMost's post which perfectly sums up why they suck?  Sure, the bride and groom may take 20mins or less to eat, but I've never had a plated meal at a reception that lasted less than an hour.  Hell, the receptions I've attended that had food stations allotted  1.5-2hrs for dinner.  That's a long ass time to be sitting on display, without your SO whom you haven't seen all day anyway bc of pre-wedding stuff, and having no one to talk to except the two people on either side of you.

Kahlyla

BlueBirdMB said:

lovegood90 said:

Anything you choose is fine. The only "must" is that you need to make sure your wedding party is able to sit with their SOs. If your head table can fit that many people, great. If not, you should probably do a sweetheart table or a king's table.

This exactly.  Head tables do not automatically mean that SOs aren't included.  You can have everyone at one table, with people on two sides if needed (King's table).  Or you can have a King's table so the bridal party doesn't feel like they are out on display.

I personally detest sweetheart tables.  They seem like a symptom of what weddings have become- me, me, me days with no thought to the guests.  I think if you have guests, you should be seated with some of them and not at a separate table presiding over their guests like a king and queen.  You have the rest of your life to be alone together, but limited occasions to spend time with your guests.  

Options that aren't rude and don't include a sweetheart table or having the bridal party on display:

1. King's table that includes wedding party and their SO's

2. King's table for your immediate family's and yourselves

3. Regular table (everyone knows who the girl in the big white dress is without having to have a special table) with wedding party (if it's small) and their SOs

4. Regular table with immediate family 

We had a regular table with our immediate family.  Obviously there is nothing rude about sweetheart tables, but all I can think is "king and queen who are too good to sit with us lowly surfs".  There other options besides a rude head table and a sweetheart table.

We did option 3 and I loved it. I don't like attention, lol.

BDCsarahbth

Either a sweetheart table or a head table with SO of WP included is fine.

Head tables with SO seated elsewhere have been and are still considered one possible proper alternative, but I do not like them.

I do like it when sweetheart tables are large enough so that after the initial meal, service staff can set out two to four empty, unassigned chairs, so that people may sit for a few minutes with the couple to visit over drinks or coffee and dessert.

Many couples request this so that they go to other tables to greet people for only part of the time, then let others come to them.
My step mom has commented often, how nice it is with children at a wedding that they can be nailed down to a seat to see the B and G and not hang around between tables.

jkingley2015

southernbelle0915

jkingley2015 said:

Trolling is against the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up for your Knot account. Violations of the terms of service can mean your Knot account may be banned. Are you admitting to trolling?

PrettyGirlLost

BlueBirdMB said:

lovegood90 said:

Anything you choose is fine. The only "must" is that you need to make sure your wedding party is able to sit with their SOs. If your head table can fit that many people, great. If not, you should probably do a sweetheart table or a king's table.

I personally detest sweetheart tables.  They seem like a symptom of what weddings have become- me, me, me days with no thought to the guests.  I think if you have guests, you should be seated with some of them and not at a separate table presiding over their guests like a king and queen.  You have the rest of your life to be alone together, but limited occasions to spend time with your guests.  

But that's exactly how head and King tables look, it doesn't matter that the WP is seated with the Bride and Groom.  In my mind, that actually just further reinforces that King and Queen look.

I don't actually view head, King, or sweetheart tables as the couple "presiding" over their guests.  They are just seating possibilities.

I didn't like the idea of a sweetheart table initially, until I read people's experience with them here, and then we decided to do one and it was great and made the most sense with how our seating was set up in the venue.  Lots of people stopped by to visit with us while we ate, and it was really nice to spend 20mins together "alone" after spending the past 8 hours surrounded by people and all of their nervous energy.  Our wedding party was overjoyed to not have to sit at a head table, too.  They were floored when we told them they could sit wherever they wanted to with whomever they wanted to.

The entire reception was put together with our guests as the 1st and foremost thought in our minds, and their comfort and enjoyment as our only goal.  So having a sweetheart table had nothing to do at all with me-me-me.  If I wanted to go that route I would have honestly just eloped in Vegas.  We spent 98% of the reception with our guests, and just as we have the rest of our lives to spend with each other, well we have the rest of our lives to visit with our guests too.  They don't need to all be in one place at the same time.

jkingley2015

Yeah ban me its cool, this site is useless anyways. 

BDCsarahbth

I am not trolling. I joined the Wedding Channel and posted on Boston Dot Com years ago, after the knot XO bought the Wedding Channel, at the time of my two sisters' and my weddings.

My younger step sisters , 2 of 5 born after I graduated high school, will each be married at our home in June and September, we hope outdoors.
So I came back for advertisers' listings and to post.

What is wrong with that? I got a welcome back notice from the knot earlier, now this?

PrettyGirlLost

jkingley2015 said:

Newp, not in the least.

I just think you are one of those Me Me Me brides BlueBird was talking about.

flantastic

BlueBirdMB said:

lovegood90 said:

Anything you choose is fine. The only "must" is that you need to make sure your wedding party is able to sit with their SOs. If your head table can fit that many people, great. If not, you should probably do a sweetheart table or a king's table.

This exactly.  Head tables do not automatically mean that SOs aren't included.  You can have everyone at one table, with people on two sides if needed (King's table).  Or you can have a King's table so the bridal party doesn't feel like they are out on display.

I personally detest sweetheart tables.  They seem like a symptom of what weddings have become- me, me, me days with no thought to the guests.  I think if you have guests, you should be seated with some of them and not at a separate table presiding over their guests like a king and queen.  You have the rest of your life to be alone together, but limited occasions to spend time with your guests.  

Options that aren't rude and don't include a sweetheart table or having the bridal party on display:

1. King's table that includes wedding party and their SO's

2. King's table for your immediate family's and yourselves

3. Regular table (everyone knows who the girl in the big white dress is without having to have a special table) with wedding party (if it's small) and their SOs

4. Regular table with immediate family 

We had a regular table with our immediate family.  Obviously there is nothing rude about sweetheart tables, but all I can think is "king and queen who are too good to sit with us lowly surfs".  There other options besides a rude head table and a sweetheart table.

We did #4, sort of. I considered a King's Table, but then didn't want one 22-person table (i.e. a fifth of the reception) and was all about not being on display while eating. Everyone at our "regular" table was WP, but it was our siblings and their SOs. Our parents each hosted their own regular size table on either side of us. Our friends in the WP got to sit with their other friends not in the WP after having been with us all day. It was great.

flantastic

BDCsarahbth said:

I am not trolling. I joined the Wedding Channel and posted on Boston Dot Com years ago, after the knot XO bought the Wedding Channel, at the time of my two sisters' and my weddings. My younger step sisters , 2 of 5 born after I graduated high school, will each be married at our home in June and September, we hope outdoors. So I came back for advertisers' listings and to post. What is wrong with that? I got a welcome back notice from the knot earlier, now this?

They weren't referring to you.

jkingley2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

jkingley2015 said:

Newp, not in the least.

I just think you are one of those Me Me Me brides BlueBird was talking about.

Yup that's totally me! Me Me Me. I love Me! So glad you know me so well, I can tell we are going to be BFF!! OMG

southernbelle0915

BDCsarahbth said:

I am not trolling. I joined the Wedding Channel and posted on Boston Dot Com years ago, after the knot XO bought the Wedding Channel, at the time of my two sisters' and my weddings. My younger step sisters , 2 of 5 born after I graduated high school, will each be married at our home in June and September, we hope outdoors. So I came back for advertisers' listings and to post. What is wrong with that? I got a welcome back notice from the knot earlier, now this?

Not everyone is referring to you - this isn't even your thread. When someone is quoted, the poster is replying directly to that person. You were not quoted in that response so I was not replying to you.

ETF words

flantastic

jkingley2015 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

jkingley2015 said:

Newp, not in the least.

I just think you are one of those Me Me Me brides BlueBird was talking about.

Yup that's totally me! Me Me Me. I love Me! So glad you know me so well, I can tell we are going to be BFF!! OMG

It's actually pretty easy to tell when someone is selfish.