Wedding Etiquette Forum

Sibling as a Plus One?

13

Re: Sibling as a Plus One?

  • Jen4948Jen4948 member
    Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    edited March 2016
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
  • I think it depends on your relationship to the  couple. Hopefully if you are invited to their wedding it is NBD to call them up and ask. Of course, be prepared to be told 'No'. 
    I would hesitate to ask for a substitution if it was a business associate or other acquaintance.
  • I invited my father and his wife, but not their children (yes, technically my half-sibs, but it's a long story).  He showed up the morning of with their oldest daughter, wife was not feeling well and they didn't want the $$/meal to go to waste.  I didn't give a whit about it.  It was my wedding day and that's what mattered and that he was there (more of the long story).  In the long run, I truly believe it worked out better.  

    I realize that etiquette states non-transferable, but I think in the long run it really can be a case by case assessment based on how well you know the couple getting married if it's ok to ask for a sub.  As this thread clearly shows, a lot of hosts don't care.  

     

  • Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
  • Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.

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


  • OP, she should double check just to be safe if she is worried about it. But if I were the bride/groom, I wouldn't care who their "plus 1" is as long as it is someone my fiancé and I don't have an issue with.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • Jen4948Jen4948 member
    Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    edited March 2016
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
  • OP, she should double check just to be safe if she is worried about it. But if I were the bride/groom, I wouldn't care who their "plus 1" is as long as it is someone my fiancé and I don't have an issue with.
    So, you don't care if someone substitutes a plus one, but you are not inviting everyone's significant others? That's just strange.
    BabyFruit Ticker
  • banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    So by your definition, if you're an invited guest and close enough to be invited, you're not close enough to talk to them about any situations going on?

    This is one of those times that you can be right on paper but in the long run it sounds silly.

    Example: Aunt Sally and Uncle Bill are invited.   Uncle Bill will be out of town.  Aunt Sally doesn't drive at night.   Are you saying that you'd rather Aunt Sally to decline rather than say, "Hey sweetie.   Bill's going to be out of town that weekend.   Is it an issue if I bring my son Sven instead so he can drive me?"   

    I know that if it was *my* wedding I'd rather Aunt Sally call me and just talk to me vs. not see Sally at all.   

    And if I couldn't accommodate Sven I'd say, "Oh Aunt Sally I'm so sorry but the invitation was only for you and Uncle Bill.   Let's get together another time."


    I get what you're saying @Jen4948 but I honestly think that I'd rather a guest call to see if this is possible vs. not see the person.   
    Except that Sven wasn't invited to begin with.  If the hosts really wanted him there, they would have invited him.  

    And if hosts are fielding too many such requests, because every single coupled guest thinks they are free to ask if they can bring a substitute instead of their SO, I can see the point made earlier about how it's unfair to true singles if they don't get to bring plus-ones with all these substitutes allowed instead of invited SOs, not to mention that it can be a PITA to try to refigure out catering and other issues that come with changes of guest lists.

    So yes, I would rather Aunt Sally not ask if she can bring someone other than Uncle Bill.  If she needs someone to drive her, then I'm happy for her to call me and ask, "Unfortunately, Uncle Bill can't make it and I can't drive there.  Can you help me out with this?" because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.
  • Jen4948 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    So by your definition, if you're an invited guest and close enough to be invited, you're not close enough to talk to them about any situations going on?

    This is one of those times that you can be right on paper but in the long run it sounds silly.

    Example: Aunt Sally and Uncle Bill are invited.   Uncle Bill will be out of town.  Aunt Sally doesn't drive at night.   Are you saying that you'd rather Aunt Sally to decline rather than say, "Hey sweetie.   Bill's going to be out of town that weekend.   Is it an issue if I bring my son Sven instead so he can drive me?"   

    I know that if it was *my* wedding I'd rather Aunt Sally call me and just talk to me vs. not see Sally at all.   

    And if I couldn't accommodate Sven I'd say, "Oh Aunt Sally I'm so sorry but the invitation was only for you and Uncle Bill.   Let's get together another time."


    I get what you're saying @Jen4948 but I honestly think that I'd rather a guest call to see if this is possible vs. not see the person.   
    Except that Sven wasn't invited to begin with.  If the hosts really wanted him there, they would have invited him.  

    And if hosts are fielding too many such requests, because every single coupled guest thinks they are free to ask if they can bring a substitute instead of their SO, I can see the point made earlier about how it's unfair to true singles if they don't get to bring plus-ones with all these substitutes allowed instead of invited SOs, not to mention that it can be a PITA to try to refigure out catering and other issues that come with changes of guest lists.

    So yes, I would rather Aunt Sally not ask if she can bring someone other than Uncle Bill.  If she needs someone to drive her, then I'm happy for her to call me and ask, "Unfortunately, Uncle Bill can't make it and I can't drive there.  Can you help me out with this?" because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.
    This just sounds so high strung and worried about the wrong things.  Friends and family are far more important than who I really invited.  

    I also don't think anyone is saying just random substitutions for an SO.  They are talking about very specific circumstances where someone's SO can't make it.  I would far rather have Aunt Sally bring Sven so she can actually be there than worry about the fact that Sven wasn't invited originally.

    Like @banana468 said, non-transferable may be the letter of the law, but in real life situations, it doesn't always make sense to be that hard and fast.  

    I had a cousin ping me after he got the invitation (addressed to just he and his wife) and ask about their 6 children.  Not because he couldn't bear to leave them at home, but his MIL who was his normal babysitter was in ill health and couldn't do it.  He wanted to be sure.  I didn't have a problem with him asking, but I did say no. 
    The thing is, there are ways for Aunt Sally to get there that don't include bringing an uninvited guest.  I'd prefer that she ask about that first, because as I said, I'm happy to help out with those kinds of requests.  And it also depends on who the uninvited guest is that she plans to bring and why he wasn't invited.
  • Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    Can you come up with some etiquette authority supporting your position that it's rude to ask? I've never seen Ms. Manners say that. Sure, it's rude to assume, but no one is saying you should be able to assume or demand or anything of the sort. 

    Given the amount questions and host should expect coupled with the number of posters that would prefer to be asked, I would be hard pressed to find a rule that this is the line where it becomes inappropriate to ask a question. 

  • Jen4948 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    So by your definition, if you're an invited guest and close enough to be invited, you're not close enough to talk to them about any situations going on?

    This is one of those times that you can be right on paper but in the long run it sounds silly.

    Example: Aunt Sally and Uncle Bill are invited.   Uncle Bill will be out of town.  Aunt Sally doesn't drive at night.   Are you saying that you'd rather Aunt Sally to decline rather than say, "Hey sweetie.   Bill's going to be out of town that weekend.   Is it an issue if I bring my son Sven instead so he can drive me?"   

    I know that if it was *my* wedding I'd rather Aunt Sally call me and just talk to me vs. not see Sally at all.   

    And if I couldn't accommodate Sven I'd say, "Oh Aunt Sally I'm so sorry but the invitation was only for you and Uncle Bill.   Let's get together another time."


    I get what you're saying @Jen4948 but I honestly think that I'd rather a guest call to see if this is possible vs. not see the person.   
    Except that Sven wasn't invited to begin with.  If the hosts really wanted him there, they would have invited him.  

    And if hosts are fielding too many such requests, because every single coupled guest thinks they are free to ask if they can bring a substitute instead of their SO, I can see the point made earlier about how it's unfair to true singles if they don't get to bring plus-ones with all these substitutes allowed instead of invited SOs, not to mention that it can be a PITA to try to refigure out catering and other issues that come with changes of guest lists.

    So yes, I would rather Aunt Sally not ask if she can bring someone other than Uncle Bill.  If she needs someone to drive her, then I'm happy for her to call me and ask, "Unfortunately, Uncle Bill can't make it and I can't drive there.  Can you help me out with this?" because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.
    Wait, did you realize that you just said that it would be more polite for Sally to call and ask you to make her travel arrangements than for her to ask if she could bring her son in place of husband? 

    Yeah, no. 
    It's still not polite for her to ask if she can bring someone else just because she needs a ride - regardless of who it is.

    But yeah, I'm happier if she asks me for that kind of help rather than asking me to host someone else in lieu of someone I originally invited.  It's still up to her to make the actual transportation arrangements, but I don't mind letting her know what options are available.  That said, bringing an uninvited guest isn't one of them.
  • lyndausvi said:
    Technically you do not have to allow substitutes or give true singles a plus one.

    That said, by reading these boards for as long as I have, I can tell you without a doubt; those of us who allowed substitutes, gave all our true singles plus ones and invited all SO's (regardless of how long they have been together) have/had FAR LESS STRESSFUL PLANNING than those who didn't do the above.

    It's just a fact.  By eliminating those topics we didn't have to field many questions.   When we did it's was a simple "of course we love to see [insert name of new guest]."   We pre-plan.   We know our elderly relative is going to need a caretaker/driver so we plan ahead.    Our truly single guest from OOT might want a companion or might be in a relationship with someone by the wedding. So it's already in the budget.        Sometimes one half of the couple can't make the wedding but the other half still needs/wants a companion.   NBD, again it's already in the budget.

    Now in my case quite of few of my singles didn't bring a date.   Cool, less money.    My elderly relatives ended up coming with other relatives who were already invited, so they didn't need their "companion" invite.    Cool, budget is going down.

    Do what you want, but I can tell your from experience that if your pre-plan everyone coming with a SO or companion of some-sort FROM THE START you will be less stressed than those who don't.
    This.   We knew that DH's grandmother needed a caregiver with her.   So we invited the caregiver.   Done.

    When she got tired, she left with the caregiver.   When she needed to go to the bathroom, the caregiver took her.   My MIL was able to host and look after all the guests and her mom was able to enjoy herself too.   Win/win. 
  • banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    So by your definition, if you're an invited guest and close enough to be invited, you're not close enough to talk to them about any situations going on?

    This is one of those times that you can be right on paper but in the long run it sounds silly.

    Example: Aunt Sally and Uncle Bill are invited.   Uncle Bill will be out of town.  Aunt Sally doesn't drive at night.   Are you saying that you'd rather Aunt Sally to decline rather than say, "Hey sweetie.   Bill's going to be out of town that weekend.   Is it an issue if I bring my son Sven instead so he can drive me?"   

    I know that if it was *my* wedding I'd rather Aunt Sally call me and just talk to me vs. not see Sally at all.   

    And if I couldn't accommodate Sven I'd say, "Oh Aunt Sally I'm so sorry but the invitation was only for you and Uncle Bill.   Let's get together another time."


    I get what you're saying @Jen4948 but I honestly think that I'd rather a guest call to see if this is possible vs. not see the person.   
    Except that Sven wasn't invited to begin with.  If the hosts really wanted him there, they would have invited him.  

    And if hosts are fielding too many such requests, because every single coupled guest thinks they are free to ask if they can bring a substitute instead of their SO, I can see the point made earlier about how it's unfair to true singles if they don't get to bring plus-ones with all these substitutes allowed instead of invited SOs, not to mention that it can be a PITA to try to refigure out catering and other issues that come with changes of guest lists.

    So yes, I would rather Aunt Sally not ask if she can bring someone other than Uncle Bill.  If she needs someone to drive her, then I'm happy for her to call me and ask, "Unfortunately, Uncle Bill can't make it and I can't drive there.  Can you help me out with this?" because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.
    This makes no sense to me.   You'd rather take on the extra task of arranging for transportation vs. say, "Would Sven like the beef?"

    I mean sure.   There's always the possibility that Aunt Sally will say that Sven needs a lactose free, gluten free vegan meal but more often than not the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented.   And it's far easier for me to make an edit on a spreadsheet before I make a place card than it is to call around for car services.

    But what do I know.   I've actually planned a wedding. 
    Actually, no, I did not say that I would arrange her transportation, if that's the reason she wants to bring someone.  I said I was willing to let her know what options are available. But I did not say that I would book a ride for her.

    As for Sven, why didn't he make the list to begin with? If I already determined not to invite him, then sorry, but I'm not going to automatically let Aunt Sally sub him for Uncle Bill if the only reason she's asking is because she needs a ride.  When all is said and done, it's up to her to figure out how to get to and from the wedding without asking the hosts for a substitute plus-one
  • Jen4948 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    I think that whether or not the hosts are "getting their panties in a wad" about inviting Aunt Martha in place of an SO depends on why Aunt Martha didn't make the guest list to begin with.

    If it was decided to omit Aunt Martha because, say, she's a devout Catholic who can't wrap her head around the idea that this is an interfaith wedding taking place at a country club with no nuptial Mass, then I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" not to be okay about someone bringing her as a plus-one if she's going to spend the whole time bitching about it.  

    Or if the intended substitute is an ex of one of the couple, I don't think it's "getting panties in a wad" that that person doesn't belong at one's wedding to someone else.

    There's all kinds of reasons why hosts might not be okay with substitute guests that don't deserve to be dismissed. They don't have to involve physical violence or sleeping with one of the principals.
    Who cares why she wasn't invited?

    The couple is free to say no. If they don't want Martha there, they can tell the guest that Martha can't be subbed in. No explanation necessary. There's still no reason for anyone to have wadded panties.  
    Exactly.  Rather than trying to read minds or make assumptions, you pick up the phone and call and ask, "Hubby is unable to make it, so is it ok if I come with Aunt Martha instead?"

    If the couple says no, they say no.  NBD.

    Communication is really that simple.
    The assumption being made is that it's okay to ask the hosts if you can invite someone instead of someone else who was invited.

    The hosts shouldn't have to say either yes or no, because all coupled guests need to accept that if one of them can't make it, the other needs to either go alone or not at all-not try to sub in someone the hosts didn't invite.  If you're half of a couple and the other half isn't going, either go by yourself or stay home.  

    End of story.  Easy peasy.  No need for "communication."
    So by your definition, if you're an invited guest and close enough to be invited, you're not close enough to talk to them about any situations going on?

    This is one of those times that you can be right on paper but in the long run it sounds silly.

    Example: Aunt Sally and Uncle Bill are invited.   Uncle Bill will be out of town.  Aunt Sally doesn't drive at night.   Are you saying that you'd rather Aunt Sally to decline rather than say, "Hey sweetie.   Bill's going to be out of town that weekend.   Is it an issue if I bring my son Sven instead so he can drive me?"   

    I know that if it was *my* wedding I'd rather Aunt Sally call me and just talk to me vs. not see Sally at all.   

    And if I couldn't accommodate Sven I'd say, "Oh Aunt Sally I'm so sorry but the invitation was only for you and Uncle Bill.   Let's get together another time."


    I get what you're saying @Jen4948 but I honestly think that I'd rather a guest call to see if this is possible vs. not see the person.   
    Except that Sven wasn't invited to begin with.  If the hosts really wanted him there, they would have invited him.  

    And if hosts are fielding too many such requests, because every single coupled guest thinks they are free to ask if they can bring a substitute instead of their SO, I can see the point made earlier about how it's unfair to true singles if they don't get to bring plus-ones with all these substitutes allowed instead of invited SOs, not to mention that it can be a PITA to try to refigure out catering and other issues that come with changes of guest lists.

    So yes, I would rather Aunt Sally not ask if she can bring someone other than Uncle Bill.  If she needs someone to drive her, then I'm happy for her to call me and ask, "Unfortunately, Uncle Bill can't make it and I can't drive there.  Can you help me out with this?" because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.
    This makes no sense to me.   You'd rather take on the extra task of arranging for transportation vs. say, "Would Sven like the beef?"

    I mean sure.   There's always the possibility that Aunt Sally will say that Sven needs a lactose free, gluten free vegan meal but more often than not the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented.   And it's far easier for me to make an edit on a spreadsheet before I make a place card than it is to call around for car services.

    But what do I know.   I've actually planned a wedding. 
    Actually, no, I did not say that I would arrange her transportation, if that's the reason she wants to bring someone.  I said I was willing to let her know what options are available. But I did not say that I would book a ride for her.

    As for Sven, why didn't he make the list to begin with? If I already determined not to invite him, then sorry, but I'm not going to automatically let Aunt Sally sub him for Uncle Bill if the only reason she's asking is because she needs a ride.  When all is said and done, it's up to her to figure out how to get to and from the wedding without asking the hosts for a substitute plus-one
    Yes you did.   It's in your post.  Here it is copied and pasted for you below:

    because I could arrange for transportation for her that doesn't involve me having to host someone I didn't invite.

    I suppose that I *could* does not mean I *will* or I *would* but now we're seriously splitting hairs.   

    You're reading too far into this.   Yes, it's possible that Sven is a close-talker with major halitosis and a poor diet but that isn't the point here.   No one's trying to make an addition to the guest list.   And my point stands: I would rather have a guest ask me if a substitution was possible vs. think that I'd rather she not attend due to logistical issues.   
  • Jen4948 said:

    Actually, no, I did not say that I would arrange her transportation, if that's the reason she wants to bring someone.  I said I was willing to let her know what options are available. But I did not say that I would book a ride for her.

    As for Sven, why didn't he make the list to begin with? If I already determined not to invite him, then sorry, but I'm not going to automatically let Aunt Sally sub him for Uncle Bill if the only reason she's asking is because she needs a ride.  When all is said and done, it's up to her to figure out how to get to and from the wedding without asking the hosts for a substitute plus-one
    But again it would not be rude of Aunt Sally to ask if Sven could come in Uncle whatevers place.  If you have some real hatred for Sven you could just tell Aunt Sally sorry, but no.  Just because Sven didn't make the list because of budget or venue capacity reason and not because he is a crazy ass, mean person, then what the hell is the issue with just letting her bring Sven?  Is it really necessary to be so hard and fast on this thing?  These people are family and friends and they are being invited to your wedding not a dinner at Buckingham Palace where substitutions is a no no due to security measures.

  • So if you are not arrange transportation, what exactly are the options?   Forcing another guest to drive them?  Making an elderly relative take public transportation?

    FWIW - I allowed my 104 year old Nana (grandfather's GF) to bring one of her kids or grandkids.  Taking public transportation would not have been an option.  Asking one of my other guests to go out of their way to pick her up wasn't fair for that guests.    

     It was either us paying for a car service (which we would have done) or her relative bring her.   I don't think a 104 year old traveling alone in a car service would have been appropriate either.  So had we gotten the car service we still would have told her to bringing someone.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 member
    Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    edited March 2016
    Jen4948 said:

    Actually, no, I did not say that I would arrange her transportation, if that's the reason she wants to bring someone.  I said I was willing to let her know what options are available. But I did not say that I would book a ride for her.

    As for Sven, why didn't he make the list to begin with? If I already determined not to invite him, then sorry, but I'm not going to automatically let Aunt Sally sub him for Uncle Bill if the only reason she's asking is because she needs a ride.  When all is said and done, it's up to her to figure out how to get to and from the wedding without asking the hosts for a substitute plus-one
    But again it would not be rude of Aunt Sally to ask if Sven could come in Uncle whatevers place.  If you have some real hatred for Sven you could just tell Aunt Sally sorry, but no.  Just because Sven didn't make the list because of budget or venue capacity reason and not because he is a crazy ass, mean person, then what the hell is the issue with just letting her bring Sven?  Is it really necessary to be so hard and fast on this thing?  These people are family and friends and they are being invited to your wedding not a dinner at Buckingham Palace where substitutions is a no no due to security measures.
    Why the fucking hell is it an "issue" if hosts take the time to work out guest lists of specific people, budget and plan for their particular needs, and not be open to substitutions by guests?

    Why do hosts have to open their personal events to any random person off the street just because someone they did invite can't make it?

    Just because you're okay with that doesn't make it an "issue" if other hosts aren't.
  • scribe95 said:
    This has completely jumped the shark now. So I can call to ask for travel help and arrangements of a bride and this is etiquette approved but no way should I call and see if a friend or other family member can attend with me when my SO is unavailable. Okay. No sense at all. 
    Yep, the hyperbole got ridiculous as fuck in this thread.  And all because we aren't supposed to dare burden a bride and groom with questions about guests because it might upset them for a myriad of reasons.

    I don't personally have the time or inclination to worry about and then pussy foot around every possible permutation of how something I say or do might get someone's panties in a wad.  It's that other person's responsibility to pull them out of her own ass and deal with her own emotional state if that happens ;-)

    Sheesh!

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


This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards