Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Wedding Etiquette Forum
Wedding Etiquette Forum
New Discussion

Sibling as a Plus One?

124»

Re: Sibling as a Plus One?

  • Maggie0829Maggie0829 member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    Jen4948 said:

    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.
    Oh. My. God.  You really are arguing just to argue.  Aren't you exhausted yet?

    Report Reply
  • madamerwinmadamerwin member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    Jen4948 said:
    Maggie0829 said:
    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.
    I don't think it's an issue if the host takes time to work on the guest list and is not open to substitutions; I think all anyone is saying is that it is not, in fact, necessarily rude for AUnt Sally to ask. Just because people don't think it's rude for guests to ask about substituting, doesn't mean that you, as a host, are not entitled to say "no." You can say no, that's your prerogative. 

    But to echo @Maggie0829 ; why would you be so opposed to Sven coming, unless Sven has done something in particular to warrant his exclusion (threats, violence against someone else at the wedding, etc.)? Like, if you budgeted for Aunt and Uncle to come, and uncle can't come, why is it SO egregious for Aunt Sally to ask if Sven can come instead? I am not trying to challenge you, I am truly just trying to understand why you have such an unbudging stance on this. To me, it seems like a no-brainer; if Sven coming means that my beloved Aunt Sally can come, why wouldn't I agree to that? Personally, I would rather have Aunt Sally there with Sven than not have her there at all.

    For the record, I agree with PPs that as a host, I personally would rather someone ask to bring a substitute (to which I would most likely say yes) than have them decline altogether. 
    BabyFruit Ticker
    Report Reply
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    Jen4948 said:
    Maggie0829 said:
    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.
    It's not.  We said the hosts can always say "NO!"

    The point is that it's not a ridiculous thing to suggest that adults actually can ask the hosts if they can make a substitution for reasons- the act of asking is not this horrible, taboo sin.

    And let's get real, having a substituted guests shouldn't be that big of a deal or involve any additional affort or planning on the part of the hosts.  And even if a substituted guest had some crazy food allergies and dietary needs, it's not a big fucking deal to pick up the phone, call the caterer, and get a meal planned for this guest.  Who is so busy at all times that this would be such an insufferable inconvenience? 

    No one.

    A wedding reception is just a big party.  Planning a big party is not that damn hard.  I've done it.  Many posters on here have done this 5 times over.  Planning a big party can be a pain in the ass, but like everything else in life it's only a pain in the ass if you let it be.  And if planning this party is such a chore, elope.

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


    Report Reply
  • MyNameIsNotMyNameIsNot member
    First Comment First Anniversary First Answer 5 Love Its
    Maggie0829 said:
    Jen4948 said:

    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.
    Oh. My. God.  You really are arguing just to argue.  Aren't you exhausted yet?
    This is her favorite thing in the world. Come up with some ridiculous shit, argue it to the point of absurdity, and then refuse to back down from the ridiculous position she's in. 
    Report Reply
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    sparklepants41 said:
    As soon as this thread went down the spiral with Aunt Sally, this was all I could think of:


    Who's Aunt Sally?  Didn't I use Aunt Martha?

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


    Report Reply
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    sparklepants41 said:
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    PrettyGirlLost said:
    MyNameIsNot 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.
    snipped to make quote tree shorter

    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."

    PrettyGirlLost said:
    sparklepants41 said:
    As soon as this thread went down the spiral with Aunt Sally, this was all I could think of:


    Who's Aunt Sally?  Didn't I use Aunt Martha?
    The hypothetical family tree is pretty confusing, but Aunt Martha is the devout Catholic. Aunt Sally is married to Uncle Bill, but Uncle Bill is shtupping his assistant in Palm Springs that weekend, so Aunt Sally wants to bring her hot ski instructor son Sven.

    (edited because my brain hurts)
    Aunt Martha is actually a euphemism for getting your period that my fiends and I use. . . which is why I used that name in this thread, lol!

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


    Report Reply
  • sparklepants41sparklepants41 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    PrettyGirlLost said:
    sparklepants41 said:
    **SNIPPED**
    The hypothetical family tree is pretty confusing, but Aunt Martha is the devout Catholic. Aunt Sally is married to Uncle Bill, but Uncle Bill is shtupping his assistant in Palm Springs that weekend, so Aunt Sally wants to bring her hot ski instructor son Sven.

    (edited because my brain hurts)
    Aunt Martha is actually a euphemism for getting your period that my fiends and I use. . . which is why I used that name in this thread, lol!
    Ha! I've always used Aunt Flo.
    Report Reply
  • ILoveBeachMusicILoveBeachMusic member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    banana468 said:
    Jen4948 said:
    PrettyGirlLost said:
    MyNameIsNot 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.   
    Totally agree with @banana468. At DD's wedding a cousin traveling from Europe wanted to know if a friend could accompany her instead of her husband who couldn't come. Of course, we said yes because we wanted the cousin there. She and her friend were delightful. She is also an amateur photographer (I wasn't aware of this since she is SIL's cousin). She got some great pictures that she shared with all of us! I'm glad she felt comfortable enough to ask instead of just not coming. 
    Report Reply
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    sparklepants41 said:
    PrettyGirlLost said:
    sparklepants41 said:
    **SNIPPED**
    The hypothetical family tree is pretty confusing, but Aunt Martha is the devout Catholic. Aunt Sally is married to Uncle Bill, but Uncle Bill is shtupping his assistant in Palm Springs that weekend, so Aunt Sally wants to bring her hot ski instructor son Sven.

    (edited because my brain hurts)
    Aunt Martha is actually a euphemism for getting your period that my fiends and I use. . . which is why I used that name in this thread, lol!
    Ha! I've always used Aunt Flo.
    Which makes more sense!  I have no idea why we use Aunt Martha, one of my friends even has an Aunt Martha, but it just stuck.

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


    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    What the fuck happened to this thread?  


    image
    Report Reply
  • glasgowtolondonglasgowtolondon member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    levioosa said:
    What the fuck happened to this thread?  
    The same thing thats hapened to a few threads recently.
                 
    Report Reply
  • mollybarker11mollybarker11 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    At least all this lively debate makes me feel less awkward about a situation I had a few years ago:

    I was invited to a friend's OOT wedding with a +1 (although I had a boyfriend at the time). I RSVPd with my BF's name and meal preference, but we broke up a few days before the event. I waffled for a while about whether to let my friend know, but assumed that by that time the plans would have already been set and it would add a bit of stress to have her cancel or move things around. I brought my sister with me instead, she ate the beef my ex had selected, and I'm not sure my friend even noticed.

    Since I was given a +1 I could have brought my sister in the first place, but I wondered if it was rude to substitute my guest once I'd RSVPd. Maybe it was rude of me to not let my friend know or to bring a different guest rather than show up solo. But it looks to me like there isn't a uniform opinion on the issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards