Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Not Engaged Yet
Hazel_B
member
Options
WR: Reception Question
I was talking to a co-worker about a wedding she is in. At the bridal shower she and the other BMs were talking to the FMIL and the FMIL was talking about the invitation and how she couldn't decide what meal option to choose because they all sounded good. My co-worker realized that the FMIL had different meal options than she did. Apparently they decided to not go with a head table so certain tables could have nicer meal options, eg the bride and groom and parents atleast.
Has anyone ever heard of this being done before?
Also, what exactly is a tiered wedding? Is that when certain people are invited to the whole wedding, including a dinner and other people are invited only to the wedding and reception with no dinner?
Has anyone ever heard of this being done before?
Also, what exactly is a tiered wedding? Is that when certain people are invited to the whole wedding, including a dinner and other people are invited only to the wedding and reception with no dinner?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: WR: Reception Question
2) I hate head tables.
3) Yes, a tiered reception is exactly what you described. Also very rude. "Hey I like you enough to receive a gift from you and dance with you, but I don't want to pay to feed you. Thanks."
I think that's exactly what a tiered reception is. Some people are invited to only the ceremony, some are invited to both ceremony and dinner, and some are only invited to the ceremony and dancing (no meal).
The only time I ever heard of anyone doing something like this (besides on TK), was my manager at work. When he got married, everyone knew about it because he was being married in the church that his dad preached at. So they knew a lot of people would show up uninvited, and so they went ahead and they put it in the bulletin and said something like "So and So and So and So are getting married on Saturday, July 23rd. Private reception to follow." I thought that was okay.
When I hear of tiered wedding it makes me think of an A list and B list. I have come to realize that tiered weddings are as you described, but I am also not keen on having a primary and secondary guest list.
Okay I was just wondering about the different meal options, it took me awhile to get my head around it because I thought it was so rude. I was also surprised that the FMIL wouldn't have been told that this was the situation. She could have upset the entire wedding party and family without even knowing it. Just sounds like a recipe for diaster to me.
My Bio - updated 26/3/2011
Edit - And, come to think of it she had a C list too, there were people that were only invited to the reception.
My Bio - updated 26/3/2011
is the co-worker a BM? i've never heard of a couple allowing "certain" people to have menu choices and not others, but it seems particularly rude to do that to a BP member. </p><p style="margin:0in;font-family:Arial;color:#1f1f1f;font-size:8.25pt;"> </p><p style="margin:0in;font-family:Arial;color:#1f1f1f;font-size:8.25pt;">[QUOTE] So they knew a lot of people would show up uninvited, and so they went ahead and they put it in the bulletin and said something like "So and So and So and So are getting married on Saturday, July 23rd. Private reception to follow." I thought that was okay.</p><p style="margin:0in;font-family:Arial;color:#1f1f1f;font-size:8.25pt;">Posted by Narwhal[/QUOTE]
this is very common in my region among the churches. it doesn't seem to bother anyone that the ceremony is open, but the reception is limited. in fact, the opposite is true in this regard: people are more offended if the ceremony isn't open. well i guess "offended" isn't the right word, but they're very disappointed. it must be a church thing? we have "church showers" for the bride as well. </p>
[QUOTE]A friend of mine had the A and B guest lists, as RSVPs came in she sent out more invites to her B listers when A listers couldn't come. She also had her wedding on Thanksgiving and <strong>didn't allow anyone who wasn't engaged or married a guest.</strong> Edit - And, come to think of it she had a C list too, there were people that were only invited to the reception.
Posted by Hazel_B[/QUOTE]
I think this is OK in certain circumstances. You can't really invite EVERYONE with a guest unless you have an unlimited budget. But I think that people in serious relationships should be allowed a guest. I'm going to a wedding in November and am not allowed to bring a guest, even though BF and I have been together for four years. I'm really upset by it.
I'm sorry, but tiered receptions in any form are f*ing rude. It basically says, "you're good enough to give me a $200 pot & pan set, but you're not good enough for me to shell out for a proper dinner for you."
You have a wedding you can afford - if that means you cut down on guests because you want a better menu, then that's what you do. If that means you have a more reasonably-priced venue in order to invite more people, then that's what you do.
I think it's somewhat reasonable to not always include "and guest" for adult guests. My cousin got married two years ago, and he told us in advance that they wanted to have a small wedding, and would we mind if we didn't bring a date. We understood, and we came on our own. It was no big deal.
There are some circumstances, however, that "and guest" really should be followed:
- If they are in a serious relationship (living together and/or dating for more than, say, 6 months)
- If they are engaged or married
- If they will not know anyone else there. If you've got a big group of single friends that all know one another and can sit together, I can see forgoing the +1. However, if you have a guest that does not know anyone save for the couple, you should include a +1 so they don't feel like they're completely on their own. Whether or not they choose to bring a guest is completely up to them at that point. We have 2-3 guests that we'll be doing this with, as they only know Mike & I.
"Oceana swings from logical to anus punching." - Buttons
Planning / Married / Blog
I also have another pet peeve - huge gaps between the ceremony and reception. My colleagues went to a wedding last weekend that had the ceremony at 1pm, and the reception at 6pm. Um, okay? That's just an awkward amount of time to have off, it's not like you can go and do anything! She did this because... of course... she was having a tiered wedding. She went off and had pictures and then a nice luncheon with immediate family and bridal party. While the rest of her guests just sort of hung out in the hotel lobby.
In regards to "plus ones", engaged and married are obvious, no matter who they are. Living together is a close second, because at this point if someone invited my BF to a wedding and didn't invite me, he probably wouldn't go anyway, especially if he has to travel. And I wouldn't do that without him, either. But for family members? I think if it's not a serious relationship when you send out your invitations, then it's not usually necessary since they'll already know people. I'm sure my cousins (age 18-21) will be dating someone or another, but honestly I feel like since their entire extended family will all be there, it isn't exactly necessary. It's a gray zone. My philosophy is:
1) If they're married, engaged, or living together
2) If they don't know enough people at the wedding to fill a table.
If they fill one of the above qualifications, they automatically get a "plus one". Serious relationships would be considered on an ad hoc basis!
Thus the "serious relationships would be considered on an ad hoc basis". I would say that any of your friends can tell you're in a serious relationship and would invite you both.
I have tons of friends that are in relationships that I would definitely invite their significant other. Specifically, family is the one that would be iffy. I just can't see giving each of my cousins a plus one unless it's a serious relationship.
I think for any friends who I hesistate to give a plus one, I'd at least ask them first if they were comfortable with it - if someone wants one, they'd get one. The only people I would think twice really would be family who aren't in serious relationships.
[QUOTE]Idk, Cate. BF and I don't live together, and I would be upset if someone (who wasn't family) invited one of us and not the other.
Posted by Narwhal[/QUOTE]
I'm seconding that - my brother and his GF have been together for five years and don't live together. I would never dream of <em>not</em> inviting her. They're in a serious relationship, she gets invited. Simple as that.
"Oceana swings from logical to anus punching." - Buttons
Planning / Married / Blog
[QUOTE] . this is very common in my region among the churches. it doesn't seem to bother anyone that the ceremony is open, but the reception is limited. in fact, the opposite is true in this regard: people are more offended if the ceremony isn't open. well i guess "offended" isn't the right word, but they're very disappointed. it must be a church thing? we have "church showers" for the bride as well.
Posted by heyimbren[/QUOTE]
We do a lot of this in my church, too. A big announcement will always be put in our newsletter inviting everyone to the wedding ceremony, but explaining the reception is by separate invitation. One couple chose to have their reception at the church when they included everyone and there wasn't enough food. They just had a cake and dessert reception, but many of us didn't even get a cookie because they had no way of knowing how many would be there.
As for the guests...Since I was single and not dating anyone for so many years, friends always had a tough time trying to decide what to do with me. I actually had one friend "require" me to bring a date because she wanted me to get together with a mutual friend - went to the wedding with him, but that was our one and only date. Then at a very close family friend's (the groom was the friend) wedding, before I met my BF, I received the invite and there was no guest included. The bride made it pretty clear to me that she didn't think I was capable of finding a date at that time, therefore she didn't put +1 for me.
Regarding the head table stuff, all of my friends have had sweetheart tables instead of head tables. However, all of BF's friends have had head tables. He's a groomsman next month so I'll be sitting with peple I've either never met or met once. It's not a big deal, but I think I would prefer to not to that to my guests. When I was a bridesmaid, I had a great time sitting with all the other maids and our SOs.
ETA: Angie, sorry your friends were rude like that. Ouch! And regarding the church thing, mine did that when the pastor's eldest daughter got married. My mom and I went because we actually knew the bride. I had to leave right after the ceremony, but I hope they had more of a friends & family only reception.
I haz a planning bio
I was 14 and knew hardly anyone, and I had to sit by myself with my BIL's sister and her family.
I cried, if I remember correctly.
At that wedding we talked to my other cousin who just got married in June and they told him that they would write his name on the invite. They did on the STD and invite, and it was funny. When sending the response I told him I wrote C and Guest and he was all upset but then I told him it was a joke.
We were tempted to write from C and Guest on the gift receipt for their china, but the lady at Macy's sucked and we knew she'd mess it up somehow.
GPB - I've been to weddings before where I wasn't allowed a guest and that's fine, although sometimes it frustrates me. I thought in her case it was particularly rude because she had her wedding on Thanksgiving weekend. I think listening to her plan it just seemed like one extra thing she'd done not thinking about her guests and what was convenient.
Cate - I think determining serious relationships on an ad hoc basis is dangerous, especiall if people attending talk to eachother a lot. I think the plus ones are like kids, you set rules ahead of time and go with that. If you have to alter your rules to allow a certain couple as you go through the guest list then you should change the rule for everyone. For example, maybe you start with only people living together and then have a close friend like Narwal and decide to change it to living together and dating more than x.
My Bio - updated 26/3/2011
"Oceana swings from logical to anus punching." - Buttons
Planning / Married / Blog
[QUOTE]We're having a sweetheart table for the simple fact that I want our wedding party to be able to sit with their significant others. Seems kind of rude to me to make spouses or fiances sit by themselves when they don't know anyone else.
Posted by oceana919[/QUOTE]
I am in complete agreement with you Oceana. I remember how awkward it is sitting next to other BMs that I don't know and the bride (the only one I do know) being a number of chairs away. Whenever I get married I plan on doing the same as you.
My Bio - updated 26/3/2011
We will be having a head table but 8 of the 12 in our potential bridal party (haven't officially asked them yet beyond the sibling and my BF/MOH) are married couples. The other 4 people are his one cousin, my BF/MOH and his two best friends all of their SO's will know at least a half dozen people who are not in the bridal party. The two guys whose wives are not in the bridal party also had head tables at their weddings in the last year (FI was in both and I was left to sit with people I barely knew) so they will be better off than I was! However, if this was not the case I would definitely want a sweetheart table. My ex and I had a sweetheart table as a matter of fact.
I've never heard of upgraded meals or tiered receptions, at least not IRL. I've seen them on TK before.
We don't have a "B" list per se, but there were a few of our friends that we wanted there but just didn't have room for due to room capacity. Once we got under our room capacity where we could safely invite more people (thanks to more declines than we thought we'd get), we sent out invitations to those friends we wanted there but couldn't originally have. I don't see an issue with that. We were even honest with them about our original lack of space to explain the late invitation, but always tried to make up for it by letting them know how excited and hopeful we were that they would attend.
As for +1's, ours originally were: if you're dating someone 6+ months, engaged, living together, or married, they're automatically inviited. As we got more declines and had room open up, we contacted people we knew were in relationships for less than 6 months and let them know if they wanted to bring their SO they could. We also had a couple people ask when they RSVP'd, and we told them we'd let them know whenever we could. I thought it was a little rude for them to call and ask, since neither of the relationships were serious (definitely not FACEBOOK SERIOUS or I would've known about it originally anyway), but oh well. We have room, so they're free to bring them if they want to.
Married Bio
Me: 31 DH: 30
TTC since 10/2010. 2012: HSG showed unicornuate uterus on right side; both kidneys and both ovaries present. High risk for preterm labor, IUGR, and C-Section. Dx'd Hypothyroidism.
1st BFP: 10/27/12, cycle before we had planned to see RE
Pregnancy Blog
Dudes, I may be biased (not being one for seafood or any other meat), but my pasta dish was FANTASTIC. I almost felt bad for everyone else with their crab or chicken dishes. I was loaded up with seemingly every veggie they could find mixed up in a spicy cream sauce. AWESOME.
Anyway, I think that's probably a different circumstance. But the OP reminded me of it. I was speshul.
We didn't have a head table at our wedding (we did at our rehearsal dinner- Josh and I and our parents. I kinda felt put on display lol). Josh and I sat for maybe 5 minutes during the whole reception. Our WP got to spend time with whoever they wanted. I just hated telling people what to do for my wedding (and yet usually I'm so very bossy lol).
If I had it to do all over again, I still wouldn't have a head table. We were much too busy visiting and dancing to sit anywhere, let alone to make our WP sit with us.
[QUOTE] As for plus ones...I know it's not popular, but I don't think everyone who is "seriously dating" should get one. First of all, the definition of serious is subjective. We're only inviting, married, engaged, and those who live together (with one exception that I'm not getting into right now).
Posted by Goldlie11[/QUOTE]
I know plenty of people who have lived together that were not in as serious of relationships as those who were not living together. I'm not saying you're wrong (I don't think there is a right or wrong, it's just opinion), but I can't see inviting someone who's been dating my friend a week and is impulsive and moved in with him/her, but not inviting someone who's been dating a friend of mine for four months (or even longer maybe) just because they aren't living together or engaged.
Everyone's values are different, and while it's difficult (if not impossible) to invite one person and not the other when they're living together, there's a part of me that just wouldn't feel right if I invited those whose morals allowed them to live together before marriage and didn't invite the others just because they were opposed to living together before marriage. Just doesn't compute to me.
Married Bio
Me: 31 DH: 30
TTC since 10/2010. 2012: HSG showed unicornuate uterus on right side; both kidneys and both ovaries present. High risk for preterm labor, IUGR, and C-Section. Dx'd Hypothyroidism.
1st BFP: 10/27/12, cycle before we had planned to see RE
Pregnancy Blog
[QUOTE]To answer the OP, I've definitely never heard of some people getting upgraded meals. I've never heard of tiered receptions until TK. My understanding is that sometimes people are invited to the ceremony, instructed to leave and go eat on their own, then they return to dance. Meanwhile, the people who the bride and groom really like are hosted properly. I've also heard of people not being invited to the ceremony at all, but are asked to attend the reception after the meal has been served. Either way it's disgusting. If I ever received such and invite, I would reply back with a "go f*ck yourself". Narwhal, my understanding is that many churches do post when people are getting married and that the ceremony is open to the entire church community. The reception is for those who are formally invited to the ceremony. From an etiquette standpoint, that's perfectly acceptable. As for plus ones...I know it's not popular, but I don't think everyone who is "seriously dating" should get one. First of all, the definition of <strong>serious is subjective. We're only inviting, married, engaged, and those who live together</strong> (with one exception that I'm not getting into right now). Personally, prior to being engaged, I wouldn't have been upset if FI (then BF) was invited to a wedding without me. He wouldn't have been upset if I was invited without him. We're perfectly okay with doing things separate. I would decline however if I didn't know anyone but the bride or groom.
Posted by Goldlie11[/QUOTE]
That would bother me big time. BF and I are serious, just as serious as anyone living together but because of personal beliefs we don't. That doesn't mean we are less serious than other couples. Really I think that if some people get a plus one everyone should get a plus one.
OP - I've never heard of people getting different meal options and I think its really rude. But people do rude things at thier weddings all the time. It would bug me if someone did that but there are other things that would bother me more.