Wedding Party Seating, Only Some At Head Table?

amalama

Well, technically we will probably just be at a round table in the first row of tables. So we would have 8 seats. I have 5 on my side, he has 4 on his. One of his groomsman is married to one of my bridesmaids. With all the other SOs counted we would have 18. Three of those couples have kids that will be at the wedding, so we were planning on seating them at different tables. Of the other 12, it's very obvious to us what would work best for a variety of reasons (some selfish, some not, I can explain if it makes a difference). But is it a breach of etiquette to have some of them at our table and some at other tables?

We really don't think a head table with everyone is an option (if we included the kids up there, we would have 27!), we also don't want to do a sweetheart table. We could possibly do a table with just the 12 without kids, but it works better for the space if we sit at a round table.

NYCBruin

I think a round table with just some wedding party members is just fine.  I don't think of that as a "head table" at all.  If you were doing the traditional head table, I would think it was a bit strange to not include the whole WP.  However, since you'll just be sitting at a round table, I see no problem with your plan.

monkeysip

Even at a traditional "head table", it's okay to just seat part of the wedding party, but it should be done on logical grounds so as not to hurt feelings.  For example, it would be okay to just seat B&G, Best man + spouse and MOH + spouse.

For the round table like this, it's even less problematic.  Seat whoever you want there. 

We did a round table too, and we did MOH plus her date and her mom, best man + wife, and a good friend of mine and his date.  Although he wasn't in the wedding party, he knew NO ONE else at the wedding, so I thought it good for him to sit with us at the bridal party table.  

H's two groomsmen, and my other MOH (my sister) sat at other tables with their spouses and other people they knew.

amalama

Well both MOHs are my sisters who have kids, so we couldn't split it by that grounds. We are thinking it would be us, the BM/GM couple (since they are both our friends), the Best Man & his wife, and then one of my other bridesmaids and her husband, who is also friends with the other groomsman and my FI. This would leave out all of the people with kids, FI's other sister (who doesn't know any of the other wedding party and would probably be more comfortable with family), and then my last BM. She has lots of other friends at the wedding, and her BF is not friends with anyone. But her BF is also an ass and she knows it (and knows we know it), so I'm afraid she'll take it personally and assume we did it this way to not sit with him.

ETA: Thank you for the replies though, I just wanted to make sure we weren't actually doing something wrong. Every wedding we have been to has been a head table (usually with SOs) so I'm over thinking it.

amalama

fyrefly76 said:

At another wedding where I was a bridesmaid, they had a huge head table.  It was very important to the bride that all wedding party members get to sit with their significant others, so we had a 20 person "head table".  It was not raised, and people sat on all four sides of the table, so I'm not even sure it should be described as a head table, actually.

We did consider that (I think it's called a King's Table?) but it will only work if we get enough declines. We already are right at the limit for comfort (not on purpose, they told us the limit with 10 people at the tables and we didn't notice until we had already booked, so we cut the list some but really can't any more to get to only 8-9 per table if everyone comes), and the long tables take up more space than rounds.

VadersValkyrie

Why don't you do a sweet-heart table and then do a bridesmaids & date table and a groomsmen & date table?  That's our plan.

ssmith232

We're not having a head table at all! We are sitting with my parents and my FI's parents. That way our bridal party can sit with their dates/families. 

Ajuliana

We would have 18 with the one child of our wp, and two bridesmaids are planning to have a baby by our wedding. I like kings table, but it could get awkward with potentially twp breastfeeding babies. I think as long as you explain it to your party I think youre in the clear. Plus, I doubt they expect that many people would fit at a table logistically.

amalama

VadersValkyrie said:

Why don't you do a sweet-heart table and then do a bridesmaids & date table and a groomsmen & date table?  That's our plan.

We just don't want to. We want to enjoy the dinner with the people closest to us, we have plenty of time by ourselves!

ssmith232 said:

We're not having a head table at all! We are sitting with my parents and my FI's parents. That way our bridal party can sit with their dates/families. 

We thought about this, but FI's parents are divorced and we'd have to choose one or the other or force them to sit together and feel awkward the whole time. Neither of those seemed like a good idea. And we definitely are keeping the wedding party with their dates, that's why it would be so many people if we did the head table.

Jen4948

As long as SOs are not split up and parents are not separated from children, any arrangement should be fine.

cmclaire

Jen4948 said:

As long as SOs are not split up and parents are not separated from children, any arrangement should be fine.

This is my thinking too.  I was not best pleased at the last wedding I attended to be sat at a different table to my fiancé.  With a bunch of people I didn't know.  I rolled with it, but side eyed a little. Apart from the above though, I think most arrangements are just fine.

LavenderHoneyBee

I personally think you should nix the head table all together. I think it'd rude to have some of the WP and not all. And I think those that will be left out will feel bad. You should stick to a sweetheart table and sweat your WP with their SO's and whoever you think they'd be happiest to sit with.