Question about seating couples separately

Sars06 · March 2014

mysticl said:

phira said:

I mean, at my friend's wedding, the two other couples we were sitting with only talked to each other and not to us, but I think it was more that they were not very friendly people and already knew each other, and didn't want to talk to the new couple.

Anyway, that's a stupid rule. It assumes the worst of your guests ("If they're with their spouse, they'll only talk to their spouse!") and it also has a huge, outdated and gendered assumption--that couples are inherently dishonest with each other (so you need to seat them separately so they won't contradict each other).

I don't think it's an assumption of couples being dishonest with each other, just that people remember stuff differently. DH always gets stories wrong. I either let it go or tell him about it later when we are alone.

More importantly, I think MM meant that line as a joke.

I think her actual reasoning is that a hostess should be trying to introduce her guests to new and interesting people she thinks they would get along with.

AroundTheBlock · March 2014

Sars06 said:

So, head tables are not a thing in my circle. I've never been to a wedding with one, I don't understand them, and I wouldn't have one. But I have a question about the notion that separating couples at a wedding is impolite.

I've always read that a hostess should seat couples separately, at least at a dinner party. For example, Miss Manners says, "You are, of course, correct that married couples should never be seated together at dinner parties. This is for their own good. Separating them gives each a chance to tell shared stories without fear of contradiction." In response to a hostess who complained that couples changed her seating arrangement to seat themselves together, she advises, "You can't separate them by force on the spot, but you should take note of their wanting to spend the evening talking to each other and not trouble them by suggesting they again leave the conjugal harmony of their very own dinner table for yours."

Is this rule outdated? Or does it not apply to a wedding, possibly because a wedding is expected to be a less intimate setting than a dinner party?

For the record, I've never been seated apart from my fiance at a wedding and I would find it strange if I were. I'm just curious about the application of this rule.

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course. I use place cards for any formal dinner with more than five guests (+myself = six diners).

At big dinners outside my own crowd couples tend to be seated together. As a single person sharing tables with all those couples, I can assure you that those who are claiming that they never fall into litte pairs of husband-and-wife conversation that excludes others at the table, are very much in the minority -- and I doubt that the majority, who justify the rule, even notice that they are doing it.

mysticl · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Sars06 said:

So, head tables are not a thing in my circle. I've never been to a wedding with one, I don't understand them, and I wouldn't have one. But I have a question about the notion that separating couples at a wedding is impolite.

I've always read that a hostess should seat couples separately, at least at a dinner party. For example, Miss Manners says, "You are, of course, correct that married couples should never be seated together at dinner parties. This is for their own good. Separating them gives each a chance to tell shared stories without fear of contradiction." In response to a hostess who complained that couples changed her seating arrangement to seat themselves together, she advises, "You can't separate them by force on the spot, but you should take note of their wanting to spend the evening talking to each other and not trouble them by suggesting they again leave the conjugal harmony of their very own dinner table for yours."

Is this rule outdated? Or does it not apply to a wedding, possibly because a wedding is expected to be a less intimate setting than a dinner party?

For the record, I've never been seated apart from my fiance at a wedding and I would find it strange if I were. I'm just curious about the application of this rule.

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course. I use place cards for any formal dinner with more than five guests (+myself = six diners).
At big dinners outside my own crowd couples tend to be seated together. As a single person sharing tables with all those couples, I can assure you that those who are claiming that they never fall into litte pairs of husband-and-wife conversation that excludes others at the table, are very much in the minority -- and I doubt that the majority, who justify the rule, even notice that they are doing it.

Do you know these people or are they strangers? Because if I am seated with people I don't know then I'm going to talk to DH because I don't know those people. If I know them then I will talk to them. If you separate me from DH and seat me with people I don't know I might talk to one or two of them or sit there in silence the entire time depending on the situation and if the other people are comfortable talking to strangers. I was at a wedding as single person where I was seated with people I didn't know or had only met once or twice. I talked to the two people to my left, never said a word to the person on my right, even when he stole my champagne.

phira · March 2014

Again--when I go somewhere with my partner, I'm going there WITH him, so I want to sit with him. Separating us so that I'm better conversation for your other guests? No thanks.

AddieCake · March 2014

Yeah, I don't believe seating people with strangers encourages mingling any more than seating couples together encourages isolationism.

AroundTheBlock · March 2014

Do you know these people or are they strangers? Because if I am seated with people I don't know then I'm going to talk to DH because I don't know those people. If I know them then I will talk to them. If you separate me from DH and seat me with people I don't know I might talk to one or two of them or sit there in silence the entire time depending on the situation and if the other people are comfortable talking to strangers. I was at a wedding as single person where I was seated with people I didn't know or had only met once or twice. I talked to the two people to my left, never said a word to the person on my right, even when he stole my champagne.

At a private social event, no guest is truly a stranger: we are, at a minimum, friends-of-friends and have been introduced by virtue of having the same hosts. It is polite to try to make conversation with the people seated on both sides of you. I have seen a shy, introverted fourteen-year-old turn on her "make polite conversation" switch and put tongue-tied grown adults to shame with her willingness to make the effort. If a child can do it, we can expect well-behaved adults to do it. It isn't even that hard: "Terrible weather we're having isn't it? How do you like to spend your day when it's -20 outside?" "Did you see any of the movies that were up for Oscars last week?" "Have you been following the news from Ukraine -- what do think is the possibility that NATO will become involved?" All you have to do is strike upon one thing that your table-companion has an interest in or an opinion on, and he should be able to do the rest of the work.

phira · March 2014

@AroundTheBlock once again demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about anything.

mysticl · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Do you know these people or are they strangers? Because if I am seated with people I don't know then I'm going to talk to DH because I don't know those people. If I know them then I will talk to them. If you separate me from DH and seat me with people I don't know I might talk to one or two of them or sit there in silence the entire time depending on the situation and if the other people are comfortable talking to strangers. I was at a wedding as single person where I was seated with people I didn't know or had only met once or twice. I talked to the two people to my left, never said a word to the person on my right, even when he stole my champagne.
At a private social event, no guest is truly a stranger: we are, at a minimum, friends-of-friends and have been introduced by virtue of having the same hosts. It is polite to try to make conversation with the people seated on both sides of you. I have seen a shy, introverted fourteen-year-old turn on her "make polite conversation" switch and put tongue-tied grown adults to shame with her willingness to make the effort. If a child can do it, we can expect well-behaved adults to do it. It isn't even that hard: "Terrible weather we're having isn't it? How do you like to spend your day when it's -20 outside?" "Did you see any of the movies that were up for Oscars last week?" "Have you been following the news from Ukraine -- what do think is the possibility that NATO will become involved?" All you have to do is strike upon one thing that your table-companion has an interest in or an opinion on, and he should be able to do the rest of the work.

Seriously? I've been to plenty events where I didn't know everybody and having the same hosts did not make us automatic friends or even know anything about each other.

As for your second bold if I have just met the person I have no idea what their interests are. Making one comment about something another person is interested in and letting them "do the rest of the work" is not a conversation anyhow. That's one person going on about what they care about and no body else does.

As for what is going on in the Ukraine. If you are so into what is proper you should know that politics does not make for polite dinner conversation.

NYCBruin · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Do you know these people or are they strangers? Because if I am seated with people I don't know then I'm going to talk to DH because I don't know those people. If I know them then I will talk to them. If you separate me from DH and seat me with people I don't know I might talk to one or two of them or sit there in silence the entire time depending on the situation and if the other people are comfortable talking to strangers. I was at a wedding as single person where I was seated with people I didn't know or had only met once or twice. I talked to the two people to my left, never said a word to the person on my right, even when he stole my champagne.
At a private social event, no guest is truly a stranger: we are, at a minimum, friends-of-friends and have been introduced by virtue of having the same hosts. It is polite to try to make conversation with the people seated on both sides of you. I have seen a shy, introverted fourteen-year-old turn on her "make polite conversation" switch and put tongue-tied grown adults to shame with her willingness to make the effort. If a child can do it, we can expect well-behaved adults to do it. It isn't even that hard: "Terrible weather we're having isn't it? How do you like to spend your day when it's -20 outside?" "Did you see any of the movies that were up for Oscars last week?" "Have you been following the news from Ukraine -- what do think is the possibility that NATO will become involved?" All you have to do is strike upon one thing that your table-companion has an interest in or an opinion on, and he should be able to do the rest of the work.

Oh good grief. FI and I are both very outgoing people and enjoy "making new friends" at events. We enjoy this type of conversation with new people. So do many people.

But there are LOTS of people for whom the situation that you just described is literally torture. It's not that that hard for YOU because YOU are the type of person who enjoys this.

As far as the "oh you must have something in common because you know the host" is a load of bullcrap. I have several friends whom I love dearly but we don't have a lot in common and he/she is the only one in their circle of friends that I know or have anything in common with. For example, I have a friend from law school who I would have never met if not for being thrown in the same section. Three years of late nights in the library will form that type of friendship. If she invited me to her wedding, I would literally have nothing in common with anyone there besides her (we are from different parts of the world, have wildly different interests, don't have similar tastes in books/movies/television and have vastly different careers).

phira · March 2014

Also, if we're talking weddings, I'm not usually going to someone's wedding to meet new people. I'm going the wedding because I care about the person getting married (or I'm in a relationship with someone who cares about the person who's getting married).

kmmssg · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Do you know these people or are they strangers? Because if I am seated with people I don't know then I'm going to talk to DH because I don't know those people. If I know them then I will talk to them. If you separate me from DH and seat me with people I don't know I might talk to one or two of them or sit there in silence the entire time depending on the situation and if the other people are comfortable talking to strangers. I was at a wedding as single person where I was seated with people I didn't know or had only met once or twice. I talked to the two people to my left, never said a word to the person on my right, even when he stole my champagne.
At a private social event, no guest is truly a stranger: we are, at a minimum, friends-of-friends and have been introduced by virtue of having the same hosts. It is polite to try to make conversation with the people seated on both sides of you. I have seen a shy, introverted fourteen-year-old turn on her "make polite conversation" switch and put tongue-tied grown adults to shame with her willingness to make the effort. If a child can do it, we can expect well-behaved adults to do it. It isn't even that hard: "Terrible weather we're having isn't it? How do you like to spend your day when it's -20 outside?" "Did you see any of the movies that were up for Oscars last week?" "Have you been following the news from Ukraine -- what do think is the possibility that NATO will become involved?" All you have to do is strike upon one thing that your table-companion has an interest in or an opinion on, and he should be able to do the rest of the work.

Why is separating couples necessary? I can make those conversations with others at my table whilst sitting next to my DH with whom I don't get to spend as much time as I'd like. There is NO reason this is necessary in this day and age. It is entirely outdated.

grumbledore · March 2014

phira said:

@AroundTheBlock once again demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about anything.

Idk, in this instance I am not entirely in disagreement with ATB. Truthfully, in general (barring anxiety disorders and the like), adults really should be able to converse regardless of whether they have just met, and every friend I have now was once a stranger, so I get the logic. However, I would still likely not separate a couple because I would not want to risk upsetting any of my guests.

ashleyep · March 2014

grumbledore said:

phira said:

@AroundTheBlock once again demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about anything.

Idk, in this instance I am not entirely in disagreement with ATB. Truthfully, in general (barring anxiety disorders and the like), adults really should be able to converse regardless of whether they have just met, and every friend I have now was once a stranger, so I get the logic. However, I would still likely not separate a couple because I would not want to risk upsetting any of my guests.

ATB lives in a different world than most of us do. If you're in some high society WASPy world, then go ahead and stick with that tradition. Your guests are used to it and expect it. I feel like a dinner party, more so than most other parties, is about socializing and mingling with all of the guests. They probably all know each other or the host wants to introduce them to each other.

But a wedding is not a dinner party, and there's more than one table, and usually more than a dozen guests, so it's not really relevant there.

But really, how often do people actually go to dinner parties? Especially ones with place cards? I know I've never been to one.

PrettyGirlLost · March 2014

lyndausvi said:

DH and I always seems separated at social events. Maybe we don't like each other? IDK, it's rare we sit together.

In very formal events like state dinners with the president and queen the practice is alive and well. Normal society I do not think it's done too often.

The problem with comparing it with a HT at a wedding is in those cases generally ONLY the WP are split. The rest of the guest list is with their SOs. If you are going to split couples split ALL couples or none of them. Seems silly to split only your nearest and dearest.

Yes, but people aren't actuallt split up and seated separately from their spouses, right? They are just seated across the table from one another, and not seated right next to each other, right?

PrettyGirlLost · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Sars06 said:

So, head tables are not a thing in my circle. I've never been to a wedding with one, I don't understand them, and I wouldn't have one. But I have a question about the notion that separating couples at a wedding is impolite.

I've always read that a hostess should seat couples separately, at least at a dinner party. For example, Miss Manners says, "You are, of course, correct that married couples should never be seated together at dinner parties. This is for their own good. Separating them gives each a chance to tell shared stories without fear of contradiction." In response to a hostess who complained that couples changed her seating arrangement to seat themselves together, she advises, "You can't separate them by force on the spot, but you should take note of their wanting to spend the evening talking to each other and not trouble them by suggesting they again leave the conjugal harmony of their very own dinner table for yours."

Is this rule outdated? Or does it not apply to a wedding, possibly because a wedding is expected to be a less intimate setting than a dinner party?

For the record, I've never been seated apart from my fiance at a wedding and I would find it strange if I were. I'm just curious about the application of this rule.

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course. I use place cards for any formal dinner with more than five guests (+myself = six diners).
At big dinners outside my own crowd couples tend to be seated together. As a single person sharing tables with all those couples, I can assure you that those who are claiming that they never fall into litte pairs of husband-and-wife conversation that excludes others at the table, are very much in the minority -- and I doubt that the majority, who justify the rule, even notice that they are doing it.

Can you elaborate on this more, I am not sure what you mean.

PrettyGirlLost · March 2014

AddieL73 said:

Yeah, I don't believe seating people with strangers encourages mingling any more than seating couples together encourages isolationism.

This only works if you have extroverts in the mix. Extroverts by their very nature will attempt to initiate conversation with people, even when they don't know them. Introverts usually will not.

As a diagnosed extrovert- Meyer's Briggs, etc- I want to tell you that I am not always in the mood to initiate conversation and keep it going throughout the duration of a dinner. It can be tiresome and like pulling teeth.

pinkshorts27 · March 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

AddieL73 said:

Yeah, I don't believe seating people with strangers encourages mingling any more than seating couples together encourages isolationism.

This only works if you have extroverts in the mix. Extroverts by their very nature will attempt to initiate conversation with people, even when they don't know them. Introverts usually will not.

As a diagnosed extrovert- Meyer's Briggs, etc- I want to tell you that I am not always in the mood to initiate conversation and keep it going throughout the duration of a dinner. It can be tiresome and like pulling teeth.

Me too! I am completely an extrovert, but surrounded by introverts can get tiresome. My FI is a complete introvert and had social anxiety, so that would be torture for him.

AroundTheBlock · March 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

AroundTheBlock said:

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course.

Can you elaborate on this more, I am not sure what you mean.

At a formal dinner, the host and hostess are seated either at the head and foot of the table respectively, or at the centre of one of the long sides (depending on whether they are following standard English protocol, or French protocol) -- and of course at a truly formal dinner there is only one table. The most honoured lady at the dinner -- who would be the guest of honour or the guest-of-honour's wife, or the highest public servant present, or the eldest lady present who is not related to the host and hostess, or the eldest lady present if everyone is related -- sits on the host's right. The most honoured gentleman at the dinner sits on the hostess's right (when following British protocol: on her left when following continental protocol). The next-most-honoured lady sits on the host's left and the next-most-honoured gentleman sits on the hostess's left. The third lady sits to the right of the first gentleman, and the third gentleman sits to the left of the first lady. And so on, until the lowest ranking people -- typically the younger sons and daughters of the host's family (or in my case my younger nieces and nephews) meet in the middle of the table (English protocol -- French protocol they end up at the two ends but in both cases they end up furthest from the hosts;) but always with the caveat that spouse and close relatives are never seated side-by-side.

Since order of precedence tends to be similar for both members of a couple, and since the English protocol is the most common in North America, that means that couples tend to be separated by the whole length of the table, or at a minimum by the gaggle of un-paired young people in the centre. In the French method both members of a couple are closest together if they are the guests of honour, but they end up on the same side of the table on opposite sides of their hosts.

Sugargirl1019 · March 2014

I can see "splitting up couples" at a rectangle shaped table, where the SO is across from you and you have new guests on either side. PP mentioned the man to the right was supposed to make sure your drink was full etc. eiquette classy stuff. I think that's okay, and as long as I could see and talk to my FI across from me, while engaging others in our conversation, that's great.

This situation would encourage "non-private" conversations, which I think a host would like for the guests.

However, round tables are awful and if you dare seat me away from my FI at a round table I will kick the table over. Since round tables are so common at reception halls, couples should be sat together. Giant round tables do not encourage conversation, IMO. You have to shout to talk to the person way across the other side while staring through a giant centerpiece.

AroundTheBlock · March 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:
This only works if you have extroverts in the mix.

Extroverts, or people who have learned that making conversation is one of the polite duties of a guest at a dinner party. Even introverts can learn the skill, and that skill is as much a part of being ready to mingle in society, as knowing how to use silverware instead of fingers.

PrettyGirlLost said:
I am not always in the mood to initiate conversation and keep it going throughout the duration of a dinner. It can be tiresome and like pulling teeth..

Fortunately it is a shared responsibility. If you do not start it, the person next to you should do so; although technically it is the lady's perquisite to manage the conversation and gentlemen are supposed to follow her lead. A person who never picks up the conversation ball, who answers with monosyllables or completely ignores his table-companions is behaving antisocially. If a person just happens to not be fit for human company that night, they should take to their sickbed and send their hostess their apologies. Those who are actually disabled by social anxiety need to be accomodated ahead of time by their hostess as she would accomodate anyone else with a disability that prevents them from taking part fully in the celebrations, which is part of the artform of making good seating plans.

PrettyGirlLost · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

AroundTheBlock said:

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course.

Can you elaborate on this more, I am not sure what you mean.

At a formal dinner, the host and hostess are seated either at the head and foot of the table respectively, or at the centre of one of the long sides (depending on whether they are following standard English protocol, or French protocol) -- and of course at a truly formal dinner there is only one table. The most honoured lady at the dinner -- who would be the guest of honour or the guest-of-honour's wife, or the highest public servant present, or the eldest lady present who is not related to the host and hostess, or the eldest lady present if everyone is related -- sits on the host's right. The most honoured gentleman at the dinner sits on the hostess's right (when following British protocol: on her left when following continental protocol). The next-most-honoured lady sits on the host's left and the next-most-honoured gentleman sits on the hostess's left. The third lady sits to the right of the first gentleman, and the third gentleman sits to the left of the first lady. And so on, until the lowest ranking people -- typically the younger sons and daughters of the host's family (or in my case my younger nieces and nephews) meet in the middle of the table (English protocol -- French protocol they end up at the two ends but in both cases they end up furthest from the hosts;) but always with the caveat that spouse and close relatives are never seated side-by-side.
Since order of precedence tends to be similar for both members of a couple, and since the English protocol is the most common in North America, that means that couples tend to be separated by the whole length of the table, or at a minimum by the gaggle of un-paired young people in the centre. In the French method both members of a couple are closest together if they are the guests of honour, but they end up on the same side of the table on opposite sides of their hosts.

Gotcha, thanks!

huskypuppy14 · March 2014

blueeyes90 said:

AddieL73 said:

Yeah, I don't believe seating people with strangers encourages mingling any more than seating couples together encourages isolationism.

This only works if you have extroverts in the mix. Extroverts by their very nature will attempt to initiate conversation with people, even when they don't know them. Introverts usually will not.

As a diagnosed extrovert- Meyer's Briggs, etc- I want to tell you that I am not always in the mood to initiate conversation and keep it going throughout the duration of a dinner. It can be tiresome and like pulling teeth.
Me too! I am completely an extrovert, but surrounded by introverts can get tiresome. My FI is a complete introvert and had social anxiety, so that would be torture for him.

Another extrovert with an introverted FI. I agree with both of you, it's one thing to initiate conversation, but if the other person isn't really engaging it's like an interogation instead of a dialogue. It's like when I interview people at work; if they are engaging and we can have a conversation - great. It's terrible when I ask a question, he answers, ask a question, answers, ugh.

phira · March 2014

Um, introverts are not just people who are bad at being extroverts and should get better at it. Thanks for calling us introverts rude, by contrasting us with polite extroverts.

Being introverted means that you are drained, not energized, by being social. Introverts are not bad at being social; we just need time to recharge. We're the type of people who will totally come to your wedding and have a great time and socialize like pros, and then the next day say, "Eh, I need to just binge-watch Scandal and not talk to anyone, thanks."

NYCBruin · March 2014

phira said:

Um, introverts are not just people who are bad at being extroverts and should get better at it. Thanks for calling us introverts rude, by contrasting us with polite extroverts.

Being introverted means that you are drained, not energized, by being social. Introverts are not bad at being social; we just need time to recharge. We're the type of people who will totally come to your wedding and have a great time and socialize like pros, and then the next day say, "Eh, I need to just binge-watch Scandal and not talk to anyone, thanks."

So much this.

Also, just because people are capable of socializing with new people doesn't mean they WANT to. As many posters have pointed out (including the one advocating this nonsense), conversation can be WORK. Seems rather rude to require your guests to work at your dinner party.

Fran1985 · March 2014

phira said:

Um, introverts are not just people who are bad at being extroverts and should get better at it. Thanks for calling us introverts rude, by contrasting us with polite extroverts.

Being introverted means that you are drained, not energized, by being social. Introverts are not bad at being social; we just need time to recharge. We're the type of people who will totally come to your wedding and have a great time and socialize like pros, and then the next day say, "Eh, I need to just binge-watch Scandal and not talk to anyone, thanks."

She was correcting the person who said it takes extroverts to make the dinner party work. ATB said extroverts OR people who have learned to make polite dinner conversation, which can be introverts or extroverts.

Someone fetch the fainting couch, I am kind of digging ATB downton vibe.

phira · March 2014

@Fran1985 ATB routinely comes around posting absurdly outdated and/or entirely non-sensical etiquette information that's entirely contradictory to either commonly accepted TK etiquette or to common sense in general. Extroverts are not naturally skilled at polite conversation at dinner parties, and introverts aren't naturally unskilled at polite conversation. What makes someone introverted or extroverted has less to do with social skills and behavior and more to do with how being social affects a person's emotional and physical energy. I know plenty of extroverts who are really, really rude. And while I am definitely introverted, I didn't have to work very hard to learn how to make polite conversation.

Fran1985 · March 2014

@phira I know. I'm not new, and I'm well versed in MBTI profiles. But ATB isn't the one that said extroverts were good at dinner parties, someone else did. I'm just defending that she was saying it takes a polite person, which could be either e or i. I know ATB is loopy that's why I said bring the fainting couch because I'm actually kind of digging the history lesson dinner party talk. Not that I would do it that way.

JellyBean52513 · March 2014

AroundTheBlock said:

Sars06 said:

So, head tables are not a thing in my circle. I've never been to a wedding with one, I don't understand them, and I wouldn't have one. But I have a question about the notion that separating couples at a wedding is impolite.

I've always read that a hostess should seat couples separately, at least at a dinner party. For example, Miss Manners says, "You are, of course, correct that married couples should never be seated together at dinner parties. This is for their own good. Separating them gives each a chance to tell shared stories without fear of contradiction." In response to a hostess who complained that couples changed her seating arrangement to seat themselves together, she advises, "You can't separate them by force on the spot, but you should take note of their wanting to spend the evening talking to each other and not trouble them by suggesting they again leave the conjugal harmony of their very own dinner table for yours."

Is this rule outdated? Or does it not apply to a wedding, possibly because a wedding is expected to be a less intimate setting than a dinner party?

For the record, I've never been seated apart from my fiance at a wedding and I would find it strange if I were. I'm just curious about the application of this rule.

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course. I use place cards for any formal dinner with more than five guests (+myself = six diners).

At big dinners outside my own crowd couples tend to be seated together. As a single person sharing tables with all those couples, I can assure you that those who are claiming that they never fall into litte pairs of husband-and-wife conversation that excludes others at the table, are very much in the minority -- and I doubt that the majority, who justify the rule, even notice that they are doing it.

Which begs the question, ATB, where DO you come from?

NYCBruin · March 2014

JellyBean52513 said:

Sars06 said:

So, head tables are not a thing in my circle. I've never been to a wedding with one, I don't understand them, and I wouldn't have one. But I have a question about the notion that separating couples at a wedding is impolite.

I've always read that a hostess should seat couples separately, at least at a dinner party. For example, Miss Manners says, "You are, of course, correct that married couples should never be seated together at dinner parties. This is for their own good. Separating them gives each a chance to tell shared stories without fear of contradiction." In response to a hostess who complained that couples changed her seating arrangement to seat themselves together, she advises, "You can't separate them by force on the spot, but you should take note of their wanting to spend the evening talking to each other and not trouble them by suggesting they again leave the conjugal harmony of their very own dinner table for yours."

Is this rule outdated? Or does it not apply to a wedding, possibly because a wedding is expected to be a less intimate setting than a dinner party?

For the record, I've never been seated apart from my fiance at a wedding and I would find it strange if I were. I'm just curious about the application of this rule.

Separating married couples at dinner is still routinely practiced where I come from; and when I host a formal I seat the couples according to order of precedence which results in the couples being separated as a matter of course. I use place cards for any formal dinner with more than five guests (+myself = six diners).
At big dinners outside my own crowd couples tend to be seated together. As a single person sharing tables with all those couples, I can assure you that those who are claiming that they never fall into litte pairs of husband-and-wife conversation that excludes others at the table, are very much in the minority -- and I doubt that the majority, who justify the rule, even notice that they are doing it.
Which begs the question, ATB, where when DO you come from?

FTFY

mysticl · March 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

lyndausvi said:

DH and I always seems separated at social events. Maybe we don't like each other? IDK, it's rare we sit together.

In very formal events like state dinners with the president and queen the practice is alive and well. Normal society I do not think it's done too often.

The problem with comparing it with a HT at a wedding is in those cases generally ONLY the WP are split. The rest of the guest list is with their SOs. If you are going to split couples split ALL couples or none of them. Seems silly to split only your nearest and dearest.

Yes, but people aren't actuallt split up and seated separately from their spouses, right? They are just seated across the table from one another, and not seated right next to each other, right?

I would not consider a state dinner with the leader of a country to be a strictly social event. The people who attend those are not there to have fun, they are there to network. By splitting the couples up it gives them an opportunity to maximize the number of contacts they make to further their agenda.

Question about seating couples separately

Re: Question about seating couples separately

Choose Another Board

Search Boards