Head table seating

Re: Head table seating

• KatWAG member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  Should SOs of those in the wedding party be seated at the head table? My fiance has two groomsmen who are married, and I'm not sure how to arrange the seating.

  
  Yes, please do not break up social units.

  eta: spelling is tough

  

  Report11 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  March 2014

  Yes, you need to seat people with their SOs.

  
  

  

  Report2 Reply
• pinkshorts27 member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  You could consider a sweetheart table
  
  Eta, I agree with above, just a suggestion so seeting is not as awkward

  
  

  

  
  

  Report3 Reply
• hikebikebemerry member

  

  March 2014

  I second @KatWAG.

  
  

  Who wants to be separated from their partner during a celebration of love?

  

  
  

  Report6 Reply
• TolGalen member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  Thank you!  Ironically, one of the wives has been asking me to make sure she can sit next to her husband, when at their wedding my fiance (who was the best man) and I were not seated together. 

  Report0 Reply
• melbelleup member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  Thank you!  Ironically, one of the wives has been asking me to make sure she can sit next to her husband, when at their wedding my fiance (who was the best men) and I were not seated together. 

  Uh.. it didn't write my reply.. anyways:
  
  LOL I would almost not seat them together... but yes you should
  

  

  Report2 Reply
• pinkshorts27 member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  Thank you!  Ironically, one of the wives has been asking me to make sure she can sit next to her husband, when at their wedding my fiance (who was the best men) and I were not seated together. 

  I'd have trouble biting my tongue on that one. But my response would be "of course, I would never dream of separating the groomsmen from their dates, that would be terribly rude of me"
  
  Eta: typo
  

  
  

  

  
  

  Report17 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  March 2014

  blueeyes90 said:

  Thank you!  Ironically, one of the wives has been asking me to make sure she can sit next to her husband, when at their wedding my fiance (who was the best men) and I were not seated together. 

  I'd have trouble biting my tongue on that one. But my response would be "of course, I would never dream of separating the groomsmen from their dates, that would be terribly rude if me"

  I would definitely say that.

  
  

  

  Report6 Reply
• TheGrimReaper member

  

  March 2014

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  Report2 Reply
• photokitty mod

  

  March 2014

  grumbledore said:

  blueeyes90 said:

  Thank you!  Ironically, one of the wives has been asking me to make sure she can sit next to her husband, when at their wedding my fiance (who was the best men) and I were not seated together. 

  I'd have trouble biting my tongue on that one. But my response would be "of course, I would never dream of separating the groomsmen from their dates, that would be terribly rude if me"

  I would definitely say that.

  I probably would have said, "Oh I hadn't thought about it yet. Maybe I'll just do the same thing you did at your wedding. That would work right?" :-p

  ~xoxo~

  
  

  Report6 Reply
• TolGalen member

  

  March 2014

  TheGrimReaper said:

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  Yeah, I need to figure out how to fit everyone (fortunately it will only be 10 people) without things looking awkward. I can be a little OCD sometimes... 

  Report0 Reply
• Inkdancer member

  

  March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  TheGrimReaper said:

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  Yeah, I need to figure out how to fit everyone (fortunately it will only be 10 people) without things looking awkward. I can be a little OCD sometimes... 

  People sitting in an order that puts them next to people they like = nobody cares how it looks because everyone is having a rockin' awesome time.
  
  Your photographers aren't going to take a whole lot of pictures at dinner, so don't worry about how people are sitting, just that they are having a good time.
  

  

  

  Report2 Reply
• antoto member

  

  March 2014

  Definitely always sit SOs together.  I'll throw in another vote for sweetheart table.  I did that and I'm REALLY happy that I did.

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• Maggie0829 member

  

  March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  TheGrimReaper said:

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  Yeah, I need to figure out how to fit everyone (fortunately it will only be 10 people) without things looking awkward. I can be a little OCD sometimes... 

  Honestly, head tables always look awkward to me no matter how people are seated.  Why not do a kings table (people sit on either side of the table) as your head table.  Or just use a large round table as your head table.  But people sitting in a straight line while all the guests sit and stare at them is just weird to me.

  
  

  Report4 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  March 2014

  Either seat the SOs at the head table or let the wedding party members sit with them among the other guests.  But don't seat them separately.
  

  Report0 Reply
• rajahmd member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  
  

  TheGrimReaper said:

  
  

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  
  

  Yeah, I need to figure out how to fit everyone (fortunately it will only be 10 people) without things looking awkward. I can be a little OCD sometimes... 
  
  Just FYI for the future: it's generally considered offensive to use a medical illness so flippantly. Being "a little OCD" is like being "a little bit pregnant: not really possible. You either have OCD or you don't. Please don't trivialize it.
  

  

  Report3 Reply
• TolGalen member

  

  March 2014

  RajahBMFD said:

  Just FYI for the future: it's generally considered offensive to use a medical illness so flippantly. Being "a little OCD" is like being "a little bit pregnant: not really possible. You either have OCD or you don't. Please don't trivialize it.

   I will most certainly take that to heart when I am arranging the seating at the head table, and make sure to tread carefully remembering how easily people can be offended. 

  Report2 Reply
• pinkshorts27 member

  

  March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  RajahBMFD said:

  Just FYI for the future: it's generally considered offensive to use a medical illness so flippantly. Being "a little OCD" is like being "a little bit pregnant: not really possible. You either have OCD or you don't. Please don't trivialize it.

   I will most certainly take that to heart when I am arranging the seating at the head table, and make sure to tread carefully remembering how easily people can be offended. 

  There are some ladies on this board who actually have OCD and feel its effects on them and their loved ones daily. They don't like it trivialized. That isn't easily offended. That is no different than someone gently reminding you that some people are actually mentally retarded and calling someone a retard can be offensive.

  
  

  

  
  

  Report7 Reply
• Maggie0829 member

  

  March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  
  

  RajahBMFD said:

  
  
  Just FYI for the future: it's generally considered offensive to use a medical illness so flippantly. Being "a little OCD" is like being "a little bit pregnant: not really possible. You either have OCD or you don't. Please don't trivialize it.
  

  
  

   I will most certainly take that to heart when I am arranging the seating at the head table, and make sure to tread carefully remembering how easily people can be offended. 
  
  The more appropriate word to use for when you are extremely picky about something when you actually do not have OCD is "anal." So you aren't "a little OCD" you are actually "a little anal."
  
  And do not take offense to what blueeyes said because she is right. Throwing OCD around is like throwing retard around. Both are mental disorders and the use of those words should be done appropriately.

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• TolGalen member

  

  March 2014

  It was not my intention to offend or trivialize anyone. You're right, sometimes I need to think more about what I say. As I know several people who experience OCD, and have never been offended by comments like ones I made, perhaps I should not have thought that everyone else would be okay with it - I am just currently fed up with how easily people get offended, sometimes I forget there are things worth getting offended for. I won't disqualify your experience, so please don't disqualify mine. 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• antoto member

  

  March 2014

  Maggie0829 said:

  
  

  TolGalen said:

  
  

  
  

  TheGrimReaper said:

  
  

  Wow, that's ballsy of her.  We're seating everyone at one big table (I have a smaller bridal party).  13 people, seated on both sides. I'll let you know Sunday how it worked out

  
  

  Yeah, I need to figure out how to fit everyone (fortunately it will only be 10 people) without things looking awkward. I can be a little OCD sometimes... 

  
  

  Honestly, head tables always look awkward to me no matter how people are seated.  Why not do a kings table (people sit on either side of the table) as your head table.  Or just use a large round table as your head table.  But people sitting in a straight line while all the guests sit and stare at them is just weird to me.
  
  Thisssss. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If I were someones plus one at a wedding and they happened to be a groomsmen I would feel so awkward to be at a head table in the spotlight, but I would also feel awkward not sitting next to my date. Really make sure you think about your guests comfort!

  
  

  Report2 Reply
• abt87 member

  

  March 2014

  head tables are always a bit strange to me, but not a complete etiquette faux pas in my mind. BUT, if you can, do a King's table or sweetheart table.  At our wedding, we did a King's table in the middle of all of the other guests' tables, with the SOs of our bridal party, and we sat at the "head" of the table. But it was so nice being in the middle of everyone, so that I didn't feel like I had 150 eyes watching me eat. And then the MOH and BM went to the stage for their toast. We got a lot of compliments on this because A) we included the SOs, who are also very close to us and we weren't so separated from all the other guests if we had eaten on the stage, or at one end of the room. 

  Report2 Reply
• rajahmd member

  

  March 2014

  TolGalen said:

  It was not my intention to offend or trivialize anyone. You're right, sometimes I need to think more about what I say. As I know several people who experience OCD, and have never been offended by comments like ones I made, perhaps I should not have thought that everyone else would be okay with it - I am just currently fed up with how easily people get offended, sometimes I forget there are things worth getting offended for. I won't disqualify your experience, so please don't disqualify mine. 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  I'm glad you understand. I was diagnosed at 15. It had a large impact on my childhood, and still does to this day. Society as a whole makes it seem ok to mock mental illness. As such, I try to say something whenever I see it. If no one is ever called out for saying offensive things, it will never stop.
  
  

  

  Report1 Reply
• AroundTheBlock member

  

  March 2014

  Seating spouses apart from one another is disliked by the most frequent posters on this board, but it is not in fact a faux pas by the dictates of standard etiquette. On the other hand, seating the hosts at their own separate table so that they are not dining with any of their guests -- the so-called "sweetheart table" scenario -- seems rather stand-offish and inhospitable, rather like inviting people to dine with you and then refusing to sit down with them. Exactly like that, in fact.
  
  The one-sided head table facing the entire room is intended to preserve some sense of the idea that all the guests are dining together: the unimpeded sight-lines from the host couple to every table maintain their connectedness to their guests. A true "kings table" would be the very long wide banquet table that actually does seat all the guests -- and it is indeed a more gracious alternative than the separate head table. But the sweetheart table, for all its current popularity, is rather a put-off.
  

  Report0 Reply
• banana468 member

  

  March 2014

  I've heard some people agree with @aroundtheblock regarding SH tables and if the B&G are far away from their guests I can see it. However they can't dine with all their guests so you can't make the statement that it is entirely inhospitable without owning up to the fact that the B&G have a duty to speak to all their guests and therefore they would be up quickly from the table leaving their table guests alone while they greeted the others. You're completely ignoring that commitment that the couple have.
  
  Furthermore @aroundtheblock, you previously stated that if the B&G were to separate any couples and not seat them together then they must do so with all couples. You're contradicting yourself here. If a person in the WP is not seated with her SO then the same is expected of all couples including the B&G. Per your previous statements, to do otherwise would be incorrect.

  Report0 Reply
• Inkdancer member

  

  March 2014

  AroundTheBlock said:

  Seating spouses apart from one another is disliked by the most frequent posters on this board, but it is not in fact a faux pas by the dictates of standard etiquette. On the other hand, seating the hosts at their own separate table so that they are not dining with any of their guests -- the so-called "sweetheart table" scenario -- seems rather stand-offish and inhospitable, rather like inviting people to dine with you and then refusing to sit down with them. Exactly like that, in fact.
  
  The one-sided head table facing the entire room is intended to preserve some sense of the idea that all the guests are dining together: the unimpeded sight-lines from the host couple to every table maintain their connectedness to their guests. A true "kings table" would be the very long wide banquet table that actually does seat all the guests -- and it is indeed a more gracious alternative than the separate head table. But the sweetheart table, for all its current popularity, is rather a put-off.
  

  I agree that a sweetheart table can seem excessively introverted at some times... particularly when a plated meal is being served. Having four courses only in the company of your new husband could make it seem that you're not interested in hosting your guests or spending time with them. However, in the case of a buffet, I see it in this way: by the time all the guests are seated and eating, the bride and groom will be through with their meal. They can then circulate to greet all of their guests, without neglecting those with whom they were actually supposed to sit-- because there are no guests seated with them.
  

  

  

  Report2 Reply
• Maggie0829 member

  

  March 2014

  AroundTheBlock said:

  Seating spouses apart from one another is disliked by the most frequent posters on this board, but it is not in fact a faux pas by the dictates of standard etiquette. On the other hand, seating the hosts at their own separate table so that they are not dining with any of their guests -- the so-called "sweetheart table" scenario -- seems rather stand-offish and inhospitable, rather like inviting people to dine with you and then refusing to sit down with them. Exactly like that, in fact.
  
  The one-sided head table facing the entire room is intended to preserve some sense of the idea that all the guests are dining together: the unimpeded sight-lines from the host couple to every table maintain their connectedness to their guests. A true "kings table" would be the very long wide banquet table that actually does seat all the guests -- and it is indeed a more gracious alternative than the separate head table. But the sweetheart table, for all its current popularity, is rather a put-off.
  

  We had 130 people at my wedding.  Please tell me how I was supposed to sit at a table with all of my guests so we could all dine together?

  
  

  I am sorry but this advice that you give does not work for most weddings.  Anything over, say 25 guests, and you cannot fit everyone at all one table.  So please stop touting this advice as the end all be all to wedding seating etiquette.

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• sofakingmad member

  

  March 2014 edited March 2014

  I can also see why people aren't the biggest fans of sweetheart tables, but honestly, the B&G are seated for such a short time before they start doing rounds and talking to guests that I don't really see why it matters where they sit.

  
  

  
  

  

  Report2 Reply
• Inkdancer member

  

  March 2014

  Maggie0829 said:

  AroundTheBlock said:

  Seating spouses apart from one another is disliked by the most frequent posters on this board, but it is not in fact a faux pas by the dictates of standard etiquette. On the other hand, seating the hosts at their own separate table so that they are not dining with any of their guests -- the so-called "sweetheart table" scenario -- seems rather stand-offish and inhospitable, rather like inviting people to dine with you and then refusing to sit down with them. Exactly like that, in fact.
  
  The one-sided head table facing the entire room is intended to preserve some sense of the idea that all the guests are dining together: the unimpeded sight-lines from the host couple to every table maintain their connectedness to their guests. A true "kings table" would be the very long wide banquet table that actually does seat all the guests -- and it is indeed a more gracious alternative than the separate head table. But the sweetheart table, for all its current popularity, is rather a put-off.
  

  We had 130 people at my wedding.  Please tell me how I was supposed to sit at a table with all of my guests so we could all dine together?

  
  

  I am sorry but this advice that you give does not work for most weddings.  Anything over, say 25 guests, and you cannot fit everyone at all one table.  So please stop touting this advice as the end all be all to wedding seating etiquette.

  It weirds me out that I'm defending ATB, but she did say "seating the hosts so they are not dining with any of their guests" is odd. I think she is okaying the couple sitting with their families or the bridal party, just not sitting alone. Which to some extent, I agree with: having the new couple sit at a table alone (often on a stage or dais) sort of screams "look at me, you are here to celebrate me, but I'm not going to talk to you". On the other hand, from a logistics standpoint I totally get it (Bridal party versus family pitching fits about who gets to sit with B&G.... )
  

  

  

  Report1 Reply
• AroundTheBlock member

  

  March 2014

  banana468 said:

  I've heard some people agree with @aroundtheblock regarding SH tables and if the B&G are far away from their guests I can see it. However they can't dine with all their guests so you can't make the statement that it is entirely inhospitable without owning up to the fact that the B&G have a duty to speak to all their guests and therefore they would be up quickly from the table leaving their table guests alone while they greeted the others. You're completely ignoring that commitment that the couple have.
  
  Furthermore @aroundtheblock, you previously stated that if the B&G were to separate any couples and not seat them together then they must do so with all couples. You're contradicting yourself here. If a person in the WP is not seated with her SO then the same is expected of all couples including the B&G. Per your previous statements, to do otherwise would be incorrect.

  It goes without saying, that if you follow the formal rule of not seating couples side-by-side, then you follow that formal rule in general. It does not follow that the rule applies to the host couple when you are following the continental rules for a formal seating plan (where the host couple sit at the centre of one long side of the table, and order of precedence goes out to the sides from around them.) The typical head table is based on the continental seating. If you are following the British rules for a formal seating plan, then the host couple indeed do not sit next to one another: they sit opposite one another, facing, at the two ends of the head table.
  
  The duty of the hosts and the guests of honour, to speak to every guest, is not constrained (or even appropriate) to the dinner hour. At a large dinner or even a moderately large dinner -- typically anything over about eight guests -- conversation is not general and you converse with the people immediately adjacent to you. The hosts make a point of speaking with every guest when they greet them on arrival, during the cocktail hour before dinner, and during the after-dinner mingling and dancing. People should not be popping up and down out of their chairs during the meal itself.
  
  

  Report0 Reply