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

Am I Being Mean to my Brother?

msalmostmarried2014msalmostmarried2014 member
First Comment First Anniversary
in Wedding Etiquette Forum

Here's my dilemma- I'm getting married in about 2 months and my younger brother (late 20's) is perpetually single.  Due to space contraints at the venue (and also not wanting randoms we don't know at the wedding), we only extended plus one's to people married, engaged or in a serious relationship.  My brother was never given a plus one and this was always understood and there was never an issue with it. 

The day he sent in his RSVP card, he jokingly said it was just for him and no date.  I told him not to worry about not having a date because we only extended plus ones to married/ engaged/ serious relationship and that lots of my single girl friends (who my brother is friendly with and has known for years) will be there.  I also told him that "if he fell madly in love between now and the wedding, I was sure we could figure something out."

Fast forward to a few days later -- my brother told my mom I told him he could bring a date "if he was madly in love" and wanted to see what my mom thought about him bringing a girl who is just a friend.  My mom stayed out of it and said for him to talk to me.  I do not know the friend- have never met her before in my life- and my brother has only known her for max one year.  I've never even heard him mention this girl. 

I know he is my brother but don't want him to bring her because it would totally change the family dynamic and be ackward since no one in my family knows this girl and neither do FI or me.  We're only having family stand up for us at the wedding so the girl would sit alone at the ceremony (not knowing anyone there). My brother's also going to hang with my fiance while he gets ready so again the girl would be alone for that (brother and girl are about a 2 hour drive away from city where we're getting hitched). We're also having a family only head table and our families all know each other really well but no one knows this girl, so it would turn a nice natural dynamic into one where my brother has to baby sit the girl or we all make small talk with her.

It would also be about $300 for food, booze, etc. to bring this girl to the wedding, and we then would also have to include her in reh dinner & brunch (FI parents paying for that).  To me, that feels kind of inconsiderate to FI parents.  It also  puts me in a somewhat uncomfortable position with respect to other singles who weren't allowed to bring a date.  I know he is my brother after all, but a friend???? not even a date???

Also, my brother knows 50% of the people at the wedding.  He's friendly with my single girl friends so could dance with them and can also hang with our cousins who he is also close to.  He also knows a lot of my fiance's friends and family.  So this is not a situation where he doesn't know anyone.

Obviously this would be a different situation if there was a girl in his life that he was dating and felt close enough to that he wanted to bring her (I'd totally let him!), but feel very differently because this girl is literally just a friend.They don't have a long standing relationship & who knows how long they'll be friends for.

My brother doesn't understand my point of view (when I tried to explain to him after I learned about the "girl" we were trying to limit things to serious romantic relationships and weren't giving singles plus ones, he said "even for your brother"??) and hasn't thought through the complications of having a random girl at the head table and being alone in a strange city during the day of the wedding, not to mention the additional cost associated with her attending.

I told my brother to hold off on asking her and I'd think about it but I really don't want her there.  Am I being mean or is my position reasonable?  Thank you!! xx

Report Reply to Post
«13

Re: Am I Being Mean to my Brother?

  • Jen4948Jen4948 member
    First Anniversary First Answer First Comment 5 Love Its
    Well, it's not your place to judge whether romantic relationships are "serious."  They can be serious on the first day of the relationship.  So if your brother is actually in a relationship with this girl, she needs to be invited as his plus one and seated together with him, whether that's at the head table or wherever you would seat him.

    That said, if she is "just a friend" and there is no romantic relationship between them, you don't have to invite her or any other plus one for your brother if he is not in a romantic relationship.
    Report Reply
  • thelastdreamerthelastdreamer member
    First Answer 5 Love Its First Anniversary First Comment
    martha1818 said:

    First issue: People who are married, engaged and in any relationship are called significant others and not plus ones. Plus ones are given to people who are truly single. All significant others must be invited by name on the invite and anyone who considers themselves to be in a relationship, whether you deem it "serious" or not, needs to be invited. Plus ones are optional for single people. If you actually excluded anyone's significant other because you deemed their relationship not serious enough then that was extremely rude.

    Second issue: Since your brother is truly single and not in a relationship with this person you don't have to let her come.

    Conclusion: You were not rude to your brother but you were rude to any significant others of other guests that you potentially excluded.

    ETA: grammar

    What she said.
    Report Reply
  • simcal18simcal18 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Answer First Comment
    sarals24 said:
    And how exactly did you judge "serious" relationship? To me, if a person defines themselves as "in a relationship" with someone, that's serious enough to warrant an invite.
    Her brother is not in a relationship with this girl, though.  She's his friend.  And her brother is being rude by demanding that he be allowed to bring a guest--if it's rude for Aunt Sally to add an uninvited +1 to her RSVP card, it's equally rude for Brother John to whine about bringing a buddy.  Sure, it would be nice for OP to allow her brother to bring this guest.  But she is under absolutely no obligation to do so, especially if it would complicate her table arrangements and add the expense of an extra plate.  Her brother needs to put on his big boy pants and to have fun with the tons of family and friends he knows who will already be there.
    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    edited August 2014
    It's your brother. Let him being a friend, FFS.

    ETA: a friend from college got married in 2006. Bride's sister brought a "just friend" as a date to the wedding (I believe she was in college at the time). The sister is now engaged to the guy. You seriously never know.




    Report Reply
  • indianaalumindianaalum member
    5 Love Its First Comment First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited August 2014
    As a person who was "perpetually single", I HATED HATED HATED going to weddings alone. It just made being single feel THAT MUCH WORSE!!! I would have rather skipped a wedding, then go alone and have to sit out every single slow dance song (and even fast ones if I didnd't know anyone else) awkwardly by myself. it's your brother, one person won't kill you. It makes your brother more comfortable and I assume you love him and don't want him to feel uncomfortable. Also, ANYONE in relationships should be allowed to bring their SO. This whole "no ring, no bring" philosophy is bad etiquette P.s. Maybe he likes her, but doesnt want to telll the family that yet.
    Report Reply
  • sarals24sarals24 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Comment
    Yep, that's what I was referring to. 

    And let your brother bring a date, for chrissakes.
    Report Reply
  • rsbloomrsbloom member
    5 Love Its First Comment Name Dropper First Anniversary
    FI's brother RSVP'd for 1, but if her starts dating someone in these last 2 months, we'd make room for her., because he's immediate family.

    Also, my sister HATES talking about her relationships with my family; we're big, loud, and some of the aunts are very judgy.  She doesn't tell us about anyone unless it's serious, and even then, she only does if there's a chance of us meeting them.  Ex: didn't find out about current BF until 3 days before her college graduation, because we were going to meet him there.  This is only the 2nd guy we've been told about/allowed to meet.

    Your brother might be the same way, maybe he's been dating this girl, but doesn't want to say anything yet.  But, either way, he's your brother, not a friend, cousin, co-worker.  I think you should let him bring her.
    Report Reply
  • jules3964jules3964 member
    First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    I agree with @indianaalum -- when I was single, I hated going to weddings by myself. It just felt so awkward. It's better if you know a lot of other people there (as your brother will), but it still sucks.

    You are completely in the right etiquette-wise to deny your brother a plus one. But if my sibling was single and wanted to bring a friend, I would absolutely let them and have no problem with it.
    Report Reply
  • wrigleyvillewrigleyville member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    If she's in her twenties like your brother, nobody needs to "babysit" her. It's not like he's bringing a child. 

    I went to weddings as a friend's "date" many times, and if I didn't have people to talk to, I was perfectly capable of entertaining myself.
    Report Reply
  • MNVegasMNVegas member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Comment
    I agree with others who said let your brother bring his friend/date. While she may be a random person to you, obviously she is special enough to him to want to include her in a family wedding. 

    Just out of curiosity what is your criteria for a "serious" relationship?
    Mary Click here for my bio! image
    Report Reply
  • msalmostmarried2014msalmostmarried2014 member
    First Comment First Anniversary

    All- thank you all for your comments and sorry for any confusion.

    For friends' spouses, fiances, boyfriends/girlfriends, we did include those individuals on the invitation by name.  I was generically using "plus one" as a term for people bringing a guest who we wouldn't otherwise invite on their own.   I should've been more precise and used the term "significant other."  Sorry about that.  I also am not a fan of the "no ring, no bring" school of thought.  FI and I were dating forever before we got married so I'm sensitive to that issue. :)

    As for determining what constitutes a "serious relationship," I agree we are not in a position to judge what is serious and what is not.  Instead of making determinations about relationships on an individual basis, we decided to invite people in relationships of over a year to make a strict rule.  We had to in order to keep the number of people down due to the size of our venue.  The rule also did not wind up excluding anyone from bringing their SO.  Most people on our invite list are either married, engaged, or in long term relationships or single.  Thankfully, only one person not originally invited with a significant other has one now.  They're committed and now that we've gotten RSVP's back and know we've got a little wiggle room numbers wise, have said they can come (this relationship got serious quickly).  The others not originally invited with a significant other are still single. 

    Brother's girl is also just a friend, at least according to him.  He was also hitting on random girls at FI's bachelor party, so I believe him on that account.  But as many of you said, friendships can develop into something more.

    You've all certainly given me some food for thought.  Do you think that it would be ackward to allow brother to bring a friend but not extend the same courtesy to our other single guests?  I think family is a cleaner line for that than allowing, say, one friend to do so but not another.  Any thoughts on that?

    Also, to the poster who asked, $300 is for wedding & reh dinner, not just wedding, although that would be awesome (I'm with you on the personal bottles of Dom!)

    Thank you again for all of your thoughts!

     

    Report Reply
  • indianaalumindianaalum member
    5 Love Its First Comment First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited August 2014
    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    All- thank you all for your comments and sorry for any confusion.

    For friends' spouses, fiances, boyfriends/girlfriends, we did include those individuals on the invitation by name.  I was generically using "plus one" as a term for people bringing a guest who we wouldn't otherwise invite on their own.   I should've been more precise and used the term "significant other."  Sorry about that.  I also am not a fan of the "no ring, no bring" school of thought.  FI and I were dating forever before we got married so I'm sensitive to that issue. :)

    As for determining what constitutes a "serious relationship," I agree we are not in a position to judge what is serious and what is not.  Instead of making determinations about relationships on an individual basis, we decided to invite people in relationships of over a year to make a strict rule.  We had to in order to keep the number of people down due to the size of our venue.  The rule also did not wind up excluding anyone from bringing their SO.  Most people on our invite list are either married, engaged, or in long term relationships or single.  Thankfully, only one person not originally invited with a significant other has one now.  They're committed and now that we've gotten RSVP's back and know we've got a little wiggle room numbers wise, have said they can come (this relationship got serious quickly).  The others not originally invited with a significant other are still single. 

    Brother's girl is also just a friend, at least according to him.  He was also hitting on random girls at FI's bachelor party, so I believe him on that account.  But as many of you said, friendships can develop into something more.

    You've all certainly given me some food for thought.  Do you think that it would be ackward to allow brother to bring a friend but not extend the same courtesy to our other single guests?  I think family is a cleaner line for that than allowing, say, one friend to do so but not another.  Any thoughts on that?

    Also, to the poster who asked, $300 is for wedding & reh dinner, not just wedding, although that would be awesome (I'm with you on the personal bottles of Dom!)

    Thank you again for all of your thoughts!

     

    1) RUDE RUDE RUDE. ANYONE in a relationship (regardless of time frame) should be invited. How judgemental of you.  I was ENGAGED in less than a year to my husband. I guess I would have had to leave him home from your wedding.

    2) you determine your GUEST LIST first and THEN PICK A VENUE!!!  You don't exclude people's significant others because they don't fit in the venue .You chose a pretty place over the the sake of your guests. I get it only meant 1 couple ,but still it was 1 couple. What would you have done if 10 single people developed relationships and you chose a venue too tiny?!?? That is rude!!

    Side note: FUTURE BRIDES TAKE NOTE:. ...when picking a venue, know your guest list size and understand, that you have to have enough room in the event that all those "single" people could be in relationships, you  must have enough room at the venue. you don't just decide not to invite them because they won't fit..you make sure they fit BEFORE you decide the venue...


    3) You mentioned earlier invviting this girl would cost you 300.00 for food/alcohol. That is a STEEP price which also means you chose to pick an EXPENSIVE venue over possibly allowing your guests to bring significant others if the entered a relationship.

    4) You basically "b-liisted" that person's significant other. You invited the person ALONE it sounds like and once you had space, you let them bring their boyfirned/girlfriend. Again, that is rude and you owe them an apology ASAP

    5), No, he is your brother and people understand family members get exceptions (especially if he is in your wedding party which you never really stated one way or another)
    Report Reply
  • penguin44penguin44 member
    First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Answer
    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    All- thank you all for your comments and sorry for any confusion.

    For friends' spouses, fiances, boyfriends/girlfriends, we did include those individuals on the invitation by name.  I was generically using "plus one" as a term for people bringing a guest who we wouldn't otherwise invite on their own.   I should've been more precise and used the term "significant other."  Sorry about that.  I also am not a fan of the "no ring, no bring" school of thought.  FI and I were dating forever before we got married so I'm sensitive to that issue. :)

    As for determining what constitutes a "serious relationship," I agree we are not in a position to judge what is serious and what is not.  Instead of making determinations about relationships on an individual basis, we decided to invite people in relationships of over a year to make a strict rule.  We had to in order to keep the number of people down due to the size of our venue.  The rule also did not wind up excluding anyone from bringing their SO.  Most people on our invite list are either married, engaged, or in long term relationships or single.  Thankfully, only one person not originally invited with a significant other has one now.  They're committed and now that we've gotten RSVP's back and know we've got a little wiggle room numbers wise, have said they can come (this relationship got serious quickly).  The others not originally invited with a significant other are still single. 

    Brother's girl is also just a friend, at least according to him.  He was also hitting on random girls at FI's bachelor party, so I believe him on that account.  But as many of you said, friendships can develop into something more.

    You've all certainly given me some food for thought.  Do you think that it would be ackward to allow brother to bring a friend but not extend the same courtesy to our other single guests?  I think family is a cleaner line for that than allowing, say, one friend to do so but not another.  Any thoughts on that?

    Also, to the poster who asked, $300 is for wedding & reh dinner, not just wedding, although that would be awesome (I'm with you on the personal bottles of Dom!)

    Thank you again for all of your thoughts!

     

    SIB:

    Then why make the rule? 

    Anniversary

    image
    Report Reply
  • msalmostmarried2014msalmostmarried2014 member
    First Comment First Anniversary

    Ladies- I understand you're feeling upset because of decisions I made concerning my guest lists  based on your own personal circumstances and quick engagements that you believe would excluded your hubby from attending my wedding.  (Not so- we are inviting all engaged and married people regardless of the duration of their engagement/ marriage).

    Although the parameters of my guest list was not the subject of my original post, I feel compelled to respond as I do not appreciate being called rude based on hypothetical circumstances that do not exist in my case. Let's not attack one another and instead make this a productive place for an exchange of ideas and offerings of advice.

    To respond to your points-

    1.  No one in a relationship was excluded from bringning a significant other.  Anyone who was in a relationship was invited with their SO.  Our rule of married, engaged or in a relationship of 1 year or more did not exclude anyone in a relationship on our guest list from bringing their SO at the time we picked our venue or sent save the dates.  And for the one single person that did develop a relationship during our engagement, their SO was included.

    Additionally, your statement that "ANYONE in a relationship (regardless of time frame) should be invited" is also incorrect from an etiquette point of view.  http://www.emilypost.com/weddings/planning-your-wedding/656-inside-weddings-handling-your-guests-with-grace ("Brides and grooms should be aware that spouses, fiancé(e)s and live-in romantic partners (no matter the sex) must be invited with your guests; boyfriends and girlfriends who don’t reside together don’t need to be.")

    2.  I understand your point and agree with you.  That is exactly what we did. We wanted a small wedding and therefore picked a smaller venue.  We did not sacrifice surrounding ourselves with our nearest and dearest for the sake of the venue.  Additionally, the likelihood of all singles on our list developping a relationship during the course of our engagement seemed highly remote.  Indeed, only one single person now has a SO.  All others are still single (i.e., no boyfriend/girlfriend).   

    3.  Not true. 

    4.  I think you misunderstood.  A single person developped a relationship after save the dates were sent and while invitations were being printed.  I did not know how serious the relationship was until invites had been sent out and was more than happy to include the SO once we learned about this.  Thankfully we had room to do so given the RSVP list.  I don't believe I owe anyone an apology.

    5.  Thank you for your thoughts on this.  I appreciate your thoughts and that family members get exceptions, that makes me feel better :)

    Report Reply
  • msalmostmarried2014msalmostmarried2014 member
    First Comment First Anniversary

    Valid question, Penguin.

    When we started the planning process, we felt that we needed to make a uniform rule regarding the guest list.  Allowing marrieds, engageds, and relationships of 1 year  or more did not exclude anyone's SO so it seemed like a good rule.  Singles were not invited with a plus one (all singles know others at the wedding and do not have to travel accross the county so this is not rude, as I understand, from etiquette websites, includng the Knot).  In the event one of my fiance's friends wanted to bring his "girl of the week," despite not having been given a plus one, it gave us the opportunity to decline based on that rule.  As I have said, we have allowed people who have subsequently formed relationships shorter than 1 year to bring their SO.  The rule was mainly so that casual flings were not coming to our wedding, which we had envisioned as a more intimate affair.

    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    Valid question, Penguin.

    When we started the planning process, we felt that we needed to make a uniform rule regarding the guest list.  Allowing marrieds, engageds, and relationships of 1 year  or more did not exclude anyone's SO so it seemed like a good rule.  Singles were not invited with a plus one (all singles know others at the wedding and do not have to travel accross the county so this is not rude, as I understand, from etiquette websites, includng the Knot).  In the event one of my fiance's friends wanted to bring his "girl of the week," despite not having been given a plus one, it gave us the opportunity to decline based on that rule.  As I have said, we have allowed people who have subsequently formed relationships shorter than 1 year to bring their SO.  The rule was mainly so that casual flings were not coming to our wedding, which we had envisioned as a more intimate affair.

    FYI, the Knot is not exactly the leader of wedding etiquette.

    So let me get this straight.  Let's say you send out your invites in April.  At that point, I had been dating my (now) husband for one month.  We did not live together until we got married.  Would you have invited him to join me?




    Report Reply
  • penguin44penguin44 member
    First Comment 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Answer
    pinkshorts27 said:


    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    Valid question, Penguin.

    When we started the planning process, we felt that we needed to make a uniform rule regarding the guest list.  Allowing marrieds, engageds, and relationships of 1 year  or more did not exclude anyone's SO so it seemed like a good rule.  Singles were not invited with a plus one (all singles know others at the wedding and do not have to travel accross the county so this is not rude, as I understand, from etiquette websites, includng the Knot).  In the event one of my fiance's friends wanted to bring his "girl of the week," despite not having been given a plus one, it gave us the opportunity to decline based on that rule.  As I have said, we have allowed people who have subsequently formed relationships shorter than 1 year to bring their SO.  The rule was mainly so that casual flings were not coming to our wedding, which we had envisioned as a more intimate affair.


    The only rule you should have followed was to invite significant others.  Full Stop. That's it. Invite them. No other made up rules. 

    It doesn't sound like that friend had an SO when the invites went out, so he wouldn't be given a plus one anyway. I still don't really understand your rule if it didn't prevent you from having to invite anyone in the first place.
    Anniversary

    image
    Report Reply
  • pinkshorts27pinkshorts27 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    penguin44 said:
    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    Valid question, Penguin.

    When we started the planning process, we felt that we needed to make a uniform rule regarding the guest list.  Allowing marrieds, engageds, and relationships of 1 year  or more did not exclude anyone's SO so it seemed like a good rule.  Singles were not invited with a plus one (all singles know others at the wedding and do not have to travel accross the county so this is not rude, as I understand, from etiquette websites, includng the Knot).  In the event one of my fiance's friends wanted to bring his "girl of the week," despite not having been given a plus one, it gave us the opportunity to decline based on that rule.  As I have said, we have allowed people who have subsequently formed relationships shorter than 1 year to bring their SO.  The rule was mainly so that casual flings were not coming to our wedding, which we had envisioned as a more intimate affair.

    The only rule you should have followed was to invite significant others.  Full Stop. That's it. Invite them. No other made up rules. 
    It doesn't sound like that friend had an SO when the invites went out, so he wouldn't be given a plus one anyway. I still don't really understand your rule if it didn't prevent you from having to invite anyone in the first place.
    Mostly emphasizing that they shouldnt have made a rule for lurkers. :)

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image
    Report Reply
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited August 2014
    msalmostmarried2014 said:

    Ladies- I understand you're feeling upset because of decisions I made concerning my guest lists  based on your own personal circumstances and quick engagements that you believe would excluded your hubby from attending my wedding.  (Not so- we are inviting all engaged and married people regardless of the duration of their engagement/ marriage).

    Although the parameters of my guest list was not the subject of my original post, I feel compelled to respond as I do not appreciate being called rude based on hypothetical circumstances that do not exist in my case. Let's not attack one another and instead make this a productive place for an exchange of ideas and offerings of advice.

    To respond to your points-

    1.  No one in a relationship was excluded from bringning a significant other.  Anyone who was in a relationship was invited with their SO.  Our rule of married, engaged or in a relationship of 1 year or more did not exclude anyone in a relationship on our guest list from bringing their SO at the time we picked our venue or sent save the dates.  And for the one single person that did develop a relationship during our engagement, their SO was included.

    Additionally, your statement that "ANYONE in a relationship (regardless of time frame) should be invited" is also incorrect from an etiquette point of view.  http://www.emilypost.com/weddings/planning-your-wedding/656-inside-weddings-handling-your-guests-with-grace ("Brides and grooms should be aware that spouses, fiancé(e)s and live-in romantic partners (no matter the sex) must be invited with your guests; boyfriends and girlfriends who don’t reside together don’t need to be.")

    2.  I understand your point and agree with you.  That is exactly what we did. We wanted a small wedding and therefore picked a smaller venue.  We did not sacrifice surrounding ourselves with our nearest and dearest for the sake of the venue.  Additionally, the likelihood of all singles on our list developping a relationship during the course of our engagement seemed highly remote.  Indeed, only one single person now has a SO.  All others are still single (i.e., no boyfriend/girlfriend).   

    3.  Not true. 

    4.  I think you misunderstood.  A single person developped a relationship after save the dates were sent and while invitations were being printed.  I did not know how serious the relationship was until invites had been sent out and was more than happy to include the SO once we learned about this.  Thankfully we had room to do so given the RSVP list.  I don't believe I owe anyone an apology.

    5.  Thank you for your thoughts on this.  I appreciate your thoughts and that family members get exceptions, that makes me feel better :)

    You're missing the point.  PPs mentioned their short engagements to say that they got serious quickly, and people can be serious with a BF in less than a year. For example, I got engaged after six months of dating. So if someone had used your 1 year rule and invited me to their wedding which was five months after we started dating, my H would have still been my BF and he would have been excluded, despite the fact that we were so serious we got engaged a month after the wedding, and had already been discussing marriage. 

    And Emily Post's rule that you quoted is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Living together does NOT make people more serious than others.  H and I did not live together before marriage.  The vast majority of our friends did not either.  A 1 year relationship where the couple is living together is not necessarily any more serious or has more potential for long term/marriage than a 1 year relationship where the couple is not living together.

    If your brother is truly single, no, you do not need to extend him a plus one, even though it would be a nice gesture. 
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Answer First Comment
    indianaalum said:
    As a person who was "perpetually single", I HATED HATED HATED going to weddings alone. It just made being single feel THAT MUCH WORSE!!! I would have rather skipped a wedding, then go alone and have to sit out every single slow dance song (and even fast ones if I didnd't know anyone else) awkwardly by myself. it's your brother, one person won't kill you. It makes your brother more comfortable and I assume you love him and don't want him to feel uncomfortable. Also, ANYONE in relationships should be allowed to bring their SO. This whole "no ring, no bring" philosophy is bad etiquette P.s. Maybe he likes her, but doesnt want to telll the family that yet.

    Ugh me too I understand not wanting people you dont know there but when there aren't seat assignments and I've never been to a wedding where there actually was.. this makes for a VERY awkward time. I know it's your right to do it and I'm not saying don't do it by any means.. All I am saying is sometimes it really does majorly suck to go to that stuff by yourself... I went to one wedding where I only knew the groom because I worked with him, I had dated one of his groomsmen who was there with his new wife ..by myself... needless to say I did not stay for the reception :)


    Report Reply
  • banana468banana468 member
    First Answer First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    This is one of those times that:
    1) Emily Post Institute is again, wrong.    Why are those living together ranked higher than those in love who aren't living together?   It's a bullshit justification and penalizes those who make a choice not to live together before marriage.

    2) You can be "right" on paper but your brother may be seriously uncomfortable attending alone and for one person, is it really that big a deal?   I understand that it's $300 but I'd spend that if I thought it would mean my brother was far more comfortable attending my wedding.
    Report Reply
  • Belle2188Belle2188 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Comment
    I would let my brother bring an actual prostitute to my wedding if it would make him feel more comfortable.

    You're not necessarily wrong to exclude your brother's friend, but I believe in making exceptions for immediate family.  I'm not touching the rest of this debate.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    Report Reply
  • climbingsingleclimbingsingle member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    OP, you're being so rude to your guests. Wow. 

    I also don't understand this whole "I don't want randoms at my wedding" attitude. There are family members of FI's that haven't met yet. Technically they're strangers to me. But they're still invited. One of my very good friends has a new girlfriend. I haven't met her yet, but I would NEVER have invited her without her significant other. They've also only been dating for 3 months. I guess by your standards, it's not a serious relationship though. 

    FI and I were engaged after 5 months. We also didn't move in together until after we were engaged (I had my own apartment, with a lease). If one of my friends had invited me to a wedding without FI, I would have been really hurt. 
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards