this is the code for the render ad
Wedding Etiquette Forum

Clashing cultures - WWYD?

I'm looking for some insight on culture clashing etiquette. I've mentioned before that my FI is Dutch and we're getting married in Holland, and there have been some interesting culture snafus in the planning process, namely the etiquette portion.

We are, for the most part, following a pretty typical American (okay, Canadian) style wedding. Early into the planning phase we had a grueling guest list discussion where it was uncovered that tiered wedding receptions are the norm and expectation here. Basically every Dutch wedding website and venue referenced having a day-list (i.e. Invited to everything) and a party-list (i.e. Invited after the dinner portion of the reception). I told FI it was considered very rude in my culture, and we weren't going to treat my guests or our mutual friends that way. He agreed, and asked about his colleagues, who would typically be invited as party guests. To play Devil's Advocate, I asked him which colleagues he didn't want as day guests, and when he could only come up with 2 or 3 names, he conceded that having a party guest list consisting of two would make those individuals feel singled out. FI has been working in the same team for about a decade now, is extremely close to many members on his team, and I figured our hypothetical party list wasn't going to be very long.

Fast forward a couple months and FI's position is disappearing within the organization due to cutbacks. As a shot in the dark he applied for a different position and we were very surprised that he actually got it. Now he's managing a team of 30, and he comes to me again suggesting a tiered guest list for his new team. He still wants his old team invited to the whole thing, but feels that the new team -- now that there's 30 of them -- should receive an invite to the party. I've tasked him with research, and so far the unanimous response is that it's considered acceptable here, but I still feel icky about it. There's no way to invite an additional 30 people including SOs to the whole thing. So, here are the scenarios I'm tossing around in my head:

-They're his guests, his culture, and he can make the call. I trust him to understand that to be effective in his job he needs to have the respect from his team, and therefore trust him not to jeopardize that.
-Tell him no (not that this actually works, as evidenced by the PS4 sitting in our living room), and that we are following Canadian wedding etiquette.
-Give it time, and maybe find a way to squeeze in some extra colleagues should he become particularly close to anyone on his new team.

Oh, as one last aside apparently inviting to SOs of colleagues isn't necessary either, and he's started hinting he doesn't want to invite all SOs. My research into this isn't as thorough, but I know the one wedding website I reference has a section on how to address invitations, and gives examples of addressing them to colleagues when you don't want to invite their partner.

Re: Clashing cultures - WWYD?

  • I follow the when in Rome rule. I'd prefer to invite everyone to everything, but I think at some point I say trust the person whose culture you are in. It's weird to me that it would be seen as ruder to not invite the new colleagues at all than to invite them to just part of it, but it sounds like that is very clearly the case and I wouldn't want my cultural insensitivity to hurt his work life.
  • Spoonsey said:
    I'm looking for some insight on culture clashing etiquette. I've mentioned before that my FI is Dutch and we're getting married in Holland, and there have been some interesting culture snafus in the planning process, namely the etiquette portion.

    We are, for the most part, following a pretty typical American (okay, Canadian) style wedding. Early into the planning phase we had a grueling guest list discussion where it was uncovered that tiered wedding receptions are the norm and expectation here. Basically every Dutch wedding website and venue referenced having a day-list (i.e. Invited to everything) and a party-list (i.e. Invited after the dinner portion of the reception). I told FI it was considered very rude in my culture, and we weren't going to treat my guests or our mutual friends that way. He agreed, and asked about his colleagues, who would typically be invited as party guests. To play Devil's Advocate, I asked him which colleagues he didn't want as day guests, and when he could only come up with 2 or 3 names, he conceded that having a party guest list consisting of two would make those individuals feel singled out. FI has been working in the same team for about a decade now, is extremely close to many members on his team, and I figured our hypothetical party list wasn't going to be very long.

    Fast forward a couple months and FI's position is disappearing within the organization due to cutbacks. As a shot in the dark he applied for a different position and we were very surprised that he actually got it. Now he's managing a team of 30, and he comes to me again suggesting a tiered guest list for his new team. He still wants his old team invited to the whole thing, but feels that the new team -- now that there's 30 of them -- should receive an invite to the party. I've tasked him with research, and so far the unanimous response is that it's considered acceptable here, but I still feel icky about it. There's no way to invite an additional 30 people including SOs to the whole thing. So, here are the scenarios I'm tossing around in my head:

    -They're his guests, his culture, and he can make the call. I trust him to understand that to be effective in his job he needs to have the respect from his team, and therefore trust him not to jeopardize that.
    -Tell him no (not that this actually works, as evidenced by the PS4 sitting in our living room), and that we are following Canadian wedding etiquette.
    -Give it time, and maybe find a way to squeeze in some extra colleagues should he become particularly close to anyone on his new team.

    Oh, as one last aside apparently inviting to SOs of colleagues isn't necessary either, and he's started hinting he doesn't want to invite all SOs. My research into this isn't as thorough, but I know the one wedding website I reference has a section on how to address invitations, and gives examples of addressing them to colleagues when you don't want to invite their partner.
    Honestly I would tell FI no to inviting any of the coworkers and then throw a party at a later date and invite them and their SOs to it. I would not connect the party to the wedding, but your new H and you would be hosting it.
    image
  • I follow the when in Rome rule. I'd prefer to invite everyone to everything, but I think at some point I say trust the person whose culture you are in. It's weird to me that it would be seen as ruder to not invite the new colleagues at all than to invite them to just part of it, but it sounds like that is very clearly the case and I wouldn't want my cultural insensitivity to hurt his work life.
    I agree. I think it would be one thing if you were getting married in Canada, but if you would be jeopardizing his career by following Canadian/American etiquette in Holland I say go with Dutch etiquette. I know some people say that etiquette is the same in all cultures but it really isn't. I also think it is presumptuous to think "our" etiquette trumps all others - especially when you are living their country. If all your guests would be Canadian/American my answer would be different.
    Since you are marrying in Holland and this is the norm, I think it would be ok.  One thing that I don't like is how a whole group of people who work for the same company will be tiered differently for the reception.  I don't think its fair to have his old co-workers invited to everything and his new co-workers invited to only the party portion.  Try to get all of the co-workers invited within the same tier.
  • I follow the when in Rome rule. I'd prefer to invite everyone to everything, but I think at some point I say trust the person whose culture you are in. It's weird to me that it would be seen as ruder to not invite the new colleagues at all than to invite them to just part of it, but it sounds like that is very clearly the case and I wouldn't want my cultural insensitivity to hurt his work life.
    I agree. I think it would be one thing if you were getting married in Canada, but if you would be jeopardizing his career by following Canadian/American etiquette in Holland I say go with Dutch etiquette. I know some people say that etiquette is the same in all cultures but it really isn't. I also think it is presumptuous to think "our" etiquette trumps all others - especially when you are living their country. If all your guests would be Canadian/American my answer would be different.
    Since you are marrying in Holland and this is the norm, I think it would be ok.  One thing that I don't like is how a whole group of people who work for the same company will be tiered differently for the reception.  I don't think its fair to have his old co-workers invited to everything and his new co-workers invited to only the party portion.  Try to get all of the co-workers invited within the same tier.

    Good catch. I agree, people from the same circles should be in the same tier.
  • I agree with PPs. Cultural relativism is definitely applicable to etiquette, and I think they would find it more rude if you did not invite them to the party portion if that's all they're expecting (but it's expected for colleagues in his culture)..
  • I see PPs points but another thing to consider is what your guests who are invited to everything will think and if that will affect any of your relationships. For example, if you invited me as a guest to everything and I saw you tiering other people I would think that was very rude of you. It wouldn't damage my relationship with you as me being your friend but I would definitely see it as a rude thing you did.
  • lc07lc07 member
    Tenth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    edited October 2015
    IDK you guys. It's still rude. Even if it's culturally expected, these people know they are second tier guests and I assume they would prefer to be invited to everything. I see it as OP has a must-invite guest list with an additional 60 guests on it that they cannot afford to invite or don't have the space to invite and need to find a remedy that allows them to properly host all of their guests. It wouldn't be rude to invite these guests to everything in this culture, I assume, so there is a solution.

    Edited: for clarity
  • I agree about "when in Rome," so if he needs to do a tiered reception for the new colleagues, so be it. But not inviting SOs is my rage issue, and I would never not invite them, no matter what the cultural custom or accepted norm.
    What did you think would happen if you walked up to a group of internet strangers and told them to get shoehorned by their lady doc?~StageManager14
    image
  • lc07 said:
    IDK you guys. It's still rude. Even if it's culturally expected, these people know they are second tier guests and I assume they would prefer to be invited to everything. I see it as OP has a must-invite guest list with an additional 60 guests on it that they cannot afford to invite or don't have the space to invite and need to find a remedy that allows them to properly host all of their guests. It wouldn't be rude to invite these guests to everything in this culture, I assume, so there is a solution.

    Edited: for clarity
    If the OP can't invite them to the whole thing, in this (her FI's) culture it would be considered rude not to invite them to the party only. That is what I'm saying about applying "our standards of etiquette" to other cultures. As a global society, friends from our culture need to realize that other cultures might differ from ours and not hold it against our friendships or at least ask in a non-judgemental manner about it.
  • I also agree about "when in Rome." But I also don't think it's a good idea to exclude SOs, even if they don't expect to be invited.
  • lc07 said:
    IDK you guys. It's still rude. Even if it's culturally expected, these people know they are second tier guests and I assume they would prefer to be invited to everything. I see it as OP has a must-invite guest list with an additional 60 guests on it that they cannot afford to invite or don't have the space to invite and need to find a remedy that allows them to properly host all of their guests. It wouldn't be rude to invite these guests to everything in this culture, I assume, so there is a solution.

    Edited: for clarity

    I see what you're saying, but I disagree with you on two fronts. The first is that we don't have 60 additional must-invites. The venue is settled, and if the choice was between to not include the 30 colleagues plus SOs or give up the venue to accommodate a bigger crowd and host them to American standards, then we would choose to not invite the colleagues. Ergo, they are not must-invites. That's not the choice though. It's whether we should not invite them at all and risk offending them, or invite them in the way they expect.

    The second, and I'm paraphrasing FI at the moment, is that they actually wouldn't prefer to be invited to everything. They don't want to dedicate an entire late afternoon/night to us, sit through a ceremony, long dinner, toasting. While we had our single tier guest list (before the new team), FI was fretting about how we could communicate to his colleagues that they didn't actually have to attend the whole thing (FI frets over weird stuff.... And other stuff that he SHOULD fret over, he doesn't.). This is his argument, mind.
  • edited October 2015
    Thanks for the responses! Definitely some points that I didn't consider.

    @STARMON44 I also find it weird that it's less rude to invite them to a portion than to nothing at all, but apparently there's some expectation that colleagues are to be invited. He originally wanted to extend them an invitation to the ceremony and party, but I said absolutely not. Not only is that a logistical nightmare since the ceremony and reception is in the same location, it's not an expectation to receive an invite to the ceremony. We're almost at capacity for our Plan B location in case of bad weather. Having guests standing at our ceremony is NOT something I want to have, even if it's within the cultural norm. It took forever to find a venue who took my desire for a seat for every butt seriously.

    @lc07 it's definitely a concern to me how I'm coming off to my own guests. Maybe the saving grace is that I'm inviting mostly family, some of whom are familiar with Dutch customs. I am hoping that it gets passed along through word of mouth that what we're doing is within the cultural norms.

    @AddieCake yup, I'm taking issue with that one as well. My thoughts on it are less formed in my mind at the moment. Partly because I've been confronted with the tiered guest list from the get-go. Up until he took on this new team everyone was invited to everything, all SOs were included, we had a clear idea of where we drew the line with kids. Now everything is a little bit more up in the air. The good part is that we have some flexibility with budget and space. Not an additional 60 guests, but a fair amount. I will send him on a new fact finding mission and look into it further myself.

    So, I was looking at his colleagues as being in three circles. 1) old team, 2) new team, and 3) the three other managers on the same managing "tier" as him. I figured then we would treat each circle separately from the others. The sense I'm getting now is that we should be looking to just treat all colleagues the same. So the follow up question I have to that is he's extremely close to a few colleagues, one of whom may be asked to be a groomsman. Even if we opt to invite all colleagues to just the party bit, is it completely out of line to invite the few whom he's exceptionally close with to the whole thing?

    edited for clarity
  • Spoonsey said:

    Thanks for the responses! Definitely some points that I didn't consider.



    @STARMON44 I also find it weird that it's less rude to invite them to a portion than to nothing at all, but apparently there's some expectation that colleagues are to be invited. He originally wanted to extend them an invitation to the ceremony and party, but I said absolutely not. Not only is that a logistical nightmare since the ceremony and reception is in the same location, it's not an expectation to receive an invite to the ceremony. We're almost at capacity for our Plan B location in case of bad weather. Having guests standing at our ceremony is NOT something I want to have, even if it's within the cultural norm. It took forever to find a venue who took my desire for a seat for every butt seriously.



    @lc07 it's definitely a concern to me how I'm coming off to my own guests. Maybe the saving grace is that I'm inviting mostly family, some of whom are familiar with Dutch customs. I am hoping that it gets passed along through word of mouth that what we're doing is within the cultural norms.


    @AddieCake yup, I'm taking issue with that one as well. My thoughts on it are less formed in my mind at the moment. Partly because I've been confronted with the tiered guest list from the get-go. Up until he took on this new team everyone was invited to everything, all SOs were included, we had a clear idea of where we drew the line with kids. Now everything is a little bit more up in the air. The good part is that we have some flexibility with budget and space. Not an additional 60 guests, but a fair amount. I will send him on a new fact finding mission and look into it further myself.



    So, I was looking at his colleagues as being in three circles. 1) old team, 2) new team, and 3) the three other managers on the same managing "tier" as him. I figured then we would treat each circle separately from the others. The sense I'm getting now is that we should be looking to just treat all colleagues the same. So the follow up question I have to that is he's extremely close to a few colleagues, one of whom may be asked to be a groomsman. Even if we opt to invite all colleagues to just the party bit, is it completely out of line to invite the few whom he's exceptionally close with to the whole thing?


    edited for clarity


    I have no idea. I think you need to ask him, and possibly some of his Dutch friends.
  • I think I would take his lead on this. However, I would extend the invites to SO for the party. Although that may not be the norm there, knowing your own culture, and also how you personally feel about it, don't you think the coworker would find it nice to have their SO invited? I get that it might be seen as rude not to invite coworkers at all versus party only, but I cannot see how extending the invites to SOs could be construed as rude in any way.

    I would group the co-workers as one group, however, if there are co-workers who are being invited because they are FRIENDS- I would put them in that category. I think it's pretty clear to people that some people in the workplace develop strong friendships with another person or two while maintaining an acquaintance level friendship with the rest. 
  • SP29 said:
    I think I would take his lead on this. However, I would extend the invites to SO for the party. Although that may not be the norm there, knowing your own culture, and also how you personally feel about it, don't you think the coworker would find it nice to have their SO invited? I get that it might be seen as rude not to invite coworkers at all versus party only, but I cannot see how extending the invites to SOs could be construed as rude in any way.

    I would group the co-workers as one group, however, if there are co-workers who are being invited because they are FRIENDS- I would put them in that category. I think it's pretty clear to people that some people in the workplace develop strong friendships with another person or two while maintaining an acquaintance level friendship with the rest. 
    This...the original post said that your FI didn't want to invite "all" SOs of the party-only tier...I would find it super rude if I was invited without SO when a mutual coworker was invited with SO.  I don't see how you can establish a cutoff for that other than "yeah I just like this person better than you, sorry."
  • edited October 2015
    Yep, you guys are right on the SO front. Luckily FI takes a "the more the merrier" stance on most things, so it won't be too difficult to convince him. Plus, if he's right and SOs don't want/care to be invited, they can just as easily decline. Invites =/ subpoenas.

    Thanks for the help guys. I feel a lot better about how to proceed, and am happy to just take his lead with this.

    Update:

    Spoke to FI about my concerns, we're tabling the conversation regarding inviting his colleagues (and his book club. Seriously, we finalized our budget and guest list months ago, and he comes to me last week saying, "oh! My book club might want to come." Well, there's another 10, not including SOs) but he understands and accepts (don't think he agrees necessarily, but meh) that SOs of all guests will receive an invite.

    In a somewhat ironic twist, his high school best friend is getting married and sent us an online RSVP for next May. We're invited to the party portion only, and I couldn't help but hear the hurt in his voice. The real cherry on top is they chose a wedding location in the middle of nowhere. For a country that can be crossed in three hours by car, that's a real feat. We would spend 3 hours in transit to arrive at 8 pm, and likely have to shell out 150€ for a hotel room.

    There's been a lot of talk about tiered receptions and culture. Just want to reiterate to lurkers that even though this is the norm in FI's culture, it was still hurtful.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards