Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Wedding Etiquette Forum
GamersElope16
member
Options
Bridal Party Dates at Head Table?
I have never seen the dates of the bridal party included at the head table. Maybe the Midwest doesn't do it.
Is this really a have-to-do thing?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Bridal Party Dates at Head Table?
Options:
Head table with dates
Sweetheart table
you sit with just your MOH and BM and their SOs
You sit with your parents
You sit with your siblings and their SOs.
We didn't want a sweatheart table and sat with the younger members of our WP (none had SOs). The WP was spread across the room sitting at tables they would have sat with if they were not in the WP. along with their dates.
Don't do this to your BP. Let them sit with their SOs. Aren't the feelings of your friends more important than your "vision" for your head table? They should be.
Edit: grammar
We had a sweetheart table. 2 of DH's groomsmen were his brothers, so they sat with their family. The other groomsman had a wife & 2 young children at the wedding. He sat with them. My MOH (sister) sat with my parents. BM 1 sat with her husband (my brother) & daughter (flower girl). BM 2 sat with her date with my other college friends.
Not letting your bridal party sit with their dates is not nice.
My daughter and son both married in Chicago. My daughter had an "adjusted" sweetheart table. Her MOH and SO, and his BM and SO joined them at the sweetheart table. The remainder of their wedding party sat with their SO's and group of friends among the guest tables.
At my son's wedding, his seating mimicked more of a king's table. Both sets of parents, the bride and groom, siblings, and their MOH, BM, and their SO's all sat together at a table.
Be the first to "break the mold" in your circle. MANY people continue to perpetuate poor etiquette because "that's what has been done". I'm a Chicagoan who knows how to host properly regardless of "what is done". You may have never joined your SO at a wedding before, but wouldn't it be lovely if you did?
We barely sat at our sweetheart table anyway. Sat there during toasts, then scarfed down some food and then got up and made table visits. I never even went back later in the night to eat my slice of cake (woops)
Even the wedding I went to last year with a money dance still sat their BP and SOs together.
And these were all Midwest weddings (Minneapolis, St. Louis, rural Missouri, Iowa, Chicago).
PPs have given great suggestions to alternatives to a sweetheart table.
It's nice that you weren't too bothered when you were separated from your SO at those weddings, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't bother others.
Depending on circles of friends, it's very possible that some SOs might know very few other people at the wedding. This can make things very uncomfortable for those SOs and a good hostess should not make decisions that will make her guests uncomfortable.
And even if someone maybe "doesn't mind" being separated, that doesn't mean that they still wouldn't prefer sitting together.
Your bridal party is your nearest and dearest. Let your nearest and dearest sit with the person they are closest to. It's the kind thing to do.
My DH has had the fortune of being in a TON of wedding parties, and I personally don't mind sitting through dinner without him as long as I know other people at the wedding, which has always been the case.
My personal experience doesn't make it okay, though and I'm going still going to echo others in saying that yup, it's rude.
FWIW, I'm in the mid-west and I almost always see the BP at a head table with the dates elsewhere. I still think it's rude, but it was also the reasoning my bridal party acted all offended when I suggested we do something different.
Seriously, though. By the time you get to the reception & eat, your bridal party is essentially "done". Let them enjoy their time with their date.
We had our WP dates sit at our head table.
When DH was best man 2 years ago, the B&G had a sweetheart table, then sat all the WP members+dates at their own table. I thought this was nice too, because I didn't really know anyone else. I had met other WP members and their spouses before, but didn't know them well.
Sure, I can manage to sit by myself and make small talk with the other guests like an adult, but considering a wedding is a social event, one honoring relationships no less, it is preferable to be able to sit with my DH.
PPs have had great suggestions to avoid being rude... We did not want to do a sweetheart table either, so instead we sat at a table with the best man and his wife (who was also a bridesmaid) and the MOH and her date - kind of an expanded sweetheart table. Then we sat the rest of the bridal party at surrounding tables with their own family members and/or friends. It worked out great.
My sister did decide to do a head table, and though I cannot speak for everyone else in the BP, I will say it sucked not to be able to sit with my husband, and despite the fact that he knew the people at his table (my family), it wasn't super fun for him either.
No one on here is going to tell you that having a head table is a great idea, no matter how many times you have seen it done.
Don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.
Let me turn the tables for a minute and ask you the same question .... you say: "I can manage to occupy myself for a meal without my FI next to me. I can't wrap my head around why this is such a huge deal." Why can't you manage to occupy yourself for a meal without your bridal party next to you without their SO?
The point is, although anyone can manage to occupy them self through dinner (and toasts, and maybe a first dance) without their SO, they shouldn't have to. At any social event, a guest should have their SO invited. A wedding is a social event. It celebrates the love and union of the B&G; it is "unfair" (for lack of better word) to celebrate this for the B&G but ignore it for the WP or other guests. It's kind of backwards for the B&G to eat dinner together, and for the rest of their guests to eat dinner with their SOs but not the WP.
Why not have the bride sit with her side of the WP at one table, and the groom sit at another table with his side? Most people would put their foot down on that- "because we just got married". Again, why acknowledge that relationship, but not the others?
IMHO, it's just super weird to have the dates at the head table. It just is. The head table is for the B&G and the bridal party. Period. It has been this way for decades. It seems just recently that everyone feels so entitled that they cant sit without their "bae" for a meal without getting offended.
Think about it this way - would you split up a non-BM or GM couple? Like aunty Sue and Uncle Bob, would you just randomly decide to put them at different tables?
(I really don't think any table is Aw-ish, FTR... Do what you want, just don't split people up.)
Most of our BP are couples so that would def split them up.
Can you imagine how excited I would be to actually eat dinner with my DH at a wedding? One of the few times I can actually eat with him I can't because of some stupid tradition that says ALL the other guests, including the couple get to eat with their SO and the nearest and dearest can not?
It's such a stupid tradition that has ZERO meaning. None. The couple isn't even there most of the time. And if everyone is on the one side of a long table they are not even sitting next to the couple. They can only take to the person to the left and right. Unless you are on the end, then you are only sitting next to one person.
So bizarre.
ETA - not sure why I called him a FI hehe.
I really don't see the need for the bridal party to even sit together. Let them sit with whomever they'd like to sit with (or what would make sense). At my sister's wedding, my husband & I sat with our relatives who came in from out of state for the wedding. I didn't need to sit with my sister's college friends. Nor did I need to sit with the friends of her husband (whom I met at the wedding). It was nice to be able to enjoy the evening with the people we want to spend time with.
When my husband was the best man at his brother's wedding, we sat with his family. The bridesmaids sat with their friends. There is no need for people to be forced to sit together without their SO just because they are in a wedding.
Let's say you have 4 bridesmaids (A,B,C,D) and your FI has 4 groomsmen (E,F,G,H). What I'm hearing you say is that A & E are a couple, B & F are a couple, and C & G are a couple.
Am I understanding you?
BOXBOXIMHO, it's just super weird to have the dates at the head table. It just is. The head table is for the B&G and the bridal party. Period. It has been this way for decades. It seems just recently that everyone feels so entitled that they cant sit without their "bae" for a meal without getting offended.
I think we can all "manage", but dont you want your guests to have the best time possible?
Also if most of your party are couples then what's the big deal?
ETF: quote tree got way messed up
Splitting up the B&G would be an absurd notion, so why is it cool to split up the BP from their dates?
P.S. I detest the word "Bae". It is no more entitled of me to want to sit with my husband at a social event, one that celebrates marriage no less, than it is for the B&G to want to sit with their WP "on stage" at a head table.
P.P.S. We did have a head table- but BP guests also sat at it.