Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Wedding Etiquette Forum
lovesclimbing
member
Miss Manners - sweetheart table
So this was in Miss Manners today. I found it interesting because it's a bit cryptic, but by my reading, she does not like them and finds them rude. Thoughts/discussion?
DEAR MISS MANNERS: What do you think of the recent practice at wedding receptions for the bride and groom to sit at a small table on their own? Are they afraid of infecting others with their joy?
GENTLE READER: Or are they planning to enjoy a more expensive wine than they are serving to their guests?
http://www.uexpress.com/miss-manners/2017/10/30/avoid-surprising-roommates-with-guests
Re: Miss Manners - sweetheart table
Who cares if they sit as a couple, at a table with their wedding party, at a table with family, at a table with vendors... I don’t see the problem as long as they’re eating/drinking what their guests are.
I agree that the sweetheart table most likely started as a way to avoid conflict. it's a win-win in my book. Let your bridal party sit with their dates, let your parents sit with whomever they like. And you get to eat a quick dinner with your spouse, because the rest of the day is pretty crazy.
Also, jesus, can we just finally get away with saying "bride and groom"? It's not always just a bride and groom anymore! What about a bride and a bride, or a groom and a groom? Damn.
We sat at a sweetheart table with our bridal party on each side and those tables were in the middle of the rest of our reception seating.
In the end it was perfect, because we had private chit chat - "what'd you do when the power went out?" "you look great" "wow everyone we care about in one room" etc - and 'us' time lol
I saw that letter also and side-eyed Miss Manners answer. I was thinking, "Yes, Miss Manners, it is rude to have different/better wine and entrees for the wedding couple. Aaannnddd what does that have to do with a sweetheart table?"
I read the letter on the Uxpress website, where people can also comment on letters. There were a lot of posts mirroring what we are saying here.
To my knowledge, Miss Manners never took a hard line on head tables being against etiquette or that the presence of a head table implied that better food/drink was being served there. Her response seems moody and off here.
We didn't have either. All of our tables were the round 8-10 tops, and we just sat with our siblings and their SOs at a regular table among the other tables. We chose this mostly because we didn't want to be on display at a sweetheart table, and head tables just extend the discomfort of being on display to more people. But there's nothing wrong IMO with a sweetheart table if the couple are comfortable with it, are greeting their guests, etc.
I don't think sweetheart tables are rude and Miss Manners' snarky attitude was unhelpful and unnecessary. I usually agree with her but not about this.
I've never thought that about a sweetheart table. I think they are nice to allow the WP to sit together with their SOs (which can also be done with a head table, but that could be very large), or split up the WP to sit with the people they know.
When I have seen a sweetheart table, the table is close to the rest, so it's not like they are hiding anything. And the couple is often up visiting at other tables.
We had a head table with SOs. Personally I am a fan of the Kings Table and wanted to do that for our wedding, but we couldn't figure out a way to set up all of the tables while also keeping them off the dance floor (I dislike when tables are set up on the dance floor and are required to be moved or removed for the dance). Our venue space was essentially designed to have a head table.
At my wedding, most of the tables were for 8, but we got a bigger size round table to comfortable fit 10, so we could have us and then each have 2 couples sit with us. We didn't have a formal bridal party, so we just picked 2 close friends each that knew each other, so they could talk to each other even if we had to get up and do stuff. Our families were at other tables.
If you were to compare this to an event in your home, you're also probably seating your guests in one room and running around the place to freshen drinks, pass food, and clear small plates. When a meal is served you may have multiple tables in your home that seat a variety of guests. The guest list / size is probably smaller than a wedding and you're not dressed in extra formal attire. While your guests should be treated well in your home and at a wedding, is it that big a deal?
We only had a MOH and a BM. My friends and my husband's friends didn't really know each other. Not well enough that we would sit them together. If we were to sit with friends, how would we choose?
Yes, I read your post. And like everyone else, I'm happy that it worked out for you. But you didn't seem to read anything in my posts besides whether or not your families were sitting at other tables.
Once again, stop judging other people who choose to do sweetheart tables without full knowledge of the facts behind their reasons for choosing to do it.
And stop assuming those other posters who disagree with you haven't read your posts. I read every word, and I still disagree with you.
Again, we didn't formalize the wedding party, but this is basically what it looked like at our table. As I mentioned, we had to work with a venue to make sure we had a table that fit 10, not a table for 8 like the rest of the tables.
The biggest rationale people have for doing a sweetheart table seems to be that their family/friend relationships are oh-so-complicated that they simply can't choose who to sit with. I just find it so odd that you invite your nearest and dearest to this event, and then say "I choose to sit alone!". I think there are an ENDLESS number of choices you can make about who to sit with that, to me, are a much better choice than sitting alone.
So my view was that it was actually a service to our guests by sitting near them but not at their table because we'd be the two that kept getting up to visit the rest of our guests. And rather than leave the table with two empty seats, we sat all guests without us and then we were able to be free to scarf and table visit.
My BIL lived in Florida at the time and hadn't seen his step-sisters in a few years. He wanted to sit with my MIL and their family. Again, that table was full. There was no point in trying to shove the two of us into either of these tables. They were already tables of 10. My venue did not offer a 12 person table.
My H and I sat at our table for maybe 15 minutes, if that. It's not odd to invite people and then sit at your own table. I spent the majority of my day talking to my guests and dancing with them on the dance floor.
So you think it's "odd" that people with complex family and friend situations would prefer to keep them away from each other to have their first meal as a married couple in peace? That says more about you than it says about the couple.
Sometimes, one's "nearest and dearest" just don't get along with each other -- and they won't even for the sake of the couple. So it makes sense to seat them away from each other-even if that means that nobody else is sitting with the couple.
And something else: Just because guests were invited does not mean they are being neglected if none of them sit with the couple.
First of all, nobody at the wedding, the couple included, spends the entire time sitting down at their tables. They dance and they go to other tables. Those seats are not thrones and the guests do not need to behave like the couple is a king or queen.
Stop clutching your pearls and judging couples who do sweetheart tables already.