Wedding invite and plus one (or not)

kathie1101

Skateykatey, 1st of all congratulations on your forthcoming wedding.

Prior to myself getting married a few years ago, I never thought that people would assume that they could just bring random plus ones without an invite to a wedding. To me it is bad manners on the part of the guest to just assume that they can bring somebody with them - especially someone that the bride and/or groom do not know/barely know. Having said that though, I do agree with a previous poster who said that if the guest doesn't know any of the other guests then I would put plus one on their invite. In your case though that doesn't apply with the work colleagues and I think it is very rude of them to assume that you will/want to pay for strangers to join in with your celebrations.

I had random strangers at our reception, but also we had people say they were coming and then not turn up, which again I think is incredibly rude and even more annoying as we had gone to extra expense to make bags up of things for their children to do/play with to keep them entertained.

balletshoes

skateykatey wrote: »

Hi

just after some opinions as to whether I'm right to be slightly miffed or not.

Basically I'm getting married in January away from home so we're having the reception party two weeks after the wedding.

All the invites have gone out and whilst we're not really limited to numbers (the function venue holds about 200 people max) we paying for a buffet of $10 per head.

The invites stated the name of the person invited and made no mention of plus ones or guests. Basically, to me, if your name wasn't on the invite you weren't invited.

However, I've since heard that some people have assumed that their invite included a plus one and they have invited someone to be their guest.

One girl at least asked if her partner, whom I've never met, was invited which was slightly annoying as I felt as if I was put on the spot but others haven't even asked.

Should I have been more implicit when giving out the invites???

I should point out that these invites were to work colleagues as opposed to 'proper friends' if that makes sense.

how much more explicit can you get? if theres only one person on the invite, only one person is invited. End of. I suggest you nip this in the bud now, before everyone hears from everyone else that the guests are taking partners, and your head count doubles.

coolcait

Person_one wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't really aimed at you, more of a general observation. Aimed at anybody who'll listen to me, which is usually not many on this subject!

However, I'm afraid you're wrong about the point of the reception. The clue is in the name.

The ceremony is for the couple, the bit afterwards is where you receive your guests and show them how grateful you are for them coming to watch you get married.

You receive your guests - the people you have invited to attend.

At my workplace, three colleagues have got married in the past year. Workmates were invited to the reception. There was no 'plus one' on the invitation, and none of the workmates expected to see it!

At each of the weddings, the 'work team' were seated at the same table. I suppose it did look a bit like a works outing! :rotfl:

I agree that wedidng invitations are a bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of thing. Only a few days ago there was a thread which referred to 'the dreaded plus one'...

As for not going to a wedding if my husband wasn't invited, and him not going if I wasn't invited... I'm on a different page for that one too.

I'm quite happy for him to go to his workmates' weddings alone, and he's quite happy for me to go to my workmates' weddings alone.

The ultimate 'outsider' is the workmate's 'plus one'. They don't know the bride, or the groom, or any of their extended families. They often don't know the workmates beyond the occasional 'hello' in the supermarket.

Hell for them. And the happy couple have to pay for it!

peachyprice

Perhaps some of your colleagues have made this assumption because it's widely accepted that while couples are restricted in numbers they can invite to their wedding, whether financial reasons or due to the size of the venue, the evening do is traditionally open to all those that you couldn't fit in at the wedding breakfast and those less important, they tend to be pretty much open house.

As this isn't actually your wedding, it's a party to celebrate your wedding that will have taken place 2 weeks before I can see why they might assume their partners would be invited too. I don't actually think it's that unreasonable in these circumstances and is totally different to assuming that you can bring a +1 to the actual wedding/sit down meal.

burnoutbabe

I'd assume for the sit down part, then you don't bring anyone not on the invite.

but for the evening drinks part, numbers not so imprortant, one generally pays for one's own drinks etc. So you may ask if you could bring someone. But if its basically an invite for all your work colleagues, as a group, then most people would be fine about just going as that gang.

Really, you just need to say "sorry due to numbers, its just you work collagues, but thats okay as you all know each other".

No idea why someone would be insulted if their other half wasn't invited to a work function, thats just strange!

Torry_Quine

burnoutbabe wrote: »

I'd assume for the sit down part, then you don't bring anyone not on the invite.

but for the evening drinks part, numbers not so imprortant, one generally pays for one's own drinks etc. So you may ask if you could bring someone. But if its basically an invite for all your work colleagues, as a group, then most people would be fine about just going as that gang.

Really, you just need to say "sorry due to numbers, its just you work collagues, but thats okay as you all know each other".

No idea why someone would be insulted if their other half wasn't invited to a work function, thats just strange!

I wouldn't be insulted if I weren't invited just surprised and doubt very much that my husband would go.

skateykatey

Thanks to all for your comments.

I think it's fair to say that I'm partly at fault for not explaining fully on the invites who exactly was invited and some guests were equally at fault for making an assumption.

what is clear is that, it's an absolute minefield!

With any luck, there won't be that many 'uninvited' guests (the wongly assuming guests are most definately in the minority) and I'm sure that on the actual day, I won't actually be that bothered by a few extra guests...unless they eat all the profiteroles, in which case, I will have the mother of all paddy's

meritaten

peachyprice wrote: »

Perhaps some of your colleagues have made this assumption because it's widely accepted that while couples are restricted in numbers they can invite to their wedding, whether financial reasons or due to the size of the venue, the evening do is traditionally open to all those that you couldn't fit in at the wedding breakfast and those less important, they tend to be pretty much open house.

As this isn't actually your wedding, it's a party to celebrate your wedding that will have taken place 2 weeks before I can see why they might assume their partners would be invited too. I don't actually think it's that unreasonable in these circumstances and is totally different to assuming that you can bring a +1 to the actual wedding/sit down meal.

No, this event also has to be at a venue (where numbers may be limited due to health and safety and fire regulations) - also the buffet has to be catered and numbers of guests known. one or two last minute guests wont matter - but people assuming partners are invited (or even worse, children, can be a nightmare).
The Invite is just that - and the invitation is to the person(s) named on it. To assume you can bring a guest/children is extremely bad manners. If you cannot bring yourself to attend on your own - then decline gracefully!

Emmylou_2

skateykatey wrote: »

Thanks to all for your comments.

I think it's fair to say that I'm partly at fault for not explaining fully on the invites who exactly was invited and some guests were equally at fault for making an assumption.

what is clear is that, it's an absolute minefield!

With any luck, there won't be that many 'uninvited' guests (the wongly assuming guests are most definately in the minority) and I'm sure that on the actual day, I won't actually be that bothered by a few extra guests...unless they eat all the profiteroles, in which case, I will have the mother of all paddy's

Re the bolded: BUT YOU DID. You put the names of the people who were invited. You didn't put the names of people who weren't invited.

I mean, the way some people are going on, you'd have to write:

"Bob and Joan but not anyone else who they happen to be planning on socialising with, including but not limited to that strange bloke who sits at the end of the bar at the Queen's Head on a Thursday night shouting out incorrect answers to the quiz questions"

rather than

"Bob and Joan"

or

"Bob"

Fire_Fox

Emmylou wrote: »

Re the bolded: BUT YOU DID. You put the names of the people who were invited. You didn't put the names of people who weren't invited.

I mean, the way some people are going on, you'd have to write:

"Bob and Joan but not anyone else who they happen to be planning on socialising with, including but not limited to that strange bloke who sits at the end of the bar at the Queen's Head on a Thursday night shouting out incorrect answers to the quiz questions"

rather than

"Bob and Joan"

or

"Bob"

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: