Wedding invite and plus one (or not)

meritaten

tylerdurden_167 wrote: »

I would also add that if you are having a buffet, it is not necessary to cater for the exact amount of guests you expect as not all will bother with the food.

When I got married I was advised by the caterer at the reception that even though we were expecting approx 120 guests it was only worth putting out enough food for 80.

My Sons' caterer must have been working to that principle! at the evening buffet they had the embarrassment of running out of food before everyone was fed! honestly - not a crumb left!

andygb

skateykatey wrote: »

When I said we weren't really limited on numbers, it was because the venue is big enough to hold a large number of people but...I still have to pay to cater for them. If we've catered for 80 and people invite their OH's then it's additional cash for us to pay out for people we neither know nor invited in the first place.

I am only 54 years young, over the past twenty years we have been to a couple of weddings a year, but I have never encountered a situation where people are not allowed to bring their other halves to a wedding reception. By their very nature, wedding receptions are held at weekends, they are a celebration, and neither myself or my wife would ever attend one if only one of us was allowed to go. I actually think that it is a very mean spirited idea. When we had our reception, we assumed that people would bring their other halves along, and we tried hard not to leave anyone out. I didn't know my bosses wife, but I could never imagine him coming to our wedding without her, and that applied to many guests.
I used to think that it was bad when people requested that no children were present at the wedding, but not allowing other halves to go is just OTT IMO:(

seven-day-weekend

My husband has been asked to sing at a wedding by someone we know from church and who plays in a band with my husband. We have not had a formal invitation yet, but I have not assumed I am invited and if the invitation does not have my name on I will assume I am not, as the groom has already said numbers are tight.

However it appears that most people would assume differently.

So yes, I think you should have spelled it out.

seven-day-weekend

MarilynMonroe wrote: »

If you wernt invited would you have found it rude? I would have.

I didnt go to my cousins wedding because it was no children allowed. Quite where people were meant to leave their kids i have no idea. I don't think people realise how things come accross,and then there is ill feeling.

We re-took our vows after thirteen years of marriage and didn't have children at the evening party (although we did at the ceremony). The reason being that space was limited and if we'd have invited peoples' children then we couldn't have invited our friends.

Most people came, but if they hadn't been able to because of childcare, well that's life and we'd have seen them some other time.

(Our own son was not there either, he was tucked up in bed being looked after by a baby-sitter - he was only four).

skateykatey

Thanks once again to all that contributed. I'm just going to have to take this on the chin I think and see how the final numbers stack up.

Once again, it just goes to show that different people have different takes on what was required by way of the invite.

Just as an additional FYI, one of the girls who was invited has invited someone other than her partner to be her guest on the grounds that her OH wouldn't like it as he won't know anyone,(he's right!) but her mate can apparantly be swayed by the free entertainment and food laid on for her. This friend, btw, already knows at least 10 of the people already attending and was already travelling along with another girl who was invited and with whom she is already really friendly with.

Now surely that is taking the P*** on a seismic scale...

duchy

I think there is a world of difference between a wedding invitation and an invitation to a party to celebrate it a couple of weeks later....and that is where the misunderstanding lies.

If I'm invited to a party I'd expect to take a partner but to a wedding unless specifically plus oned I wouldn't.

I realize to the OP it's simply a delayed wedding reception but to other people it honestly isn't the same thing.

Brighton_belle

skateykatey wrote: »

Just as an additional FYI, one of the girls who was invited has invited someone other than her partner to be her guest on the grounds that her OH wouldn't like it as he won't know anyone,(he's right!) but her mate can apparantly be swayed by the free entertainment and food laid on for her.

Now surely that is taking the P*** on a seismic scale...

:eek: Totally taking the preverbial OP.

Fire_Fox

MarilynMonroe wrote: »

If you wernt invited would you have found it rude? I would have.

I didnt go to my cousins wedding because it was no children allowed. Quite where people were meant to leave their kids i have no idea. I don't think people realise how things come accross,and then there is ill feeling.

Sitters: absent parent, grandparents, other relatives, friends of the family, parents of best friend .... I think people do know how it comes across, but they don't want or cannot afford to bump up the costs by 25% by inviting everyone who might be offended or upset by not being invited - all those plus ones, children, distant relatives.

My dear cousin and her husband have three children but attended my sibling's wedding without them even tho it involved two nights away. I suspect she was a little surprised/ disappointed, but she is far too lovely to say to the happy couple - she even almost came alone when it seemed her husband would have to work. The only person who threw her toys out of the pram was a cousin on the other side who wasn't permitted to bring a new unknown boyfriend. Says it all IMO. :mad:

andygb wrote: »

I am only 54 years young, over the past twenty years we have been to a couple of weddings a year, but I have never encountered a situation where people are not allowed to bring their other halves to a wedding reception. By their very nature, wedding receptions are held at weekends, they are a celebration, and neither myself or my wife would ever attend one if only one of us was allowed to go. I actually think that it is a very mean spirited idea. When we had our reception, we assumed that people would bring their other halves along, and we tried hard not to leave anyone out. I didn't know my bosses wife, but I could never imagine him coming to our wedding without her, and that applied to many guests.
I used to think that it was bad when people requested that no children were present at the wedding, but not allowing other halves to go is just OTT IMO:(

Plenty of couples don't have the money to be 'generous spirited' in your eyes, not every venue has the space for extras. I only had forty to forty five at the wedding breakfast and there was barely any space in the room for anyone else. Had we invited everyone that convention dictated (plus ones, children, distant relatives) we'd have had to get married somewhere else entirely - the only reason we were allowed to do several things we wanted was because we took over the entire ten bedroom hotel day and night.

So we'd have had a completely different venue or style of day, a buffet not a sit down meal, not written our own vows and had our own ceremony. Or we would have had to miss out close friends or close relatives, to invite someone we didn't want! There was no more money in the kitty, everything was tightly budgeted and we spent half of the average at the time.

Also to be fair we have moved on from the original premise which was plus ones especially those you had not met, not necessarily husbands or wives. Different weddings I have attended have had very different atmospheres, the worst was one with two hundred at the wedding breakfast with plenty of plus ones who didn't or barely knew the bride and bridegroom (including me!). The best were emotional affairs with an absolutely magical atmosphere IMO because every last guest absolutely adored the happy couple. :happylove

skateykatey

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Sitters: absent parent, grandparents, other relatives, friends of the family, parents of best friend .... I think people do know how it comes across, but they don't want or cannot afford to bump up the costs by 25% by inviting everyone who might be offended or upset by not being invited - all those plus ones, children, distant relatives.

My dear cousin and her husband have three children but attended my sibling's wedding without them even tho it involved two nights away. I suspect she was a little surprised/ disappointed, but she is far too lovely to say to the happy couple - she even almost came alone when it seemed her husband would have to work. The only person who threw her toys out of the pram was a cousin on the other side who wasn't permitted to bring a new unknown boyfriend. Says it all IMO. :mad:



Plenty of couples don't have the money to be 'generous spirited' in your eyes, not every venue has the space for extras. I only had forty to forty five at the wedding breakfast and there was barely any space in the room for anyone else. Had we invited everyone that convention dictated (plus ones, children, distant relatives) we'd have had to get married somewhere else entirely - the only reason we were allowed to do several things we wanted was because we took over the entire ten bedroom hotel day and night.

So we'd have had a completely different venue or style of day, a buffet not a sit down meal, not written our own vows and had our own ceremony. Or we would have had to miss out close friends or close relatives, to invite someone we didn't want! There was no more money in the kitty, everything was tightly budgeted and we spent half of the average at the time.

Also to be fair we have moved on from the original premise which was plus ones especially those you had not met, not necessarily husbands or wives. Different weddings I have attended have had very different atmospheres, the worst was one with two hundred at the wedding breakfast with plenty of plus ones who didn't or barely knew the bride and bridegroom (including me!). The best were emotional affairs with an absolutely magical atmosphere IMO because every last guest absolutely adored the happy couple. :happylove

Thank you, thank you, thank you :T:T

Brighton_belle

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Different weddings I have attended have had very different atmospheres, the worst was one with two hundred at the wedding breakfast with plenty of plus ones who didn't or barely knew the bride and bridegroom (including me!). The best were emotional affairs with an absolutely magical atmosphere IMO because every last guest absolutely adored the happy couple. :happylove

Totally agree with this: our own small wedding was so special because everyone there really loved us. If it had been twice the size because of unknown husbands and partners, then the amazing atmosphere would have been diluted. My close girlfriends all volunteered to come alone (several not knowing anyone else), without husbands as they knew numbers/money and most importantly, the energy to organise anything bigger were in short supply. That's love to me and that is the sort of friend I would be to another. It wasn't a long all day job though - all done and dusted in 3 hrs. Bliss.

My DH is usually delighted not to have to attend anyone's wedding, let alone someon'es he doesn't know,lol.