Is it ok for a dad not to be sat at top table?(wedding related)

Pearlstar

I just wonder if the Mum and her partner have paid toward the wedding and Dad hasn't?

mountainofdebt

Pearlstar wrote: »

I just wonder if the Mum and her partner have paid toward the wedding and Dad hasn't?

In fairness to the OP she said they were giving the happy couple a contribution to the costs tonight

Person_one

meritaten wrote: »

I was brought up in a bygone age when etiquette was merely a way of doing things in a certain way, which offended nobody, as everyone 'knew' the rules.

Old fashioned etiquette doesn't account for this situation. It says that parents should be at the top table, but also that couples should be seated together. It wasn't written in a world where step families are as common as they are now!

Counting_Pennies_2

campercomper wrote: »

For those asking who has contributed what to the cost of the wedding - seriously what has that got to do with the top table layout? for example if my partner came from a rich family who pay for the whole wedding - does that mean my "poor" family cant sit at top table because they didn't pay a contribution?? WISE UP!!
If your partner is close to his son then why is he not at top table but the ex wife's new partner is?? If it is to do with space issues he should have his mum+dad minus new partners. I would be fuming.

I wonder if people are asking if the ex wife has had a hand in the arrangements and perhaps she has put in a bigger contribution?


That shouldn't make a difference in my opinion, but I am aware it does sway others decisions.


We didn't have any relatives problems but we chose to have round tables, including the top table so everyone could talk to one another I think that would be a good way to resolve it.


I wonder if the ex wife's new partner has made a fuss and they want to be together. So the easiest thing was to do that arrangement.


If you did feel inclined you could suggest a round table and putting everyone on it.


Perhaps though, take it as a fantastic opportunity for you both to sit with other guests you will get on with and have a good catch up. If the son is very close with his father, this will not affect the relationship, but raising it as an issue might

Bella73

campercomper wrote: »

For those asking who has contributed what to the cost of the wedding - seriously what has that got to do with the top table layout? for example if my partner came from a rich family who pay for the whole wedding - does that mean my "poor" family cant sit at top table because they didn't pay a contribution?? WISE UP!!
If your partner is close to his son then why is he not at top table but the ex wife's new partner is?? If it is to do with space issues he should have his mum+dad minus new partners. I would be fuming.

I think people are asking because if in the case of OP Mum has put in a lot more than Dad then Mum might put in pressure with decision making. Nit saying they have but it does happen be it right or wrong.

We didn't have an official top table at our wedding but then we had a buffet and the only people on the top table if you want to call it that we my husband at myself. Anyone else just stepped forward if they wanted to say anything. Saved lots of hassle as our guests all sat where and with whom they wanted.

Saint_Chris

It doesn't matter who paid how much and how little.


It's just wrong.


And I'm guessing his dad will be really upset, if it was my dad I know he would be crumbling inside.


If your all so close, maybe you could just have a word with his son.

Fluff15

Maybe the venue only had space for x number of people at the top table, and when it came to seating the son thought his dad would be the most easy going being put on another table seated with his partner, rather than splitting them up and putting the OP next to people she wasn't familiar with. And being a son, who may have little experience of wedding etiquette, wouldn't have seen anything malicious behind it.

At the last wedding I went to, the grooms parents weren't at the top table simply because there wasn't enough room. They sat on the table closest to the top table, and were happy with this. The only way you're going to find out OP, is to get Dad to ask his son. Don't take it as a snub if they already have a good relationship, I'm sure it's just an oversight.

lindabelle66

My daughter got married 2 years ago., her Dad and I were seperated and divorce pending at the time.

There was no top table, only round ones and my Daughter and her then fiancee paid for most of the wedding and decided that as my ex had given her away, he would sit on the same table as them, i had no issues with this, and my new partner and i were seated a suitable distance away so my ex and him didnt cross paths.

Linda

Mrs_Soup

I would expect the top table to either include both the mum and dad (with or without their new partners) or to have neither. It is not uncommon these days for each set of parents to not sit at the top table but to "host" another table each instead.
I would also suggest that your partner speak to his son about it.

Mojisola

mountainofdebt wrote: »

I agree it does seem an odd situation especially as everyone seems to get on with each other.

I'm just wondering if its a case of whoever did the seating plan looked at the traditional way of doing it and decided OP and partner wouldn't mind sitting off top table.

If that's the case, it would have been polite to have a word with Dad and explain.

If Dad hadn't been told by his ex, there could have been a very difficult moment at the wedding with Dad heading for the top table and having to be ushered off to one side.