Bad Manners and Brimstone
General Etiquette => Weddings => Topic started by: gellchom on October 02, 2019, 02:53:57 pm
-
Carolyn Hax's column yesterday (second question) includes at least two issues we often discuss: last-minute invitations when someone cancels, and inviting only one spouse to a wedding.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/advice/mother-in-laws-silent-treatment-calls-for-new-strategy/2019/10/01/38faf364-e14d-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html
Now, usually, we frown on both those things -- many people call such an invitation a "B List" invitation, and everyone knows the rule that you have to invite both spouses to occasions like weddings.
But here's what happened: the LO's sister-in-law (apparently his wife's sister) was invited to a wedding of the daughter of a friend with a "plus one," but shortly before the wedding, the plus-one had to cancel. The LW and his wife bumped into the MOB someplace, and the MOB asked the wife if she would like to attend the wedding as her sister's plus-one. The LW is outraged -- how dare the MOB invite a wife without her husband? And what business is it of hers to choose the plus-one?
I think this was fine, and that the LW is being silly and a spoilsport (it seems his wife does, too). This is obviously not a case of inviting only one half of a couple as a slight to the other. As his wife pointed out to him, she was only being invited to accompany her sister, whose date could no longer make it, to her friend's child's wedding. Ditto the last minute invitation: these people know they are not inner-circle, and a space opened up, and the MOB offered it to the invited sister's sister.
It doesn't say, but I would assume that either the original invitation was not a bring-any-date plus-one situation, but rather a SO of the invited guest, and that the MOB knew that the guest was not planning on bringing someone else when the SO couldn't make it. (The letter was written by the husband, so I would resolve any ambiguity in his own telling in favor of the MOB.)
I imagine that the MOB knows the rules about invitations, but that she had an empty place and was just trying to be nice to both sisters. Certainly I don't think there is anything for the LW to be getting bent out of shape over.
I agree with Hax's answer.
-
Well it made things awkward in any case! I don't think that it was meant as a terrible slight, but it doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
-
It's not a slight, and it's not a B-list.
It's the bride allowing the original guest to change who her plus-one is, and indicating that she would approve of a substitution.
-
It's not a slight, and it's not a B-list.
It's the bride allowing the original guest to change who her plus-one is, and indicating that she would approve of a substitution.
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
-
It's not a slight, and it's not a B-list.
It's the bride allowing the original guest to change who her plus-one is, and indicating that she would approve of a substitution.
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
Bold above is my thought, exactly. The MOB took it upon herself to invite a +1 for someone else.
That, in my opinion, is what's wrong with the situation which I think Hax should have addressed.
-
I don't see it as a big deal, myself, though I'd check with my sister to see if she wanted me to accompany her, before accepting. The husband is a bit of a pill, I think.
However, I do think the MOB erred a bit here. She should have approached the invited sister and let her know that it was OK for her to bring someone else, in place of her original date. And said something like 'Perhaps your sister would like to come with you?' Then it is up to the invitee to decide what to do. And if she'd like to invite someone other than her sister, then it is up to her to clear it with the MOB.
I was invited to a wedding, with a plus-one. I wasn't dating anyone at the time and planned to go solo. But the bride said to me that I could just bring a friend, if I wanted. So I invited a friend who also knew the bride, and let the bride know who my 'date' was.
-
I don't have a problem with the jest of the idea of the sister accompanying her sister to the wedding. It is the execution that was done poorly. MOB should not have extended the invitation to the wife in front of the husband knowing he was being excluded (though she may have thought he'd feel like my husband and be happy to be excluded).
Instead MOB should have called her friend after and suggested she invite her sister to join her.
Technically, it is always impolite to extend an invitation to one half of a couple to a couple social event. It is also rude to extend an invitation to an individual in the presence of another who could have the expectation of being included.
-
Oh, I'd missed that--that the MOB made the offer to the not-invited sister.
yeah, that was not good form.
But I think the husband is overreacting.
-
It's not a slight, and it's not a B-list.
It's the bride allowing the original guest to change who her plus-one is, and indicating that she would approve of a substitution.
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
From the response, it seems it was the wife's sister, so the LW's [husband's] sister-in-law, if that makes a difference.
I've been to a wedding as a plus one [and my (then) partner was not invited] on my cousin's invite, and I've taken my cousin as a plus on [instead of my (then) partner], and we were both just happy to go to a nice wedding of someone we knew less (than the invited cousin). Neither of our partners was interested in going.
I think the LW was successful in finding something to be offended about, but that's only my take - I like weddings, whereas most blokes I know don't!
-
They ran into the MOB by chance. It sounds to me like it was an impromptu thought on the part of MOB and she acted upon it. I don't see it as a faux pas but rather as a generous offer. LW's wife can accept or decline, but blowing it up into an offense seems silly to me.
-
I agree with Hmmm, the execution was off. My husband would be a little irritated by this, honestly. First, he's a quality time person so an invitation during "prime time" (I'm assuming this is a weekend evening) that he was excluded from might irk him. Second, inviting just one spouse of a married couple would annoy him too. But, it's "irk" and "annoy" he wouldn't be so bent out of shape about it as to write to an advice column. In the end, he'd encourage me to go with my sister and have a nice evening, but MOB wouldn't be his favorite person.
I further agree that the answer was for the MOB to contact SIL to extend the plus one to LW's wife. The asking in front of him added insult to injury. It was a third strike so to speak.
MOB didn't think before she spoke. She saw LW's wife and thought, "Wouldn't it be great if...?" and spoke too soon. She seems generous and enthusiastic while lacking a good filter, but I suspect they know that about her.
-
I thought about this forum when I read this letter.
1. I feel MOB kind of overstepped bounds. What if relations between the 2 sisters is a little strained right now due to an unrelated issue? What if Sis had already asked someone else altogether to fill in as her plus one?
2. I also feel that it might have been a little awkward for the LW to stand there as his wife was invited and he was ignored.
3. Even though it was awkward for LW, I also think he is acting put out. Okay, it happened, and you probably felt a little embarrassed. But you sound childish in your letter.
-
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
Not necessarily.
If the original invitation literally just said 'plus one', meaning 'any random person you like to bring, even if it's a casual date who we don't know from Adam', then yes, if the guest's first choice cancels, logically they are entitled to pick another random person. But very often in this kind of discussion 'plus one' is used as a catch-all term for 'guests' significant others, whatever their legal status'. If this was the case here, and the invitation was actually sent to 'X and Y, your steady boyfriend who we only vaguely know', then if it turned out that Y couldn't make it, X would have been very wrong indeed to take it on herself to choose a substitute herself.
We don't know (and most likely neither did the offended husband) what the terms of the original invitation were. I agree that it wasn't the MOB's business to choose a substitute - and for all we know the bride promptly chewed her out for her well-meant interference! But if the HC themselves had suggested it, I don't see anything wrong with that, and the husband's indignation on that count is uncalled-for.
-
Anyone else have a DH/SO/partner that would be very, very happy to not be invited. Mr. S would be saying 'go ahead, please, I'll stay home and sleep'.
-
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
Not necessarily.
If the original invitation literally just said 'plus one', meaning 'any random person you like to bring, even if it's a casual date who we don't know from Adam', then yes, if the guest's first choice cancels, logically they are entitled to pick another random person. But very often in this kind of discussion 'plus one' is used as a catch-all term for 'guests' significant others, whatever their legal status'. If this was the case here, and the invitation was actually sent to 'X and Y, your steady boyfriend who we only vaguely know', then if it turned out that Y couldn't make it, X would have been very wrong indeed to take it on herself to choose a substitute herself.
I agree with this.
If you are invited with a spouse or partner, you don't get to just decide to substitute someone.
And a host also gets to say, "Oh, if you would like to bring your sister, that would be great." The host can restrict whom you can extend their invitation to.
(Of course, saying "bring your sister" may just highlight that the sister wasn't invited in the first place. But if the sister wasn't expecting an invite, it might be OK. I'd be happy to be included like that for my sister's friend's wedding. I know the friend and care about her, but I'm not close the way my sister is.)
-
I'm guessing MOB is close enough to SIL to know that she (SIL) has a pretty good relationship with her sister (the LW's wife). And it also sounds like MOB has met LW's wife on previous occasions. If my assumptions are correct, I don't think it was a big deal of MOB to invite LW's wife to the wedding as SIL's 'plus-one'. And I also think LW is being a kind of pill about it all.
-
But the invited guest didn't decide on inviting the new plus-one, the MOB did. Maybe the SIL didn't want to go with the LW's wife. I have a lot of SIL's, and some are fun, some not so much. I think that it should be left to the originally invited person to pick her plus one.
Not necessarily.
If the original invitation literally just said 'plus one', meaning 'any random person you like to bring, even if it's a casual date who we don't know from Adam', then yes, if the guest's first choice cancels, logically they are entitled to pick another random person. But very often in this kind of discussion 'plus one' is used as a catch-all term for 'guests' significant others, whatever their legal status'. If this was the case here, and the invitation was actually sent to 'X and Y, your steady boyfriend who we only vaguely know', then if it turned out that Y couldn't make it, X would have been very wrong indeed to take it on herself to choose a substitute herself.
Well, Miss Manners doesn't agree with this. She says that if you want specific people there, you invite them *by name.* So, instead of giving your friend a "plus one" invitation, you invite them with their partners, if you know they have any. Using "Jenny + One" when you know that your friend Jenny has been dating Jackie exclusively for a year is just being lazy.
She further said that if you do give a "+one" invitation to anyone, you have abdicate *any* say in who your guest brings. If you wanted them to bring a specific person, you should have told them.
-
I agree. I always thought a +1 on an invitation meant that you could bring whomever you wanted to bring.
If in a couple situation then the SO should be named along with address on the envelope.
-
Plus 1 allows you to bring whomever you like to the wedding, up and until you RSVP with your plus 1's name. If you have already given the happy couple your Plus 1's information, if they now can't make the event, you don't get to just slide someone in there without the happy couple's OK.
If one of the two specifically invited people in a couple can't make it, the remaining person also isn't free to just add someone without OKing it with the happy couple.
If it was either of these two scenarios, I think the MIL was OK but should have let the invited sister know that it was fine to bring the LW's wife as her guest, in place of her plus 1 that can't attend.
If she was invited with a plus 1 and had not yet sent her RSVP, even if they expected her to bring her long term boyfriend, they can't object if she chooses to bring someone else.
Regardless of the circumstances, the LW is more than a bit full of himself.
-
Well, Miss Manners doesn't agree with this.
Actually she does, because she was saying the same thing as me! As I said, we simply don't know - and almost certainly the aggrieved husband didn't know either - whether his SIL's invitation had identified her 'plus one' by name or not.
-
Well, Miss Manners doesn't agree with this.
Actually she does, because she was saying the same thing as me! As I said, we simply don't know - and almost certainly the aggrieved husband didn't know either - whether his SIL's invitation had identified her 'plus one' by name or not.
I believe what Twik was stating is use of "Ms Sharon Stone & Guest" is not appropriate per Miss Manners on formal invitations. All guests should be invited by name. If you have a single guest and want to allow them to invite a partner, you contact them and ask whom you should include on the guest list and obtain that person's address. I know this rule well because my DH was forced by his mom (I stayed out of the argument) to contact about 10 frat brothers to find out if they wanted to bring a date and if they did, the name of the date. He was not pleased. But it also kept down the random stranger at our wedding. We had seen a couple of these guys meet a girl one weekend and drag her to a wedding the next and then we'd never see her again. If the guy didn't know the name of his "date" 8 weeks before the event, you can be pretty sure it's not a committed relationship.
-
I agree. I always thought a +1 on an invitation meant that you could bring whomever you wanted to bring.
If in a couple situation then the SO should be named along with address on the envelope.
I agree, though often in conversation about the issue, people will use the term "plus-one" to mean "allowed to bring a date" even if that is restricted to a specific person, just because it's shorter.
but if the name is on the invite, then you don't get to switch (and if you know the person you should put it on).
-
My point was that "plus-one" quite often gets used to refer to what one might call secondary guests: the people you aren't close enough to to invite in their own right, but are being invited because they are married or otherwise attached to people who you are close to.
As in: suppose I were getting married and was inviting all my first cousins along with their spouses, live-in partners, steady boy/girlfriends - some of whom I know very well, some only a bit, and others who I only know by name. I'd put these people's names on the invitations - I'm old-school enough never to send invitations to "you and a guest" - but when discussing numbers, working out the table plans, and stuff like that, I'd say things like "We could put my cousins and their plus-ones on table 4 along with yours' and just using that phrase certainly wouldn't imply that if my cousin Sukey's husband couldn't come she was at liberty to decide to bring someone else!
So we don't know, and from the published letter it's very possible the aggrieved writer didn't know either, how the invitation was worded and whether his SIL had the right to choose a substitute guest for herself or not. So that whole line of discussion is a red herring.