Head Tables at Weddings

[DrTomorrow]

First, AlexandNessa, congratulations for taking control of your own life; you decided what was important to you and acted accordingly. Also, if I understand, you only said no to the wedding party, not to attending the wedding.

Disclaimer: My wedding was 23 1/2 years ago, and I was the groom - so this is the opinon of a old married guy . That said, DW (then DF) and I took what appears to be a very unique approach; we took our role as hosts of our wedding reception seriously. From the date and time to the menu, and particularly the seating - we felt that it was our responsibility to the people we invited that they have as good a time as possible. We were younger, and a lot of the wedding party had a spouse/SO/date not in the wedding party, so we did away with the head table - didn't know from 'sweetheart tables' in 1980. I guess that we've never understood the idea that the wedding is "the bride's day" and that everybody else - including the groom - comes second. First of all, its the "bride and groom's day" - I assure you, a wedding truly takes two (two of what I'll leave for the Debate Board ) But more importantly, when you (or your parents, as it was 23 years ago) invite people to an event, you assume the burden of their enjoyment, not the other way around.

So, my take on this is: the bride and groom - as host/ess and chief planners - should be trying to avoid a situation where they put guests in uncomfortable situations; not the other way around. I realize that this goes against the popular notion of the petulant pampered bride who must get her own way; but hey - after 23 years, my DW and I still cuddle every morning and kiss every night, so !

 

[suzannen]

The last three weddings I went to, everyone at the head table had their spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, life partners, etc. sit with them. Everyone had a great time and no one felt excluded. Why the insistence on separating folks? Yes, it's the bride and groom's wedding day, but does that mean that they should not care if their guests (who have spent time and money to come) have a good time?

 

[Minnie824]

If its such an effort for people to attend a wedding, and they complain they spent time and money to go to the wedding, then don't go! People get invited, and can always say no if its such a hassle. I don't think the wedding is just about a bride getting her way, but nowadays, the bride and groom pay for a lot of the wedding out of their own pockets, and I think spending thousands of dollars (for the B&G and/or their parents) to host their own wedding has a lot more say then spending fifty dollars and tank of gas to attend the wedding.

 

[FOJMO]

Originally posted by gina2000
It may be the bride and groom's day, but a wedding isn't just about a bride and groom. I

Um... Yes, it is. If it weren't for the bride and groom, there wouldn't be a wedding to be at.

And as for being an attendant, the definition of the word is "one that attends another to render a service."

That said, an attendant is just that -- to be there to attend to the needs and happiness of the bride/groom and put your feelings, wants, desires, etc. aside for that day.

That's why they chose YOU.

 

[Mishetta]

Said perfectly FOJMO!

 

[jan/cape]

I am a banquet waitress at weddings on weekends. I have seen many variations of a head table and family tables. My favorite is round 'head table(s)' , but I agree with Tinks that the head table is a place of honor. And besides we always serve the head table and family tables first. So there are some definate perks to sitting there as well After the main coarse is eaten and we are lifting plates and getting ready to serve dessert, many of the attendents, even the B&G, get up from the table and move around.
My s.o. was installed as the Exalted Ruler at the club I work at. I got to plan the party for him and all the other officers that night. We knew right away that we didn't want a traditional head table. We chose a round table like everyone elses, but we put it in the center of the room. The seating arrangement worked from the center out, like the hub of a wheel with closest friend and visiting dignitaries closest to us. Family sat with us. It was fun being right in the middle.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the original post, but thought I'd post about head tables

 

[disykat]

Sorry, there are lots of things that make me uncomfortable about weddings. I hate the throwing of the bouquet, the dad "giving away" the bride, the unity candle, secular music at a religious ceremony, full recieving lines and matching bridesmaid dresses... the list could go on and on. I did not do these things at my wedding. However, until I was engaged I went up to catch the bouquet even though I dreaded it, wore matching bridesmaid dresses, stood in recieving lines greeting 300 strangers, and sung secular music during the lighting of a unity candle. It is someone else's day, not mine - so I follow their wishes and try to be supportive. If I just couldn't do it, I'd opt out but realize that I was risking hurt feelings in doing so.

I do not think throwing a wedding gives a bride a right to turn into bridezilla. However, pleasing every guest would be impossible. It is likely that for every guest who is offended by a head table (I don't get those either, but have never been to a wedding where I really noticed there was one!), there will be a guest that is offended that there isn't one. I think the bride and groom should plan what they want. (It is very possible I offended people by leaving some of the "traditional" things out of my wedding - maybe there was someone who was really miffed at not getting to take a leap to grab the bouquet!) While you try to take the guests wants into consideration, there is no way to avoid the possiblility that someone will be uncomfortable with your choices!

The OP couldn't abide by a head table so she refused to sit at one, that's her right. It sounds like she handled it as tactfully as she could and the bride was okay with it. By gracefully allowing her to decline, I believe the bride did her part - she had no obligation to change her wedding plans.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Once again, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, FOJMO, you mis-responded to gina2000's quote. She said "It may be the bride and groom's day, but a wedding isn't just about a bride and groom." You responded, "Um... Yes, it is. If it weren't for the bride and groom, there wouldn't be a wedding to be at." Of course a bride and groom are necessary for a wedding; what gina2000 was pointing out is that a wedding isn't just about a bride and groom. If it was, then a ceremony with just the two before whatever deity/deities they worship would be enough. Once a few dozen - or a few hundred - friends and family are involved, the focus changes - or should change, I believe.

And as for the definition of the word "attendant", ICK! That's disturbingly close the the definition of the word "slave": "a person held in servitude; one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence." When I asked some good friends to be best man / groomsmen, I wanted them there to share the joy I experienced getting married to my soul mate, not a group of zombies who, as FOJMO put it. "attend to the needs and happiness of the bride/groom and put their feelings, wants, desires, etc. aside for that day. " I wanted their feelings to be part of my happy day, not subjugated.

And Mishetta, I'm a little surprised; you said "today's society thinking is: ME, ME, ME! Pretty sad.", yet isn't the bride expecting her friends to forget their own feelings and focus only on the bride the worst case of ME, ME, ME? I guess that DW and I were more hoping for a wedding party that said ALL OF US!

As I said, though, I'll agree to disagree; I have been known to be wrong. I will ask the people in my wedding party - and I'd suggest that other posters ask other wedding parties as well - this question: when DW or I asked them to be in our wedding party, did they feel as if we were expecting them to serve only our needs and happiness and ignore their own? If so, I think DW and I owe them an apology.

 

[binny]

WOW I got GIPPED at my wedding!

I had ONE Bridesmaid my Maid of honour, who didnt do a darn thing, dhs brother, the best man , backed out at the last minute so we got his new BIL ( who we just met, dhs family was all in Canada so we took what we could get), and not only did we not HAVE a head table dh and I werent allowed to sit down the whole time because we were being shuffled around ( seperately I might add) to meet and greet.

I would have been thrilled just to have my friends there and attending but due to circumstances beyond our control only a few of our friends were able to attend, the rest was family.

I think you did the right thing OP You were tactful and to the point and from the sounds of it you handled yourself very well.

I really think that Dr Tomorrow had a good point, this is the brides and grooms day but the couple does bear some responsibility to help her guests enjoy themselves as well.

I wouldnt have been happy if my BF had planned a cruise and I couldnt go because of a friends wedding. Of course thats just MHO and I got through MUCH worse at my wedding and still managed to have a wonderful day with those that could attend.

Whats the big deal anyway? She made her point, the bride is obviously fine with it and was able to fit her into the wedding and all are pleased.

Happy ending.

 

[~Sparkly~Zoe]

Boy this thread makes me happy that we had eloped! (I didn't have to worry about any of this stuff!)

 

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by binny
Whats the big deal anyway? She made her point, the bride is obviously fine with it and was able to fit her into the wedding and all are pleased.
Happy ending.

Um, good point binny! Guess that just about ends this.

 

[binny]

that's me DT thread killler extrodonaire

 

[FOJMO]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
Guess that just about ends this.

Hold on there... not so easy...
Dr. Tomorrow - I did not "mis-respond" to gina2000 -- it IS JUST about the bride and groom. When someone (in this case, the bride and groom) invite you to something, be it a wedding or a birthday party, you accept their invitation as a GUEST. It is THEIR party. You do what is on THEIR agenda and play by THEIR rules. If not, you do not accept the invitation.

The focus never changes. It is ALWAYS about the honoree, bride/groom, graduate, baby being christened, birthday person, etc. etc. They are inviting you to SHARE in their happiness -- not to cater to yours and every guests whims and wishes.

As for the definition for the word "attendant" -- take it up with Merriam-Webster Dictionary -- I didn't make it up myself.

Of course, you don't treat them as slaves, but you should be expected to have them attend to you. That's why you asked them to be your "attendants". There ARE duties/responsibilities attached to this position. Just as you would ask someone to be your child's Godmother or Godfather -- they should be the ones to help your child spiritually.

People lose sight of what they are actually there for. Everyone at your wedding is your witness. You are not just there for a good time. Yes, of course, you should enjoy yourself, but just as the bride and groom need to focus on how serious this day is, you need to free them of all the little details that may prevent them from focusing on what they are actually doing.

Bottom line -- they are depending on you. They are not holding you as a slave to do their bidding.

And I won't be so presumptuous as to declare this thread ended...

 

[KathyTX]

The most unpleasant wedding memory I have is related to the head table at my BILs wedding.

DH and his other siblings were all in the wedding party. DH and I had been married 2 years, had driven over 1000 miles to the wedding, and I was pregnant.

The wedding party sat at the head table. There was also a "parents' table", where my inlaws sat. Everyone I knew was at one of these tables. I was seated with some distant members of the bride's family, who talked with each other but were not friendly to me.

The bride insisted on the attendants sitting at the head table for most of the night, and had them dance only with each other. DH was torn because he knew I was miserable and lonely, but went along so as not to make waves. So I sat at a table of strangers, feeling uncomfortable and fat, while DH danced with a skinny young single girl. What great fun.

Thank goodness we were staying at the same hotel as the reception. After a while I just excused myself and went to our room, alone. But not as alone as I was at that reception!

Yes, this day is a celebration of the union of the bride and groom. That does not mean that hospitality and consideration for the feelings of your guests should be ignored.

 

[Mishetta]

Once again, I have to applaud FOJMO's post. (Wish I could come up with those words!)

As she tries to prolong this thread.....

 

[RUDisney]

it IS JUST about the bride and groom. When someone (in this case, the bride and groom) invite you to something, be it a wedding or a birthday party, you accept their invitation as a GUEST. It is THEIR party. You do what is on THEIR agenda and play by THEIR rules. If not, you do not accept the invitation.

I think Kathy said it best, "Yes, this day is a celebration of the union of the bride and groom. That does not mean that hospitality and consideration for the feelings of your guests should be ignored."

When I throw a party, I am conscious about the food that I am serving, so that I have what everyone would like... not just what I like. I make sure that I have good wine, beer and an assortment of mixed drinks and soft drinks so everyone is happy. I'll ask everyone if everything is ok or if I can get them anything.

When I go to a party, I assume that the hosts have taken these same things into consideration, so that I am as comfortable and happy as they are. I'd only have to go to one party where the hosts have an agenda from which no one can deviate, or rules that they want to make everyone follow, to know that I don't want to go to another one of their parties.

People lose sight of what they are actually there for. Everyone at your wedding is your witness. You are not just there for a good time.

I always thought that the witnesses of the wedding were the attendants, specifically the MOH and the BM. I have always been under the impression that if I am invited to a wedding to be their guest and to have fun. I didn't know that I had a job at every wedding that I ever attended.

 

[ChibiJones]

Boy this thread makes me happy that we had eloped! (I didn't have to worry about any of this stuff!)

This is on my list of reason why we're eloping.

My sister is getting married next March & the further she gets in her wedding planning the stronger that resolve becomes. Sometimes being 3000 miles away from my family isn't a bad thing. I'm missing all the battles between her & my mom.

 

[disykat]

Dr. Tomorrow, I hate to tell you that there were probably some people who were inconvenienced by your wedding. Maybe the expense of attending, wearing appropriate clothes, a gift etc. was a hardship. Maybe one of the bridesmaids spent the day worrying she looked fat in her dress. Maybe someone had to cancel a previous appointment. Maybe someone wasn't feeling their best that day and had to paste a smile on their face and make the best of it. Maybe the church was too hot/cold. Maybe you married outside and their allergies were terrible. Your guests loved you and they were willing to work around their personal needs and attend your special day - and probably loved being there - I think that is wonderful.

I just find it hard to believe that my personal comfort/discomfort is more important than the most important day in someone's life. I got married during the Christmas season, which was hard on my brother since he worked retail. He understood though that doing it on a day when me and dh could both be there was more important than his presence. He managed to make it there at some personal sacrifice. He used to tease me that he was getting married at a nudist colony to pay me back. I told him that was fine - I'd strip naked and be there!

 

[SilverLily]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
when DW or I asked them to be in our wedding party, did they feel as if we were expecting them to serve only our needs and happiness and ignore their own? If so, I think DW and I owe them an apology.

I guess this is what I don't get. Is the couple really expecting their attendants to "serve only our needs and happiness and ignore their own" just because they have a head table and someone may have to be separated from their SO during dinner? I think that is being a bit dramatic. I'm sure most couples choose a head table thinking that it is the best arrangement, not because they want to suck all the happiness out of their attendants. Give me a break!

 

[DrTomorrow]

BLINDING FLASH OF INSIGHT!

You're right, FOJMO - I suddenly see that there is more to this thread.

I now see a large confusion between wedding ceremony and reception. I'll agree with you 100% that a wedding ceremony is all about - and mostly only about (except for the 'gathered here together' part) the bride and groom. Some invited guests have roles and responsibilities (MOH - bridal train, ring bearer, flower girl, father of the bride (or surregate) ) that must be adhered to. This is a serious event (although I feel that a little humor is sometimes appropriate) and those participating are there to facilitate the wedding. FOJMO - DrT. in agreement!

On the other hand, a reception is a celebratory gathering - I guess this is where we part ways. I just have a different understanding of the host-guest relationship. When I invite someone to my house, it is my job to attend to their needs; food, drink, entertainment - that's what a host does. And, if you look at it, that is what a bride and groom do: arrange for the hall, the food, the bar, the entertainment - the guest shows up, gives a gift and clinks the glasses to force a kiss. A wedding reception is NOT a serious event where the guests have the onus to bear witness, and I've never seen a bride or groom who felt that they 'depended' on their guests at a reception, except for trivialites like holding keys or some such.

I guess that I don't see a wedding reception, or a birthday party in the same terms as asking someone to take spiritual responsibility for the life of a child.

There's just something creepy about saying that a bride and groom invite guests to their reception in order to free the B&G from all the little details - isn't that what you hire people to do?