"May my wife accompany me?"

[wvjules]

Remember, unless I am mistaken, the OP did decide to extend the invitation to these spouses.

OP, I hope your celebration is just fantastic!!!!

Just a PS: the above poster, one might want to be careful about any assumptions. I certainly do not have any problem with checking with the host if you really feel that maybe the spouse is invited. But, I wouldn't want to be considered rude by having anyone show up if there was any confusion.

I made no assumptions. I asked a direct question.

 

[cheermom1]

So it is good etiquette to call up the hostess and ask if you allowed to bring a guest? I think that breaches etiquette protocol as well.

YES it is if the invitation is confusing which in this case it is! I would rather have someone call me than to assume and just show up with a guest! HELLO

 

[wvjules]

YES it is if the invitation is confusing which in this case it is! I would rather have someone call me than to assume and just show up with a guest! HELLO

How is it confusing? If name + guest isn't on the invite then +guest isn't invited.

 

[Wishing on a star]

So it is good etiquette to call up the hostess and ask if you allowed to bring a guest? I think that breaches etiquette protocol as well.

Nope, IMHO I have no problem with calling a 'friend' to clarify the details of the invitation or the event.

And, no matter how you try to apply semantics.
I fail to see how this celebration, thrown by the wife, including family and friends, can begin to be construed as a 'work' or even 'professional' event.

 

[Wishing on a star]

How is it confusing? If name + guest isn't on the invite then +guest isn't invited.

No matter...
I can tell you that if I received an invite from a 'friend' to a 'social' event, i would indeed be confused about why my husband might have been missed on the invitation.

I would wonder if such a thing could have been an oversight or accident.

 

[design_mom]

OP -- I think the way you ended up handling it with the revised invites was a good way to go.

As far as whether spouses were invited or not:
-- If it was a formal invitation with only one name on the inner envelope, then I would have assumed that only the person whose name was written was invited, but if it was a less formal invite (no inner envelope/no "dear ___" written on the invitation) I probably would have been confused about who was invited. Just because only one name was on the mailing envelope, I would not necessarily assume that only the addressee was invited.
-- I think it would be rude to call a hostess and ask to bring a guest if you know guests weren't invited, but I don't think it's rude to clarify the details of the invitation if they weren't clear.
-- I do not have a big problem with the hostess only inviting co-workers (and not spouses), but if the invitation wasn't clear about exactly who was invited, I would be confused... And I might call... And then it would be up to the hostess to say "I'm sorry, no spouses" or "sure, I meant spouses too." I'd feel bad if I embarrassed the hostess, but...

 

[chloelovesdisney]

Still so much hostility for something that has already been solved. Odd.

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

What are you going to do about those that show up and bring their spouse or whomever because they would just assume that it was okay? I wouldn't think twice about bringing my DH. Did you specifically word it that guests weren't allowed on the invites? I think you've gotten yourself into a heap of a mess here with this one. You could always say that is spouses wish to attend they can pay for themselves... in a better way than that, of course.

I think many will just bring a spouse.......
Why would anyone question a spouse at a party?

The OP needs to understand that's going to happen & have the cash ready....

 

[MiniGirl]

No matter...
I can tell you that if I received an invite from a 'friend' to a 'social' event, i would indeed be confused about why my husband might have been missed on the invitation.

I would wonder if such a thing could have been an oversight or accident.

I would not think it was an oversight. Call me old school, but you put the names of those invited on the invitation. If you don't know the other person's name, then you add "and guest." If I received an invitation with only my name, I would assume I am the only one invited -- not DH and not my kids.

Also, if this was someone I knew only from work, I would consider it a work-related event -- regardless of the occassion. I'm not sying this to be argumentative. Many of you disagree and that's fine. I just am pointing out that not everyone thinks the same way. Obviously, many of you do mix work and business. Great, but please accept that not everyone else does. Again, if we didn't socialize outside of the workplace, I would consider any event, even a wedding, a work event.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Also, if this was someone I knew only from work, I would consider it a work-related event.

Where you originally met the person is not what defines the event.
The host and the guest list define the event.
The host is the wife.
The event is a celebration that includes family and friends.

And, remember these invitees are not coworkers.
There is no other way to invite them except as 'friends'.

We can disagree, and one can slice and dice and justify any way they wish.
But I find zero, yes zero, grounds to classify this as a work, or even 'professional' event.

And, to top all of this off.
I would imagine that even under 'professional' work protocol, if most guest are invited with a spouse or plus-one, then ALL should be invited with a spouse or plus-one.

If there is a company Picnic or Christmas party, either ALL should have the invitation to include the spouses, or none.
One shouldn't exclude spouses from, for example, the accounting department, or John and James and Mark, because hey, we don't really know their spouses anyway...
The very thought is ridiculous.

IMHO, there is just no rational argument under any acceptable rules of etiquette that a select group of spouses are excluded while the majority will have their spouses welcomed.

Really, it is just inconceivable to me.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Okay, I am going to break with chatboard etiquette and put this in all caps... For the umpteenth time

THESE ARE NOT COWORKERS...

Here, from the OP herself

The past coworkers that I invited are very good friends with my husband. They still get together regularly for dinners, parties, etc.

The moment one continues to socialize with past co-workers, they can only be considered as 'friends'.

To anyone who can justify excluding these spouses, while other spouses are invited, my only reaction can be.

 

[ChristmasElf]

I have a question I was hoping you guys might be able to help me with. I am throwing a big surprise graduation party for my husband who is getting his doctorate this spring. In addition to inviting friends and family I also invited coworkers of his from all of his past jobs, and his present job. About 45 coworkers were invited. In all I am expecting about 100 people. I did not include significant others of the coworkers, unless he was friends with both people. I did this mainly because the function hall can't accommodate many more people (120 limit). Plus, it is costing me $30 per person, and if the 45 coworkers turned into 90 coworkers I couldn't afford it! Was that rude of me?

Coworkers are now beginning to ask if they can bring guests. I'm afraid if I say "No" to the people who ask, they won't bring guests. I know there will be some people there who won't ask but will still bring guests and that wouldn't be fair to the people who asked. Plus, I hate to just say "No." Or should I tell people that I would need to wait and see how many people RSVP because we are almost at the room limit? But that seems awkward and complicated.

Not sure what to do. Any suggestions?

If you already sent out the invites, plan on the majority wanting to bring their spouse. Maybe you could either change the location or see if the venue has a larger room?

So, just start over! Re think your costs by revamping the menu to just finger foods like a fruit platter, cheese trays, a pasta dish or two, swedish meatballs,chicken fingers with a dipping sauce, and salads.

Cake and Punch
Maybe a bar with beer and a wine choice

This will lower your per person cost overall enabling you to accomodate more people.

 

[cheermom1]

Where you originally met the person is not what defines the event.
The host and the guest list define the event.
The host is the wife.
The event is a celebration that includes family and friends.

And, remember these invitees are not coworkers.
There is no other way to invite them except as 'friends'.

We can disagree, and one can slice and dice and justify any way they wish.
But I find zero, yes zero, grounds to classify this as a work, or even 'professional' event.

And, to top all of this off.
I would imagine that even under 'professional' work protocol, if most guest are invited with a spouse or plus-one, then ALL should be invited with a spouse or plus-one.

If there is a company Picnic or Christmas party, either ALL should have the invitation to include the spouses, or none.
One shouldn't exclude spouses from, for example, the accounting department, or John and James and Mark, because hey, we don't really know their spouses anyway...
The very thought is ridiculous.

IMHO, there is just no rational argument under any acceptable rules of etiquette that a select group of spouses are excluded while the majority will have their spouses welcomed.

Really, it is just inconceivable to me.

You are not alone. I don;t understand how anyone can take this any other way except the way you take it as well. This is a social event and I am still confused as how someone or anyone can think it is ok to invite some spouses and purposely exclude others.

By the op's own admittances theses are friends and not just co workers. And again for those who can't read this has nothing to do with being joined at the hip but rather the norm tells us that events like this normally include BOTH spouses!!! Which is why a lot of people were calling her to clarify!!! DUH!

 

[Disneycrazy!!]

If I was invited but my spouse wasn't than i wouldnt attend. My husband would do the same.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Still so much hostility for something that has already been solved. Odd.

AMEN. This is beyond crazy, even for this board. I hope the OP doesn't return and read all the comments calling her very rude and breaching this and that. She is trying to do a nice thing for her DH. The whole gang mentality on here is upsetting to me and I'm not even involved! I mean, she resolved it like 5 pages ago. Who is it that has the signature about beating a dead horse? It applies here like no other thread I have ever read.
OP, have fun, don't stress. You are a great wife! Oh, and if you are reading this, I would change the title of the thread to something like "Issue resolved, thanks for your input" Maybe that will help people realize that you no longer need their advice concerning this matter.

 

[wvjules]

AMEN. This is beyond crazy, even for this board. I hope the OP doesn't return and read all the comments calling her very rude and breaching this and that. She is trying to do a nice thing for her DH. The whole gang mentality on here is upsetting to me and I'm not even involved! I mean, she resolved it like 5 pages ago. Who is it that has the signature about beating a dead horse? It applies here like no other thread I have ever read.
OP, have fun, don't stress. You are a great wife! Oh, and if you are reading this, I would change the title of the thread to something like "Issue resolved, thanks for your input" Maybe that will help people realize that you no longer need their advice concerning this matter.

I think we've moved beyond the OP and are discussing it further. lol

I don't know why some are so worked up over this though. Yelling, condescending, repeating...yea I get what you are saying however it is possible that *I* disagree. No need for the bold, caps, etc.

BTW, FTR, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. lol

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

I think we've moved beyond the OP and are discussing it further. lol

I don't know why some are so worked up over this though. Yelling, condescending, repeating...yea I get what you are saying however it is possible that *I* disagree. No need for the bold, caps, etc.

BTW, FTR, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. lol

Who would have thought this would turn out to be such a heated discussion!

I don't really have an opinion either, I just thought it was crazy for this to continue with all the hostility. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Well, what would the DIS be without all of the drama!!!!

Were just keeping it exciting around here!!!!


Just to explain, the reason that I have repeated and resorted to breaking with chatboard etiquette and used some all-caps was because, it seems that, all this far into the thread, there does still seem to be some confusion.

Some posters are still saying 'work' 'coworkers', etc...

Some posters still do not seem to be aware that the OP did decide to update her invitation to include the spouses.
( Which would make posts by those who think that she shouldn't seem to be unwarranted negative personal disagreement )

One may say that they disagree with the statement 2 + 2 = 4. But, just like this example, I do not see how ones 'opinion' can change established facts. Ones disagreement does not mean that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is 'wrong'.

Hopefully the OP is getting a real kick out of all this hullaballoo!!!!

I know her party will be just fabulous!

And, congratulations!

 

[cheermom1]

Well, what would the DIS be without all of the drama!!!!

Were just keeping it exciting around here!!!!


Just to explain, the reason that I have repeated and resorted to breaking with chatboard etiquette and used some all-caps was because, it seems that, all this far into the thread, there does still seem to be some confusion.

Some posters are still saying 'work' 'coworkers', etc...

Some posters still do not seem to be aware that the OP did decide to update her invitation to include the spouses.
( Which would make posts by those who think that she shouldn't seem to be unwarranted negative personal disagreement )

One may say that they disagree with the statement 2 + 2 = 4. But, just like this example, I do not see how ones 'opinion' can change established facts. Ones disagreement does not mean that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is 'wrong'.

Hopefully the OP is getting a real kick out of all this hullaballoo!!!!

I know her party will be just fabulous!

And, congratulations!

Exactly you can disagree till the cows come home that 2+2=4 but it doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4 period! And this is what this was all about, the facts have not changed and people are still disagreeing

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Well, what would the DIS be without all of the drama!!!!

Were just keeping it exciting around here!!!!


Just to explain, the reason that I have repeated and resorted to breaking with chatboard etiquette and used some all-caps was because, it seems that, all this far into the thread, there does still seem to be some confusion.

Some posters are still saying 'work' 'coworkers', etc...

Some posters still do not seem to be aware that the OP did decide to update her invitation to include the spouses.
( Which would make posts by those who think that she shouldn't seem to be unwarranted negative personal disagreement )

One may say that they disagree with the statement 2 + 2 = 4. But, just like this example, I do not see how ones 'opinion' can change established facts. Ones disagreement does not mean that the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is 'wrong'.

Hopefully the OP is getting a real kick out of all this hullaballoo!!!!

I know her party will be just fabulous!

And, congratulations!

I see both sides of the argument, and I do agree that it is probably mainly considered a social function. I really do hope everything is a huge success. She seems like a really caring wife, her DH is lucky to have her!