Many blogs pick names based on their focus ([or at least their authors do it for them -- ed.]), which leads to names like Language Log, Semantic Compositions, and AndrewSullivan.com (SC takes a back seat to nobody in his appreciation of AS, except for the man himself). Lately, your host could understand if readers feel that he should change this site to be Wedding Bells ([how about "Ding Dong""? -- ed.]), and he'll get off of it soon, really, he promises, but he has to bring this up.
D.F. Moore writes of not being invited to bring dates to weddings. I had intended to merely defend the right of the couple to not do so, but ended up bringing a whole host of references into it, and it turned into a post-length comment (as Dan noted in his gracious reply). Therefore, even though it's very much off-topic, my comments (minus some material relevant only in context) are reprinted below. If you feel like seeing them in toto, as well as Dan's reply, go here.
My wife and I were married in a synagogue, and held the reception there as well. It wasn't in a nightmarishly expensive area like Beverly Hills, although we did investigate that possibility as well, so what follows goes double if we had. The economics go something like this:Band or DJ: $2k at the low end, but more like $5k for a decent band
Photographer: $2-3k depending on photos ordered
Videographer: similar to photographer
Facility fee: anywhere from $1k for a religious setting at a place in a non-expensive neighborhood to $10-15k for a Ritz-Carlton or Four Seasons type of hotel
Florist: $500-1k to decorate the ceremony, $50-100 per table
Food: Minimally $30/person; if a nice place, more like $50-75. If kosher, add a $5/head penalty relative to an otherwise identical menu.[Additional disclaimer not in original: these prices reflect economic reality in Southern California as of 2002. Your mileage may vary in other regions, and by time of year.]
So there are some pretty high fixed costs regardless of who comes, but unless you throw a cheap event, extra guests who don't know the bride/groom, and aren't likely to be part of even their friend's lives in the future, are a burden. Aside from that, I'm not aware of any wedding I've been to or discussed with other couples that hasn't been space/finance constrained. It's hard to say, "yes, let's cut some of our nearest and dearest so that my friends can have dates with strangers". It's true that it's a bit tacky for the couple to calculate whether or not guests have "paid adequately" (for the record, I would consider a wedding that was "profitable" to be insulting to the guests), but a bit of sensitivity is called for, I think. If you want to have your friends pay for your dates, at least be aware of the size of the gift you're asking them to give you.
Aside from anything economic, though, I figured I should look up what actual etiquette experts had to say, since I last consulted such works about 2 1/2 years ago. Anita Diamant and Helen Latner's books on Jewish weddings don't address the "and guest" issue, at least not in the editions I've got (not the most recent in Latner's case). Colin Cowie's secular wedding book, "For the Groom", states "it is socially appropriate to invite an unmarried, unattached person without adding 'and guest'...if a single person is on the guest list and you know he or she is seeing someone seriously, it is thoughtful to invite both". Peggy Post, daughter of Emily Post (who literally wrote The Book on this sort of thing), also calls it "not required". iVillage's wedding advice columnists also say about this situation that "the bride and groom did nothing wrong". The Knot's columnist is a bit more nuanced, but I don't think she'd agree that they did anything wrong (if/when you get married, The Knot will ruin your inbox, so pick the address you give them carefully). Here's another wedding planner with an advice site who also agrees, albeit one I didn't make use of at the time. I found a few more on the web that I hadn't consulted before, but I won't keep pasting them because there's nothing different. Suffice it to say that etiquette experts don't think it's rude not to invite "and guests".
I am mystified, however, by the reply of Will Baude at Crescat Sententia. He complains that "putting 'and guest' on an invitation is very rude". While he adduces a couple of quotes from Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, in support of this claim, it's not at all clear that she supports the extreme position that he seems to be taking: that if you're going to invite somebody to bring a date, you have to tell them far enough in advance that they can figure out who they're bringing so that you can send an invitation to that person by name. Unless they're living together (in which case you'd hope you knew that by the time you sent the invitation), that would be rather tacky in itself, assuming you put both names on one envelope. Perhaps Miss Manners' position -- and Mr. Baude's -- is actually that one should only be inviting significant others, and not generic others, but that's not laid out explicitly. Miss Manners and Mr. Baude are the only two people I've read now that think that writing "and guest" is actually rude, though -- that's a considerably different position from "not required".
Just as I was about to post this, in a follow-up post, Mr. Baude appeals to the desirability of having etiquette authorities, and notes that Miss Manners' particular opinions are not necessarily dispositive. This is good, because he also makes clearer that his position really is extreme. Admittedly, I've never been invited as someone's date to a wedding, but I don't really understand how a person who was called up and told "I've been invited to a wedding; would you like to be my date?" could really claim to take offense. In a situation like that, it's not the case that the host "can't take the trouble to learn their names", it's that he's offering a friend the gift of an evening out with a date (and as I demonstrated above, it really is a gift). Someone called up and informed of this circumstance ought not have any illusions that the host is trying to comemmorate his relationship with them. Fortunately, English contains a word which perfectly captures the nature of someone who goes ahead and takes offense anyway in this situation -- hypersensitive.
Recent Comments