- 8 years ago
- Wedding: September 2010
I would only take offense if one of those coworkers where in a serious relationship but not engaged or married. Also I would find it slightly offensive to call fiancees, and spouses “guest”. you should take the time to find out their names and include them on the invitation.
I always include a +1.
Also, we added guests if the person would not know many people at the wedding. And be careful, people are not as informed on etiquette as us bees. I suggest putting “__ out of 1 are attending” on the RSVP cards. Otherwise, you may have some uninvited guests.
I don’t think that’s offensive. It would have been a nice touch to find out the married co-worker’s spouse name – but if they were single – that’s the only way to do it.
We didn’t even write “and guest” on our outer envelope (no inner envelope). But we did have a spot on our RSVP cards for # of seats reserved in… so, hopefully, that makes sense to them.
Edit: I just read your post title – if I was single and invited withOUT a guest – I would think the bride and groom are trying to cut costs and wouldn’t really care. If I was married, however, I would be offended.
To be honest, I would take more offense to the “… and guest” part if I am married, then the no guest part if I was single. If I am close enough to be invited to someone’s wedding, I would hope they would feel comfortable enough and make the effort to find out my husband/FI’s actual name.
But… to your actual question. No, if you are following that rule for all your guests, then co-workers do not need to be an exception.
I would not be offended to receive “and guest” in that situation, nor would I be offended in the least if I was not allowed a guest if I was single. Most people in real life, contrary to belief, completely understand and respect the fact that the couple cannot afford to pay for random strangers, nor do they want to. I don’t know anyone honestly who would be offended in either scenario, and that is including those who are well versed in proper etiquette.
I expect to be invited to formal events alone. I’m not married or engaged, and it’s the hostess’s responsibility to set the guest list, not mine.If she has any skill as a hostess, she’ll either invite other people I know or she’ll introduce me to people there that I’ll enjoy meeting.
I *do* get offended by being referred to as “and guest” and by being invited off-hand on someone else’s invitation. I have had it happen — admittedly not for several years — where a hostess asked why I had missed her party, explaining that “well, we expected Fred to bring you”. I’m sorry: I’m a person, not an accessory for Fred. If you want me there, you can damn’d well invite ME!
And when I get an invitation that *is* addressed to me with an “and guest” it’s like a heads-up that the hostess is NOT being careful with her guest list, won’t know who’s all there and probably is NOT putting all that extra effort into making sure that she invites compatible people and sits them together. That changes the character of the party from a pleasant social event, to a gathering of random strangers — as much for me and the other guests as for the bride and groom. In my business a gathering of random strangers is always a great networking opportunity, so I’d probably go anyway for that purpose, but it’s not the same as a well-designed formal social gathering.
i am not married, but i have been with my boyfriend for 8 years. and even if we had only been together 2 and it was serious, i would be offended. i personally don’t think it should be limited to just fiancés and spouses. i think people who are in a long term committed relationship, should get a +1 as well, but i am all for not giving EVERYONE a +1. good luck with your decision. i know it can be tough. i have a friend going through the same thing now…
Nothing wrong with limiting plus ones to married and engaged couples. It’s an easy line to draw and one that does not require you to get into the business of evaluating your guests’ relationships. They either are or they aren’t. The problem with extending plus ones to only “serious” couples is that you have to define what constitutes a serious relationship. And there’s really no way to do this without offending people.
I would not be offended if I was single and not seeing anyone seriously. However If I was seeing someone for say a yr + and was not invited with a plus one I would be a bit miffed, It would not prevent me from joining my coworker on her special day though!
We are planning on only having people with anyone who we consider is “in a relationship.” So we’ll include boyfriends and girlfriends, but only if they’re exclusive and committed. No “dates” or someone random that they decide to bring. It has to be on Facebook! LOL.
I understand the whole cutting costs thing, but if it is a coworker, chances are they already aren’t going to know many people there. For that reason alone, I would allow them to bring a +1, even if it ups your count.
And I agree if you are cutting it off at engaged or married, you may want to also include those in long-term relationships. My husband and I lived together for a year before we were engaged, and I would have been hurt had I not been invited to an event. We were just as committed as any engaged couple, but we just hadn’t saved up the money to purchase a ring and pay for wedding yet.
We are only inviting co-workers + 1’s IF they are married and/or in a long term relationship. I wouldn’t take offense to it at all. In fact a woman at my small company invited EVERYONE from the office, but only invited +1’s to all the big bosses. No one took offense to it (at least I didn’t)—me and my co-workers spend more time together (50+ hours a week) than I probably spend with anyone else, so we all had an awesome time at the wedding and I never felt that I needed to have fi there.
@plainbee: I generally use the rule that if a couple are living together, they’re married by the anthropolgical definition which is good enough for me. I came of age in the early 60’s when we were inventing the sexual revolution, and no-one would admit they needed a “piece of paper” from “the man” to be legitimated. There were lots of reasons back then NOT to get married, from states that wouldn’t allow interracial marriage, to companies that wouldn’t hire married women, First Nations women that didn’t want to lose their treaty rights by marrying a non-native, and government refusal to recognize the marriage rites of non-mainstream sects like the Doukhobors. Even nowadays there are so many jurisdictions that won’t register a same-sex marriage, that insisting on the legal definition would denigrate any friends or relatives in unregistered same-sex marriages.
Besides, eight years is longer than most couples manage to hang on to the man’s little piece of paper; and unless you actually read the Vital Statistics publications, how would you ever know which couples are “really” married or not?
For couples that aren’t living together it’s a little harder to call. I treat them as equivalent-to-engaged. But the original purpose of engagement announcements (whether made in the social section of the newspaper, or at a party, or sent through the mail) was to let people know that you are now “a couple”. Without the announcement, people can’t be blamed for not figuring it out for themselves. Of course, if I invite a non-cohabiting engaged-or-equivalent couple, I send the invitations separately, and it’s hard to imagine anyone that I socialize with regularly whose eight-year-extant main squeeze I wouldn’t already know in his own right.
The topic ‘Being invited to a wedding without a guest’ is closed to new replies.