| Re: Bridal shower invitation request - CLICK HERE for the Wedding Forum Home Page |
| Charles Bishop |
In article <e5WdnZ3QuL86e-LcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, eek@comcast.net wrote:
[snip shower invite foo]
>The main issue is that you don't want the shower guests to perceive
>they're only good enough to be invited to an event where they
>have to fork out a gift, but not good enough to be invited to
^^^^ ^^
>the main event. If it's clear to this woman that you won't
>be able to invite her to the wedding, but she still wants to
>come to the shower (bad enough to try to get herself invited!),
>then obviously that's not an issue for her.
>
Is this really the case? I was under the impression that a gift was not
mandatory, and that Miss Manners says that the invitation is supposed to
be for your company. I can see that the purpose of the shower is to
provide doodads for the bride/baby/couple, but does this make it
mandatory?
charles
|
|
|
| Charles Bishop |
In article <9eadnQYc9ZNw5x_cRVn-sw@comcast.com>, eek@comcast.net wrote:
>Uncle Mandrake wrote:
>
>> PS: I see Erika takes a different p.o.v. on this question. Let me
>> offer examples where the wedding guest list doesn't include all the
>> shower guests, but Miss Manners wouldn't get excited: an elopement. Or
>> even a small intimate wedding which only closest family attend, yet
>> the bride has a huge social circle that throws any number of showers
>> for her.
>>
> Oops, sorry, forgot this bit. MM actually does object
>to showers for elopements or large showers for small weddings.
I can understand the reasoning, but are elopements planned well enough
that the happy couple would know not to have showers? I can see deciding
to chuck all the bother and head for Walla Walla. Would they be prevented
from doing so by the fact that the bride had recieved a bridal shower a
month ago?
charles
|
|
|
| Regency Reader |
> Is this really the case? I was under the impression that a gift was not
> mandatory, and that Miss Manners says that the invitation is supposed to
> be for your company. I can see that the purpose of the shower is to
> provide doodads for the bride/baby/couple, but does this make it
> mandatory?
Showers are the one exception. According to Miss Manners, "shower" is
short for "shower with gifts", and since the gift-giving is the major
purpose of a shower, not bringing one is rude. From Guide to
Excruciatingly Correct Behavior: "The word shower is used here as in "to
shower with presents", making this the only form of grown-up
entertainment at which a present is mandatory... A shower is held for
the purpose of showering a novice (at marrying or mothering) with the
equipment she did not need in her previous state but which is essential
in the life she is about to enter."
I can't find anything in my Miss Manners books about not giving showers
for elopements or not inviting people who aren't invited to the wedding.
(Which doesn't mean it's not there, but it's not front-and-center.) She
has encouraged having a celebration of some kind if the couple elopes
(or if they get married in an exotic location, for example) but perhaps
it shouldn't be called a "shower". For second babies or second
marriages, Miss Manners says that the party should be called a tea or
luncheon, since people who gave the first time shouldn't feel required
to give the second time around.
(I think she made one other exception for parties requiring presents in
the case of children's birthday parties, since opening the presents is
usually the central event of those parties.)
Karen
|
|
|
| Ericka Kammerer |
Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <e5WdnZ3QuL86e-LcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, eek@comcast.net wrote:
>
> [snip shower invite foo]
>
>
>
>>The main issue is that you don't want the shower guests to perceive
>>they're only good enough to be invited to an event where they
>>have to fork out a gift, but not good enough to be invited to
>
> ^^^^ ^^
>
>
> Is this really the case? I was under the impression that a gift was not
> mandatory, and that Miss Manners says that the invitation is supposed to
> be for your company. I can see that the purpose of the shower is to
> provide doodads for the bride/baby/couple, but does this make it
> mandatory?
Showers are the only adult parties at which gifts are
mandatory. (MM says so herself ;-) That's why there are so
many rules about showers. They're there to make sure this
special case is handled with appropriate delicacy.
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
|
|
| Ericka Kammerer |
Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <9eadnQYc9ZNw5x_cRVn-sw@comcast.com>, eek@comcast.net wrote:
>> Oops, sorry, forgot this bit. MM actually does object
>>to showers for elopements or large showers for small weddings.
>
>
> I can understand the reasoning, but are elopements planned well enough
> that the happy couple would know not to have showers?
It shouldn't be an issue by definition. If someone elopes,
no one knows about it in advance and therefore, no one would be
planning a shower anyway. Spreading the word about an "elopement"
in advance is just another way of thumbing one's nose at guests
and saying "You're not good enough to invite to the wedding, but
we want to make sure you know all about it because we'd hate to
miss out on any wedding gifts or showers or bachelor(ette) parties
or all the other trappings of a big wedding where We Get Stuff."
> I can see deciding
> to chuck all the bother and head for Walla Walla. Would they be prevented
> from doing so by the fact that the bride had recieved a bridal shower a
> month ago?
A better example might be when a large wedding is called
off and a very small, private wedding is rescheduled due to a
death in the family or some other such tragedy. In that case,
of course there's not a problem and everyone understands because
of the nature of the tragedy. When someone has been planning a
large wedding and lots of other people have put themselves out
to host showers or other pre-wedding dos, have arranged travel,
have done all the other sorts of things people may do to get
ready to attend someone's wedding, and then the happy couple
gets peeved at all the work and calls the big shindig off in
favor of getting married privately, it tends to leave a bad
taste in people's mouth. It says, "We know you've all been
looking forward to this and have made plans, but we're too
tired to deal with all your crap, so we quit. Sorry 'bout the
lost deposits."
Obviously, a previous shower isn't going to prevent
a couple from doing this if they want to bail on the wedding
plans, but there are consequences to doing so. It doesn't
make the nicest impression on one's friends and family.
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
|
|
| Charles Bishop |
In article <1gmj80u.1bu48zc1eqq76cN%regencyreader@yahoo.com>,
regencyreader@yahoo.com (Regency Reader) wrote:
[snip]
>
>(I think she made one other exception for parties requiring presents in
>the case of children's birthday parties, since opening the presents is
>usually the central event of those parties.)
Is it still? I'm not remaining at birthday parties my son goes to as much,
but it seems as if there were some where the presents were put to one
side, and not opened during the party. We got TY notes for them, but not
the opening experience.
charles
|
|
|
| T Flynn |
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Uncle Mandrake wrote:
> I must admit that I am staggered at the thought of a 350+ guest
> list...
Hold onto something stable: Our guest list was around 600. We ended up
with about 350 at the celebration. Husband invited many coworkers he's
close to as well as many college/frat friends. FOB invited many cousins
-- his mom was the youngest of 9. MOB invited cousins and friends. Groom's
parents invited some family, some friends. Sister of Bride invited a
couple people who were close to the family. It was, frankly, huge. But
everyone had beverage and food, except for one lone couple who didn't know
there was further seating and serving inside the hall as well as outside,
who left because they didn't think there was room. Nobody saw them leave,
and we expressed our deepest apologies as soon as we realized the
situation.
|
|
|
| Lady Laura |
Uncle Mandrake <totot...@atlanticcoast.invalid> wrote:
> I must admit that I am staggered at the thought of a 350+ guest
> list...
In our case, that's actually cutting some family members that would
love to and would be willing to attend. I have an extremely large
extended family and we are close. My grandmother was one of 17 kids --
the current count of decendants of those 17 kids is 566 (and I'm sure
there are been some kids born that I don't know about) and that doesn't
include spouses, just blood relatives (granted at least 25 of them are
deceased).
I'm definitely closer to some "branches" than others -- but some of
those branches are very, very close. We routinely have 50 for
Christmas/Thanksgiving and have never had the whole family to a holiday
because of conflicts.
I'm the oldest of 9 kids and when you add spouses, boyfriends, kids,
plus aunts, uncles and cousins -- some of whom have been raised almost
as siblings, you get a huge guest list very quickly -- and that's just
on ONE side of MY family, not including my future husband's (which is
also very large) or my dad's side of the family (which is smaller).
We had over 200 at my first communion -- which wasn't a sit down
dinner, of course (took me foever to write those thank you notes when I
was 7!). Large families are wonderful, but they do have their
challenges. I could EASILY come up with a 500 person guest list and
still personally know and communicate regularly with all of them. My
family is large and they are willing to travel to attend family events.
Therein lies the problem -- I have so many close family members that
extended friends simply can't be included, I'm already cutting out
family I'd love to share my day with.
|
|
|
| meirman |
In alt.fan.miss-manners on 2 Nov 2004 10:31:26 -0800 "Lady Laura"
<lmarland@hotmail.com> posted:
>Uncle Mandrake <totot...@atlanticcoast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I must admit that I am staggered at the thought of a 350+ guest
>> list...
>
>In our case, that's actually cutting some family members that would
>love to and would be willing to attend. I have an extremely large
>extended family and we are close. My grandmother was one of 17 kids --
>the current count of decendants of those 17 kids is 566 (and I'm sure
>there are been some kids born that I don't know about) and that doesn't
>include spouses, just blood relatives (granted at least 25 of them are
>deceased).
>
>I'm definitely closer to some "branches" than others -- but some of
>those branches are very, very close. We routinely have 50 for
>Christmas/Thanksgiving and have never had the whole family to a holiday
>because of conflicts.
>
>I'm the oldest of 9 kids and when you add spouses, boyfriends, kids,
>plus aunts, uncles and cousins -- some of whom have been raised almost
>as siblings, you get a huge guest list very quickly -- and that's just
>on ONE side of MY family, not including my future husband's (which is
>also very large) or my dad's side of the family (which is smaller).
>
>We had over 200 at my first communion -- which wasn't a sit down
>dinner, of course (took me foever to write those thank you notes when I
>was 7!). Large families are wonderful, but they do have their
>challenges. I could EASILY come up with a 500 person guest list and
>still personally know and communicate regularly with all of them. My
>family is large and they are willing to travel to attend family events.
>
>
>Therein lies the problem -- I have so many close family members that
>extended friends simply can't be included, I'm already cutting out
>family I'd love to share my day with.
In addition to telling us, I think you should convey this info to the
people you can't invite. I'm not sure how. Individually? Announced,
or brought into the conversation (or something in between) at those
showers where not every is invited? Or all showers? At the wedding
also, probably? Somehow at work if such people are there.
Meirman
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
