Etiquette Check [wedding invite]

[fridays_child]

I also think it was rude that you are on not on the invite, MissPrudential. I think it's a pretty common practice these days to invite SOs, especially if the person is so close to the bride or groom. I understand that you are hesitant to ask your SO to ask if it was an oversight - but I would do that, just in case it is. Lord knows I have made many thoughtless, unintentional mistakes in my life that have offended others - and hopefully this is one of those.

On the other hand, if it was intentional, then it's easier to get over it if you know that. If you don't know for sure, then it'll fester and they'll always be "that couple - grrrrr". But once you know - okay, they don't have the same values/ways of doing things than yourself, you can move on. And whoever suggested a weekend of fun with the girls, well that is a great idea.

Best wishes to you, in all the possible ways this thing is resolved.

 

[sstephensid]

It's rude not to invite a "significant" other. Especially one who is in the wedding party. But of course it is the prerogative of the bride and groom as to whom they want to invite. Just as it is your prerogative to attend or not attend.

Even though it is their wedding day as a host/hostess one of your goals should be that your guests enjoy themselves. IMO.

But how do you define significant other?

 

[MissStepcut]

MissStepCut/Amc80: SORRY TYPO!!! If you read the rest of my post you would have understood that I meant " significant other" and not spouse. As I said, I was a SO for 15 years. Much longer then I have been married, and was not invited to weddings. It would be rude not to invite the person's wife/ fiancé. My mistake. I didn't re-read the post. I'm saying it's neither gracious nor kind. But leaving a SO can not strictly be called *bad manners*

Incidentally I'm from Quebec where common-law is probably 50% of the couples here. So in Quebec, not inviting a SO would be leaving half of the wedding guests at home. Most of the time, people in Quebec pick and choose, indicating the name of the person and the significant other specifically on the invitation. I'm attending a wedding in May where the BM has been with her boyfriend for 1 year. He is not invited to the wedding. The wedding is going to be tight on budget, and no one has interpreted his exclusion as rude (even the BM).

I did read your whole post it's hard to know you didn't mean spouse when that's what you said.

I'm surprised people split up couples like that, but if it's a common thing, I can see how the expectations would change too. That said, in the U.S., I do think it is bad manners in the sense that it goes against etiquette in some circumstances (like living together).

 

[missy]

It's rude not to invite a "significant" other. Especially one who is in the wedding party. But of course it is the prerogative of the bride and groom as to whom they want to invite. Just as it is your prerogative to attend or not attend.

Even though it is their wedding day as a host/hostess one of your goals should be that your guests enjoy themselves. IMO.

But how do you define significant other?

Someone who is important to you and an important part of your life. The person you are sharing your life with in a very real way. I think you know what the term "significant" other means when you are in that kind of relationship.

The kind that Miss P is in with her SO is a good example and that is exactly why I think it is rude that she was left off the invite.
Rude and disrespectful to her and to her SO.

 

[MissStepcut]

Amc80:

With the new Miss Peggy's statement about how you should invite people who are *firmly attached*, I think that's really confusing. When you are REALLY trying to limit the guest list how do you define *firmly attached?* Is it 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? It's completely arbitrary and the bride will end up offending SOMEONE. Even if she follows the *firmly attached* rule, the bride decides on what her definition of it! So I could see married/engaged/living with person as an absolute necessity. Everything else is the bride's choice, even with the new extended etiquette inclusion.

Too me, firmly attached = ring on finger. I'm sure others won't agree with me, but unless the couple has committed themselves to each other in terms of marriage, I don't think I have to consider them "firmly attached."

Having said that, it sucks going to weddings alone. I would rather cut something else than have to cut head count.

Miss Manners disagrees with you:

"Those who are married, engaged or otherwise firmly attached must be asked in tandem to social events."

But I personally agree that engagement would be a good rule. It spares everyone the uncomfortable position of deciding who is sufficiently "attached" to demand a social invitation. Living together is also a pretty good line, but then I know people who moved in together due to circumstances after only dating a short time, so that rule would leave out people who have been dating for years and possibly include people dating a few weeks.

 

[onedrop]

It's rude not to invite a "significant" other. Especially one who is in the wedding party.

I agree with missy and others who have made this point. I was actually in a situation where I was a member of the bridal party and my husband (then fiance) was not invited to the wedding, due to trying to "keep the numbers down" in the bride's words. Despite her rudeness, I decided to be in her wedding even though he wasn't invited because I was at the point where I just wanted to do what I agreed to do and sever the friendship afterward (which I did) because there were other incidents that occurred before and after the dis-invite. If it had happened today, with me having more wisdom, and being more mature, I would have dropped out of the wedding the very moment I learned that my fiance wasn't invited, and wouldn't have felt any guilt about doing so. It's one of my big regrets that I went through with standing up for her after her rudeness and disrespect ().

So yes, Miss Prudential, the couple that didn't invite you (if on purpose) is very rude for not doing so. And like you, I'd be miffed if I wasn't invited as the SO of a member of the bridal party.

 

[sstephensid]

It's rude not to invite a "significant" other. Especially one who is in the wedding party. But of course it is the prerogative of the bride and groom as to whom they want to invite. Just as it is your prerogative to attend or not attend.

Even though it is their wedding day as a host/hostess one of your goals should be that your guests enjoy themselves. IMO.

But how do you define significant other?

Someone who is important to you and an important part of your life. The person you are sharing your life with in a very real way. I think you know what the term "significant" other means when you are in that kind of relationship.

The kind that Miss P is in with her SO is a good example and that is exactly why I think it is rude that she was left off the invite.
Rude and disrespectful to her and to her SO.

It is still hard to define significant other. My coworker/friend dated a guy for 8 months. They saw each other once a week or every other week. They didn't talk much in between. They were very much INsignificant. Another friend of mine after 3 days of dating a guy, practically moved him into her house. They were immediately significant. However, if you were distant family or even friends but didn't talk frequently, how would you KNOW which relationship is significant? (second friend didn't really "announce" they moved in together, as it was so quick and, she thought, embarrassing).

In the OP's case, it is different. The couple, at least the groom, knows they are a couple. He knows they have been dating for quite awhile. He knows that they are not just casually dating.

 

[sstephensid]

Amc80:

With the new Miss Peggy's statement about how you should invite people who are *firmly attached*, I think that's really confusing. When you are REALLY trying to limit the guest list how do you define *firmly attached?* Is it 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? It's completely arbitrary and the bride will end up offending SOMEONE. Even if she follows the *firmly attached* rule, the bride decides on what her definition of it! So I could see married/engaged/living with person as an absolute necessity. Everything else is the bride's choice, even with the new extended etiquette inclusion.

Too me, firmly attached = ring on finger. I'm sure others won't agree with me, but unless the couple has committed themselves to each other in terms of marriage, I don't think I have to consider them "firmly attached."

Having said that, it sucks going to weddings alone. I would rather cut something else than have to cut head count.

Miss Manners disagrees with you:

"Those who are married, engaged or otherwise firmly attached must be asked in tandem to social events."

But I personally agree that engagement would be a good rule. It spares everyone the uncomfortable position of deciding who is sufficiently "attached" to demand a social invitation. Living together is also a pretty good line, but then I know people who moved in together due to circumstances after only dating a short time, so that rule would leave out people who have been dating for years and possibly include people dating a few weeks.

But again, how do you define "firmly attached?" It is so very subjective. It would be fairly easy to offend someone unless you invited every single guest with their gf or bf, or if none, that you know of, +1. But then you could invite someone who has just started dating someone with "just" a plus 1 and then they could be offended you didn't add the so's name...

For most people, plus 1's are just too costly. Even if you have the $, it is quite possible the venue doesn't have room for every guest to have a plus 1. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, married couples and engaged couples should be invited. How about the guest that has been dating someone 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year?

 

[missy]

It's rude not to invite a "significant" other. Especially one who is in the wedding party. But of course it is the prerogative of the bride and groom as to whom they want to invite. Just as it is your prerogative to attend or not attend.

Even though it is their wedding day as a host/hostess one of your goals should be that your guests enjoy themselves. IMO.

But how do you define significant other?

Someone who is important to you and an important part of your life. The person you are sharing your life with in a very real way. I think you know what the term "significant" other means when you are in that kind of relationship.

The kind that Miss P is in with her SO is a good example and that is exactly why I think it is rude that she was left off the invite.
Rude and disrespectful to her and to her SO.

It is still hard to define significant other. My coworker/friend dated a guy for 8 months. They saw each other once a week or every other week. They didn't talk much in between. They were very much INsignificant. Another friend of mine after 3 days of dating a guy, practically moved him into her house. They were immediately significant. However, if you were distant family or even friends but didn't talk frequently, how would you KNOW which relationship is significant? (second friend didn't really "announce" they moved in together, as it was so quick and, she thought, embarrassing).

In the OP's case, it is different. The couple, at least the groom, knows they are a couple. He knows they have been dating for quite awhile. He knows that they are not just casually dating.

Well, if you are not really friends with someone or distant family you wouldn't be invited to the wedding at all I would think if you are keeping the wedding so small you cannot invite people with dates. IMO. However, if you care enough to invite someone I would think it incumbent upon you to find out if that person has someone special in their life that they would like included in your special day. JMO ofc but truly, if you are keeping a wedding small why invite distant friends or family? And if you are having a big wedding where you are inviting distant relations/friends then invite them with a date for goodness sake.

What I said originally still applies though. It is 100% the bride and groom's decision who(m) to invite just as it is 100% the decision of the guest(s) whether or not to attend.

 

[missy]

Amc80:

With the new Miss Peggy's statement about how you should invite people who are *firmly attached*, I think that's really confusing. When you are REALLY trying to limit the guest list how do you define *firmly attached?* Is it 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? It's completely arbitrary and the bride will end up offending SOMEONE. Even if she follows the *firmly attached* rule, the bride decides on what her definition of it! So I could see married/engaged/living with person as an absolute necessity. Everything else is the bride's choice, even with the new extended etiquette inclusion.

Too me, firmly attached = ring on finger. I'm sure others won't agree with me, but unless the couple has committed themselves to each other in terms of marriage, I don't think I have to consider them "firmly attached."

Having said that, it sucks going to weddings alone. I would rather cut something else than have to cut head count.

Miss Manners disagrees with you:

"Those who are married, engaged or otherwise firmly attached must be asked in tandem to social events."

But I personally agree that engagement would be a good rule. It spares everyone the uncomfortable position of deciding who is sufficiently "attached" to demand a social invitation. Living together is also a pretty good line, but then I know people who moved in together due to circumstances after only dating a short time, so that rule would leave out people who have been dating for years and possibly include people dating a few weeks.

But again, how do you define "firmly attached?" It is so very subjective. It would be fairly easy to offend someone unless you invited every single guest with their gf or bf, or if none, that you know of, +1. But then you could invite someone who has just started dating someone with "just" a plus 1 and then they could be offended you didn't add the so's name...

For most people, plus 1's are just too costly. Even if you have the $, it is quite possible the venue doesn't have room for every guest to have a plus 1. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, married couples and engaged couples should be invited. How about the guest that has been dating someone 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year?

Just as a general thought:
1 week- not required
1 month- depends on the relationship
1 year- yes, invite.

Of course it depends on the specific couple etc but just to answer your general question.


Just wanted to add my personal experience:
When we decided to get married we wanted a small wedding and to that end only invited people we were close with and wanted to share in our special day. We also wanted those people to have a good time at our wedding and make it special for them as well so we invited the people we cared about with SO's. We did not invite everyone with a plus one as not everyone was in a relationship but most were and for those that were they were invited together. Both names on invite. For those that came alone they knew enough people at the wedding to enjoy themselves and not be uncomfortable.

As I wrote before I feel it important when hosting a party (and that is exactly what a wedding is- a party) that your guests be comfortable and enjoy themselves. And to the best of your ability you do what you can to make that happen. Of course their enjoyment of the day is not entirely in your control but you do what you can. I am also a firm believer that if you cannot afford to do the right thing (invite people with their SO's) then invite less people or have it at a less expensive venue. Or make the situation clear to your guests and let them decide if they want to attend and join your day or not. Either way, full disclosure to avoid feelings being hurt. But feelings will probably be hurt if you leave your guests "significant" others out of the day.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

 

[amc80]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

See, I disagree. I guess in my book there's a huge difference between how you treat someone's spouse/fiance versus a boyfriend/girlfriend, regardless of whether or not they are living together. If they don't feel the need/urge to get married, why should I have to treat them as such?

 

[MissStepcut]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

See, I disagree. I guess in my book there's a huge difference between how you treat someone's spouse/fiance versus a boyfriend/girlfriend, regardless of whether or not they are living together. If they don't feel the need/urge to get married, why should I have to treat them as such?

I don't think you should lose social "benefits" just because you opt out of marriage. People can have all kinds of personal and political reasons to want to skip that particular government rubber stamp.

 

[tammy77]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

See, I disagree. I guess in my book there's a huge difference between how you treat someone's spouse/fiance versus a boyfriend/girlfriend, regardless of whether or not they are living together. If they don't feel the need/urge to get married, why should I have to treat them as such?

I actually was thinking from a combined finances standpoint, not spouse/fiance. My DH and I lived together before we got engaged and had combined finances. The OP says that it's joint money that would be used for his trip, so that's where mine came from. I understand that it's not always public information (finances) but it's usually a pretty good bet that cohabitation = shared financial interests IMO. I absolutely would not be okay with plunking down $$$ to fund SO's trip if 1. SO didn't speak up for me and 2. SO's friend didn't think I was important enough to invite.

 

[missy]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

See, I disagree. I guess in my book there's a huge difference between how you treat someone's spouse/fiance versus a boyfriend/girlfriend, regardless of whether or not they are living together. If they don't feel the need/urge to get married, why should I have to treat them as such?

OK, just to play devil's advocate here- why is it your business if 2 people love each other and decide they want to be together without the whole marriage thing? What about gay couples who still don't have the right to get married in every state in the USA?
Who is to say that 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together must get married?
What about some of the lovely ladies here who have been with their SO a significant amount of time (let's say for argument's sake years and years) and are still waiting to get engaged? Should they too not be invited because they are not engaged/married?

What about people in their 20's in serious relationships but who don't yet want to get married because they are so young?

Invite whom you want and don't invite whom you (don't) want but don't expect people to come just because you graced them with an invite and left out their SO. That speaks volumes to me about how much you care about me if you invite me without my bf whom I am in a serious relationship with (not me specifically- just talking generally for argument's sake- I'm an old married lady).

ETA: just saw your response MSC and I completely agree.

 

[MissStepcut]

I grew up in Oregon, and lots of my classmates' parents weren't married because of whatever political/anti-religious/anti-establishment/feminist reasons they had. I heard the old "we'll get married when everyone can get married!" line a fair few times. While obviously I don't have any problem with marriage as an institution, if they've set up household together, I don't think it's my place as a bride to subpoena a marriage certificate. A lot of the time you can't immediately tell anyway, since lots of women don't take on their husband's name.

 

[Rhea]

Amc80:

With the new Miss Peggy's statement about how you should invite people who are *firmly attached*, I think that's really confusing. When you are REALLY trying to limit the guest list how do you define *firmly attached?* Is it 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? It's completely arbitrary and the bride will end up offending SOMEONE. Even if she follows the *firmly attached* rule, the bride decides on what her definition of it! So I could see married/engaged/living with person as an absolute necessity. Everything else is the bride's choice, even with the new extended etiquette inclusion.

Too me, firmly attached = ring on finger. I'm sure others won't agree with me, but unless the couple has committed themselves to each other in terms of marriage, I don't think I have to consider them "firmly attached."

Having said that, it sucks going to weddings alone. I would rather cut something else than have to cut head count.

Does the firmly attached = ring on finger apply in all cases? There are lots of couples who can't or choose not to get married, my in-laws included. No marriage, but they run a business, have property, and raised children together. They actually still seem to like each other after 35 years together! I would argue that they, as a couple, are much more committed than my parents, who scream bloody murder at each other, hate each other, but have managed to not divorce (let's not kid ourselves, they're together because of finances).

I do get your point, but is a marriage more important than a life together when it comes to considering a couple a couple for events like this? I'm actually quite sad that my parents count as firmly attached and my in-laws don't to some people.

 

[yssie]

My DH (then SO) would not have gone to a wedding that I wasn't invited to, much less spend a lot of OUR money to do it. It's just a matter of principle. If I were your SO, I would politely tell them that he didn't realize it was a solo invite, and respectfully retract his participation because he doesn't want to take from community resources just to have you sitting at home w/o him.

I totally agree with this.

See, I disagree. I guess in my book there's a huge difference between how you treat someone's spouse/fiance versus a boyfriend/girlfriend, regardless of whether or not they are living together. If they don't feel the need/urge to get married, why should I have to treat them as such?

I moved across the country to live with then-SO. He proposed two weeks after I moved. We were happily engaged for two years. During that time my parents didn't come out to visit us once. They were uncomfortable with us living together before marriage, and made it clear that they wouldn't be visiting us in a home we shared until we were married. Was it their right to feel that way, and express it? Sure. But it hurt. And it didn't make us get married any sooner.

Yes, (if this is not one big misunderstanding) it is the couple's right to exclude MissP based on their beliefs, definitions, whatever. But they're naive not to imagine it might hurt, and that their relationship with MissP's SO might not be negatively affected.

 

[amc80]

OK, just to play devil's advocate here- why is it your business if 2 people love each other and decide they want to be together without the whole marriage thing? What about gay couples who still don't have the right to get married in every state in the USA?
Who is to say that 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together must get married?
What about some of the lovely ladies here who have been with their SO a significant amount of time (let's say for argument's sake years and years) and are still waiting to get engaged? Should they too not be invited because they are not engaged/married?

Because the line has to be drawn somewhere, especially if cutting the head count is the goal. It's a lot easier to have global rules- spouses/fiances only, no children under 12, etc. The other option is having to examine each relationship individually and make those decisions on an individual basis. Which leads you to the "well why does this person get a guest and I didn't" questions...I'm not saying that long term relationships aren't important or valid, I'm just saying it makes for an easy way to define a line. People have all sorts of reasons for getting married or not, and that's their choice...but this is just one example of a situation where that choice may be the difference between being on or off a guest list.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's rude to not give someone a +1 when they have to travel. I'm just saying that in the bride's mind, a long-term relationship might not equal marriage/engaged, which could be why the OP wasn't invited.

 

[tammy77]

I totally understand having to draw the line somewhere, but her SO is in the bridal party. If they can't afford to include his SO, maybe they should reduce the number of ppl in the bridal party so at least it doesn't cost Miss P's family unit more money. It just seems thoughtless and selfish.

Miss P, any update? Maybe one good social slip deserves another...just write in +1 on the invite. (99% kidding, of course)

 

[missy]

OK, just to play devil's advocate here- why is it your business if 2 people love each other and decide they want to be together without the whole marriage thing? What about gay couples who still don't have the right to get married in every state in the USA?
Who is to say that 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together must get married?
What about some of the lovely ladies here who have been with their SO a significant amount of time (let's say for argument's sake years and years) and are still waiting to get engaged? Should they too not be invited because they are not engaged/married?

Because the line has to be drawn somewhere, especially if cutting the head count is the goal. It's a lot easier to have global rules- spouses/fiances only, no children under 12, etc. The other option is having to examine each relationship individually and make those decisions on an individual basis. Which leads you to the "well why does this person get a guest and I didn't" questions...I'm not saying that long term relationships aren't important or valid, I'm just saying it makes for an easy way to define a line. People have all sorts of reasons for getting married or not, and that's their choice...but this is just one example of a situation where that choice may be the difference between being on or off a guest list.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's rude to not give someone a +1 when they have to travel. I'm just saying that in the bride's mind, a long-term relationship might not equal marriage/engaged, which could be why the OP wasn't invited.

You see, I think about this differently. There is no one rule applies to all or global generalizations when it comes to personal relationships you have with your friends/family/loved ones. I evaluate each individual/couple on an individual basis. That's the way I do things and for me that's what works. But of course,I support your right to invite whom you want to your wedding. It's your wedding and you should do what you feel is right/best. Just don't be surprised when people get hurt and relationships may be forever changed.

 

[missy]

I totally understand having to draw the line somewhere, but her SO is in the bridal party. If they can't afford to include his SO, maybe they should reduce the number of ppl in the bridal party so at least it doesn't cost Miss P's family unit more money. It just seems thoughtless and selfish.

Miss P, any update? Maybe one good social slip deserves another...just write in +1 on the invite. (99% kidding, of course)

And that is what makes this whole thing worse. Her SO is in the damn bridal party for goodness sake. They think enough of him to give him that honor (or pain in the butt honor as some might see it LOL) but not enough to include his dear SO with whom he is planning on sharing the rest of his life?

 

[amc80]

But of course,I support your right to invite whom you want to your wedding. It's your wedding and you should do what you feel is right/best. Just don't be surprised when people get hurt and relationships may be forever changed.

Agreed....if I'm going to make a decision, I have to deal with the consequences. We chose to have a destination wedding and invite everyone, partially to avoid the "should we invite this person or not" issue. Destination weddings are great- they have built in head count filters. You can invite just about everyone you can think of, and only a small number of people will go. Of course, that's the flip side, you have to accept that some important people might not make it.

 

[missy]

But of course,I support your right to invite whom you want to your wedding. It's your wedding and you should do what you feel is right/best. Just don't be surprised when people get hurt and relationships may be forever changed.

Agreed....if I'm going to make a decision, I have to deal with the consequences. We chose to have a destination wedding and invite everyone, partially to avoid the "should we invite this person or not" issue. Destination weddings are great- they have built in head count filters. You can invite just about everyone you can think of, and only a small number of people will go. Of course, that's the flip side, you have to accept that some important people might not make it.

That is a great solution actually because you aren't leaving anyone important out. It's up to them if they can make it. I like that.
I would much rather have people decline our wedding invite than for me to leave them out of the invite. If that makes sense.

 

[MissStepcut]

But of course,I support your right to invite whom you want to your wedding. It's your wedding and you should do what you feel is right/best. Just don't be surprised when people get hurt and relationships may be forever changed.

Agreed....if I'm going to make a decision, I have to deal with the consequences. We chose to have a destination wedding and invite everyone, partially to avoid the "should we invite this person or not" issue. Destination weddings are great- they have built in head count filters. You can invite just about everyone you can think of, and only a small number of people will go. Of course, that's the flip side, you have to accept that some important people might not make it.

Ugh, that's why I hate getting DW invites. The invite feels a little insincere.

 

[missy]

But of course,I support your right to invite whom you want to your wedding. It's your wedding and you should do what you feel is right/best. Just don't be surprised when people get hurt and relationships may be forever changed.

Agreed....if I'm going to make a decision, I have to deal with the consequences. We chose to have a destination wedding and invite everyone, partially to avoid the "should we invite this person or not" issue. Destination weddings are great- they have built in head count filters. You can invite just about everyone you can think of, and only a small number of people will go. Of course, that's the flip side, you have to accept that some important people might not make it.

Ugh, that's why I hate getting DW invites. The invite feels a little insincere.

But then it is easier to decline KWIM? I don't know how it feels though because I never received a destination wedding invite. Maybe it wasn't popular back when we were getting married. I cannot think of anyone I know IRL who had a destination wedding.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I totally and completely believe this is a case of guys not communicating. She asked him for his list of friends/family and their addresses. He gives her a list of the groomsmen and their addresses. If they aren't known to be married by the bride, then she probably didn't give the list a second thought. He was the only one invited because the groom didn't think to tell her your name needed to be on the invitation. I think it is as simple as that! It would be incredibly rude not to invite wives, engaged partners, and the other half of couples who live together or have been together long term. When my daughter got married a year and a half ago, it was also close family and friends, but we certainly put "and guest" on the invitations where we knew nieces or friends were in a relationship. And certainly the bridal party all had their SO's there!

He needs to ask the groom. So easy to say: Miss P's name was not on my invitation. Was that an oversight or are you not inviting the love of my life... just kidding...insert whatever words work for you!

 

[rainwood]

Regardless of whatever rules someone follows for inviting guests to the wedding, there should be a practice that any member of the wedding party - who will have spent a lot of time and money to participate in that role - should be able to have a guest at that wedding regardless of the status of their relationship. That's just being considerate and appreciative of what those people are doing to support you at the wedding, bachelor/bachelorette parties, showers, gifts, travel, clothing purchases or rentals, etc.

I don't find the "trying to control costs" argument persuasive at all when it comes to wedding party members. These people will have spent a lot of time and money - sometimes thousands - to support the bridge and groom, who in turn aren't willing to pay the $100 for that person's guest to have a meal? That just sounds terrible. I agree with Monarch, that if someone is planning a wedding where they can't afford to invite a guest of the wedding party members, the bride and groom should cut costs somewhere else.

Miss Prudential's SO should ask if she's invited because there might have been an oversight, but only if Miss Pru intends to go to the wedding if invited. Otherwise, there's no reason to bring it up at this point.

 

[tammy77]

A friend of mine is getting married in Hawaii and I "sort of" had one (live in CA, married in NY). I did invite people I knew would likely not be able to attend - but I told them that I simply was giving them an invitation because if the wedding was at home, they would absolutely be invited. I also made it very clear that I didn't want a gift from them.

On the flip side, I was invited to said friend's Hawaii wedding. I know she'd love for us to come. I don't find it insincere really, but it IS easier to politely decline. I wish I could go!

ETA: DS might be right. I know that my MIL helped with our invitations and if that IS the case, maybe this is all for nothing!

 

[MsP]

Miss P, any update? Maybe one good social slip deserves another...just write in +1 on the invite. (99% kidding, of course)

We are probably going to leave well enough alone. Say nothing. Do nothing. SO will go. I'll buy myself a Mulholland bag I've been wanting and cry my sorrows into some high end leather goods. hah.

Fact is I'm offended but I *know* that if it's brought up they will claim it's a mistake or some such and invite me. I won't believe that it's a mistake (I mean, I got no STD...that was addressed to SO only...and I just saw the groom) and I probably wouldn't attend anyways. So what's the point? Just leave it alone. SO is totally up to jokingly questioning his friend why the no +1 or why I got no invite, but I just don't see it'd do any good. Damage done.

I'm sure this will come up at some point because I'm not the best at "letting sleeping dogs lie".

But for now, I think it's best.