Wedding Party Guest Goes Silent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

I have not really commented and I probably haven’t been to a wedding in 20 years. I had assumed that all the people getting upset about not being able to bring a guest were young and immature. They still needed a security blanket to make it through a few hours.

[Anonymous]

OP you sound awful. Since it's "your day" presumably you don't care whether anyone else shows up?

Not sure what the point of posting here was, is there actual advice you are looking for?

[Anonymous]

Team Bridesmaid. We had people look for a date to bring to our wedding. I wanted to say don’t bring one but we sucked it up. Let the girl bring her boyfriend.

[Anonymous]

This is hilarious. A rare dcum consensus and op is big mad about it. Also lol at only being allowed to bring a finance or spouse. I know a few couples that have been together 15 plus years and have kids/a household together but aren’t legally married. Guess those relationships don’t count? You sound awful op.

[Anonymous]

So many people want to lose or alienate friends over their guest list. Yes invite fewer people if you can't afford it, but every grown up needs to be invited WITH A PLUS ONE. Why? It makes your wedding more fun for your guests.

This person is a dear friend, one you asked to be in your bridal/groom party. And you don't want them to have a date to have fun with?! You are the jerk here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

Wait. You are being this much of a stingy bridezilla and it's not even your first marriage? Whew, OP. You are a piece of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

I have not really commented and I probably haven’t been to a wedding in 20 years. I had assumed that all the people getting upset about not being able to bring a guest were young and immature. They still needed a security blanket to make it through a few hours.

You're sock puppeting. Do you realize how much money a bridesmaid spends on being a bridesmaid? I spent thousands. I'd be furious if I didn't have a guest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious. A rare dcum consensus and op is big mad about it. Also lol at only being allowed to bring a finance or spouse. I know a few couples that have been together 15 plus years and have kids/a household together but aren’t legally married. Guess those relationships don’t count? You sound awful op.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

But marrieds are allowed to bring their spouse? Betch, pick one and go with it: people can bring a plus one, or they can't. This weirdly discriminatory nonlogic you're using to justify your bias and stupidity is ridiculous. This isn't a convention, it's just a dick move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

I have not really commented and I probably haven’t been to a wedding in 20 years. I had assumed that all the people getting upset about not being able to bring a guest were young and immature. They still needed a security blanket to make it through a few hours.

You're sock puppeting. Do you realize how much money a bridesmaid spends on being a bridesmaid? I spent thousands. I'd be furious if I didn't have a guest.

You can actually ask Jeff. This is my third post. What does spending money have to do with bringing a guest? It’s about engaging with the event. I have been a bridesmaid and a bride. Nothing is remarkably different about attending a wedding today versus 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Wait. This is OPs second marriage?
Red Flags 🚩 everywhere here

Girl BYE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re just rationalizing doing something rude. The fact that you can’t afford to extend plus ones to your wedding party, who are more than just guests, in no way means that it’s not rude not to do so. The fact that it’s not highly unusual for people with budgetary constraints to cut corners in this manner does not mean that it’s not a rude thing to do.

We actually have no budgetary constraints - at all. And our planner is aware of this fact. We DO have occupancy constraints imposed by the venue. We also have three twenty-something kids who, between them, attend at least a wedding a month and have been in many weddings, and universally they report that they are invited to bring a guest (DC who is engaged) and they are never invited to bring guests (DCs who don’t have SOs). One DC was in a wedding in Europe, and it never occurred to DC to even register that they were not invited to bring a guest because they were there with a bunch of college friends who - gasp! - also did not have guests. I am convinced that most of the people responding on this thread have not attended a wedding in 20 years and don’t have kids in that stage of life, because so many of these posts are completely out of touch with common practice. We are not unsophisticated or rude but know from our own experience what conventions apply today.

I have not really commented and I probably haven’t been to a wedding in 20 years. I had assumed that all the people getting upset about not being able to bring a guest were young and immature. They still needed a security blanket to make it through a few hours.

You're sock puppeting. Do you realize how much money a bridesmaid spends on being a bridesmaid? I spent thousands. I'd be furious if I didn't have a guest.

You can actually ask Jeff. This is my third post. What does spending money have to do with bringing a guest? It’s about engaging with the event. I have been a bridesmaid and a bride. Nothing is remarkably different about attending a wedding today versus 20 years ago.

People are doing you a huge favor by being in your wedding. They are spending a lot of money on "your" special day and you are being extremely rude and ungrateful by not allowing someone in your wedding party to bring a plus one. So low class.

[Anonymous]

You’re still rationalizing. You didn’t get randomly assigned to a venue. You chose a venue with a capacity limit that means you have to make tough choices, and you’re choosing not to extend plus ones to the wedding party so you can invite other people. It’s rude as hell. The fact that other clods do it doesn’t mean it’s not rude. You’re right about one thing, though; this probably does go over better with twenty-somethings who have not yet been in serious, long term, adult relationships and aren’t used to being treated like adults yet.

Work on reading comprehension. We are planning a wedding for one of our kids, never said it was mine. And I am defending OP but never said wedding party does not bring a guest, and in fact there is no wedding party but a large wedding. And to the other poster who suggested it is discriminating to distinguish between people who are married and those that aren’t in long-term relationships or have a steady SO - talk about a lack of logic. That’s just crazy.

[Anonymous]

OP you better hope this person doesn’t show up on your wedding day and trashes it.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is bad. You should give people a plus one, and people should be chill if they don't have one.

The people who withhold plus ones (if they don't have to) and the people who insist on plus ones are equally bad, but the people who insist or are mad about a plus one are worse.

There's just no good reason you can't go to a wedding solo and have a good time. Or graciously decline!