Ultimate Wedding: Reception

The two styles of menus for wedding guests are Dainty and Heartburn. Dainty, which can be little more than finger sandwiches, wedding cake, and champagne or punch, is rather chic and a whole lot cheaper. Nevertheless Miss Ultimate Wedding does not advise administering this to families coming from one of the many traditions that consider that a wedding from which the guests don't reel away holding their bloated tummies does not constitute a real marriage.

Within those choices, the time of day is what counts. Are these people going to be starving? A morning or noon wedding is followed by a wedding breakfast, which in the inscrutable manner of etiquette means a luncheon. An afternoon wedding requires only teatime fare. The increasingly popular evening wedding does call for dinner, which makes it a poor choice for a limited budget.

The Long Wait
Q. At one wedding we attended, we waited for two hours at the reception and the bride and groom showed up as we were leaving. They were joyriding in their rented limousine. At another, we waited an hour and a half while pictures were taken. My mother (who was once kept waiting three hours at a wedding reception) told me that in her day, photos were taken a week in advance so that delays were avoided. We can't figure out what has changed.

A. What has changed is the concept that guests are guests. These people seem to think of them more as a background crowd, with nothing better to do than to stand around until there is something at which to gawk. The first couple preferred to entertain themselves, rather than their guests, and the second wedding was aimed at posterity, rather than those in attendance. That their victims don't retaliate by simply going home when they are ignored is a miracle of manners.

The Receiving Line
Q. I feel that a receiving line at the wedding ceremony or reception is unnecessary—that greeting the guests individually at the reception is more personal. Several of my coworkers believe that the traditional receiving line is mandatory for the 250 guests who will be attending our wedding.

A. Let's say that you got Miss Ultimate Wedding to agree with you. "All right," she would declare, "no receiving line, provided you make guarantees that the key figures of the wedding will all greet every single one of those 250 guests personally, making absolutely sure not to miss any."

How would this be managed? Well, the bride, bridegroom and at least some of the parents, as hosts, would all have to stand by the door to be sure to get everyone entering. Poof! You have reinvented the receiving line. Now perhaps you can tell Miss Ultimate Wedding why the very name of such a practical and hospitable institution frightens people.

The Receiving-Line Order
Q. My husband and I are giving my stepson a small wedding reception soon, and need your advice on receiving-line etiquette. Both the bride's parents and the groom's parents are divorced and are either remarried or seriously involved with another. The reception is small, only fifty to seventy-five people. It is formal, with candlelight dining. My husband is paying for most of the expenses. The bride's mother is also contributing. The bride's father and the groom's mother are not contributing to the occasion. In what order should the receiving line be?

A. In order of the size of their financial contributions, Miss Ultimate Wedding supposes you expect her to say. Deadbeats need not apply.

Well, money has nothing whatever to do with it. The custom is for either the mothers of the couple, or their mothers and fathers, to receive with the bridal couple. If you and the bridegroom's mother get along well, you might join them as hostess, but Miss Ultimate Wedding hopes you will not make an issue of it. There are too many extraneous people here, some of them not even related, and they will all be screaming to be treated "fairly."

However, you only asked about the order. If you really want to have a receiving line nearly as long as the guest list, Miss Ultimate Wedding will put her feelings aside and give you an order:
1. The bride's mother
2. The bridegroom's father
3. You
4. The bride's mother's husband
5. The bridegroom's mother
6. The bride's father
7. The bride's stepmother
8. The bride's stepfather

And oh, yes—then the bride, bridegroom, and bridesmaids.
Note diat this is not "order of importance." The traditional idea is to mix up the two families (bride's mother, bridegroom's father, bridegroom's mother, bride's father). Miss Ultimate Wedding has merely added the rule, when families are mixed enough already, of avoiding juxtaposing people who used to be married to each other, or to each other's spouses. It makes far too interesting a spectacle for the guests.

The Cuisine
Q. Please help a young bride-to-be! My fiance is Italian and I am Yugoslavian. He says he would like Italian food served at our reception. I do not want to make my side of the family feel left out by serving Italian dishes only, nor do I want a mishmash of international courses or dishes representing both sides. In fact, I do not want to make an ethnic statement at all with the food. I simply want something neutral (roast beef, for example) that just feeds everyone.

My fiance will not agree to this compromise and claims his side will be offended. My family is willing to go with the Italian food, but I am not. This will only serve to have the meal slant the wedding to one culture. What is proper in such a situation?

A. In the New World, we don't consider eclectic menus to be "an international mishmash," but rather the interesting use of different traditions. This is especially appropriate when it is likely to flatter and please the guests, not to mention the bridegroom.

It has not escaped Miss Ultimate Wedding's attention that you are marrying into a family of Italian origin, as he is into a family of Yugoslavian origin. Casting out both traditions for the sake of fairness is a bad way to start a marriage. Hardly better is the notion that everything must be exactly equal. If both families felt strongly, you should try to please both in the menu. But if your family doesn't care, what possible reason is there not to please his?

The Menu
Q. We are planning a wedding dinner for fifty guests. The caterers offer three entree choices, with selections to be made in advance. This plan would entail response cards listing choices, a seating chart, place cards, etc. It seems to me that we, as hosts, should simply decide on a single entree as we would if the dinner were at our home.

A. Miss Ultimate Wedding shares whatever exasperation you may feel that people cannot simply sit down nowadays and eat—or not eat—whatever is put in front of them. They have to whine about it. There were always restrictions because of religion or allergies, long before people began scrutinizing their plates for philosophical or nutritional implications, but polite people accepted graciously what was offered, eating what they could and ignoring the rest.

Now home entertaining has had to alter slightly as a result of the society's preoccupation with what it eats—or food fussing, to use the technical term. A good host is by no means obliged to provide different meals-on-order for everyone, but tries to have a wide-ranging menu that will give at least some sustenance to everyone. Try to do the same for the wedding dinner. Miss Ultimate Wedding finds the project of having guests order in advance not only ridiculous and cumbersome, but ultimately futile, as no two or three choices could possibly accommodate all the variations now in common practice.

The Cash Bar
Q. Bo you think it is appropriate to have a full or partial cash bar at a wedding reception? Some coworkers and I were wondering if it would be rude to ask your guests to pay for a drink, or whether today's economy warrants such actions.

A. Miss Ultimate Wedding is going to take to drink herself, if she keeps having to listen to that argument. No, you cannot use the economy as an excuse for the extreme rudeness of charging your own guests for their refreshment.
Have you never heard of the blessed poor who share what little they have, while vile and greedy people who begrudge sharing are accursed? If you can't afford liquor at your wedding reception, serve tea or punch. If you can't afford that, serve water. But serve it graciously.

For the Wedding Party Only
Q. A friend told me that at her wedding reception, she plans on having champagne for the wedding party only. I think it is rude and ill-mannered not to include everyone. I have suggested that since they cannot afford champagne for everyone, they shouldn't have it just for some. Instead, they should just have it for themselves after the reception is over. She says this has been done at other weddings (which should not justify it as being proper).

A. It sure doesn't. The perversions of hospitality being practiced at modern weddings would make your hair curl, Miss Ultimate Wedding trusts. However, this has got to be high among them. If one cannot afford something special for one's guests, one does not consume that very thing in front of them. Nor does one invite certain people and then demonstrate to them that they are second-class guests. Did the bridegroom have a part in this idea? If not, Miss Ultimate Wedding worries about him. If so, she only worries about their children.

In Which the Bride and the Bartender Fight over the Tips
Q. At a wedding reception where there is an "open bar," there is a large brandy snifter, vase, glass jar, whatever on the bar. Who is the money which is left by the guests meant for? I say it is a tip for the bartender. My daughter says the money is for the bride and groom. Please advise as to who is correct.

A. Nobody. Everybody here is so incorrect that Miss Ultimate Wedding feels like offering you all the change in the bottom of her purse just to go away. There is no correct use of a large brandy snifter on the bar at a wedding reception except for the convenience of a guest requesting brandy; the vase should be used for flowers, and the glass jar should have been thrown away once the maraschino cherries were used up. At a private function, it is not customary to tip the bartender, much less the bride.

The Seating Plans
Q. Why do brides take it upon themselves to arrange seating charts like a fourth-grade teacher?
Since their guests are presumed to be adults, can't they make their own decisions about whom to eat with?
I attended a cousin's wedding, halfway across the country. Although distance has prevented us from being close, my cousin is a wonderful person. A sizable contingent of my family was going, and since I am fond of them and do not often have the chance to see them, the opportunity seemed worth the airfare and hassles of travel. But at the reception, we were assigned tables for dinner and while most of my family sat at one table across the room, I ate with eight total strangers. (Since I am perceived as single, the invitation was for me only, and I did not bring my significant other.) While these people were all very pleasant, I would have preferred to spend time with my family.

Shortly after, I attended the wedding of a college friend. The invitation was again for one, and since my significant other did not know anyone from my college years and was not interested in going, he stayed home. It did not seem worth it, or even proper, to make an issue of it. The guests fell into two categories: dear friends I haven't seen in some time and people I had hoped never to see again in my life. Again we were assigned tables and you can guess where I was assigned. Granted that the meals only last an hour or so. But when you've traveled a great distance to see people you haven't seen in years, time is more valuable.

A. The reason that adults can't find their own seats at a wedding is that they turn childish and start turning over chairs to save seats, arguing about where they want to be, feeling no responsibility for wallflowers, and so on. For a formal meal, seating should be worked out in advance.

But these brides were operating on the assumption that the only social desire of single people is to meet other single people. While weddings are traditional sources of other weddings, such is not always the case. Weddings also function as family reunions and this should be taken into account. Alternating family seating groups with ones including strangers likely to be of interest romantically or socially is a sensible compromise.

The Toasts
Q. When our daughter got married, a strain developed between the groom's parents and ourselves. They chose not to speak at the rehearsal dinner or the wedding. I'm sure no one has to speak about their son or daughter, but isn't it strange?

A. As these people are now your daughter's parents-in-law, Miss Ultimate Wedding urges you to put the omission down to an oversight or stage fright and relieve that strain. Only if you promise to do so will she tell you, for the record, that yes, if the bridegroom's parents give the rehearsal dinner, his father (or mother) should welcome the guests with the first toast, to be returned by the bride's father, after which anybody who is so moved, sober, or brief may offer one. At the wedding itself, the best man offers the first toast, and others may follow, including the bridegroom, to offer toasts to his bride and to her parents.

Businesslike Guests
Q. During our wedding reception, a number of friends mentioned to us that the wife of one of my best friends was passing out bright (orange with black print) flyers for her new house-cleaning business. (Our wedding colors were orchid and black.) At the time, I did not know what to say or do, so we did nothing. Should I have said something to her at the time, or is it too late to say something now? Was this proper?

A. Please don't give Miss Ultimate Wedding false clues, however entertaining. For one awful moment, she thought your objection might be that the flyers clashed with your color scheme.

It would have been preferable to stop this outrage when it occurred, although Miss Ultimate Wedding sympathizes with your paralysis at the idea of reprimanding a wedding guest. It would have been best to send an usher to collect the flyers and hand them back to the offender with the explanation, "This is not a business occasion."
Now it seems pointiess to make a fuss, unless you plan to take the unwise step of inviting this person to another party. In that case you could say, when you issue the invitation, "This will be a social occasion, at which we prefer that business not be conducted." Better yet, you can have great fun turning the wedding anecdote into the kind of you'll-never-believe-this story that gets funnier, Miss Ultimate Wedding promises you, as time goes by.

Loud Music
Q. When attending a wedding reception and sitting with friends or family one may not have seen for some time, it would be most enjoyable to concentrate more on companionship than the loud band. As the volume goes up louder and louder, it becomes impossible to hear what the person next to you is saying. One must leave the table and find a quieter spot to catch up. Would it be rude to ask that the volume not be so loud? Or is this standard at wedding receptions? Very inconsiderate.

A. Yes, it is—inconsiderate, standard, and loud. But before you take that as Miss Ultimate Wedding's encouragement to stop the wedding by saying, "Will you kids please quiet down; some of us are trying to talk!" she must ask how you plan to make your request. You cannot, of course, disturb the wedding and you cannot step in and manage it. What you can do is to take one of the hosts aside—make that the parent with whom you are connected—and ask plaintively, "Is there somewhere the guests at my table can go to talk? We don't want to bother anyone, but we can't hear ourselves over the music."

Doggie Bags
Q. Over the past year, my family and I have attended a few weddings and we hope you can tell us what would be the proper etiquette technique when there are plenty of leftovers from the sweet table at a reception. I say to eat what you want and take home any leftovers, knowing that it would be a waste of food if it's not eaten. My family says to eat what you want and leave the leftovers alone, or bring home any leftover pastries only if they are served at each table and the bride and groom don't mind that you take them.

A. What did you have in mind here? Tapping the bridal couple on the shoulders during their last dance and asking them if you could run off with their food? Miss Ultimate Wedding gathers that your plans involve more than taking home two bites of wedding cake to put under your pillow so that you can dream of your future spouse. Is going off with two or three layers of uneaten cake more like what you were considering?

It is kind of you to worry about food waste, but that happens to be the problem of the hosts. Perhaps they have plans for it. Perhaps, unless you plan to outlast them, not everyone will be finished eating by the time you decide that there is enough to sustain you later. Miss Ultimate Wedding has defended the practice of the so-called doggie bag at restaurants, but the case is different; there, the diner has purchased the food. Guests are offered refreshment at an event, not a share of the investment for future use.

Staying On
Q. My daughter and her fiance have invited many out-of-town friends whom they haven't seen for a few years, and they want to stay at their wedding reception until it is over. Her grandmother says they should leave at a reasonable hour and not make the guests stay.

If they throw the bouquet, etc., and then leave to get changed, I feel they can return and party with their friends. We want people to stay as long as they wish, but not to feel they must stay if they want to leave. Would it be appropriate for the Master of Ceremonies to make an announcement to this effect?

A. The fact that newlyweds feel cheated if they have to go off and spend the evening alone has become increasingly, not to mention indecorously, apparent in recent years. As a result, the rule about guests not leaving until the bridal couple does is routinely violated and the couple does eventually end up alone, although at the reception site itself.

Miss Ultimate Wedding prefers your solution of the formal, but not actual, departure to the one about announcing that people are free to leave. Of course they are, but being told so, however merciful the motivation, can only make them think that they have long overstayed their welcome.

The Aftermath
Q. My sister is having a full wedding (the couple has lived together for a few years) and all of the immediate family is traveling from out of town. The couple has not offered to help with expenses. They say they have to pay for the wedding. Most of the family is returning immediately after the wedding and my sister is upset that no one is staying over an extra day to watch her open her gifts. Is this a new tradition—watching the bride open gifts?

A. How old is this bride? She seems to be confusing the tradition of the single-digit birthday party with her wedding. Watching people open presents, unless it is the joking offerings of a rare adult birthday party, is not a grown-up occupation.

The new tradition here, if you want to call it that, is the marathon wedding. Although a party the night before the wedding has long been customary, next-day parties featuring the bridal couple did not appear until everyone was willing to admit that the newlyweds had no particular reason to want to be alone together.
A guest's obligation when attending a wedding is still only for the ceremony and celebration immediately following. If others want to hang around longer, out of sentiment, curiosity about the wedding presents, or cheaper air fares if they stay over, it is fine to plan events to entertain them. But guests are not obliged to stay after the wedding day to witness the marriage.