Etiquette Question - wedding invites

wrote in message
oups.com...
This wedding we didn't go they had a list from a well-known department
store where they actually wrap it and deliver it to the couple without
you ever seeing it. We did send a card on later. I find that idea of
the guests not even wrapping and bringing their own presents really
clinical myself, but each to their own.

That's a bit much to my mind. I prefer getting couples gifts off their
registry just for convenience-what they want is right there, exchanging is
easy if need be, there's no risk of duplicate presents...

But we'll wrap ourselves and usually put the funny card in with the present.


Jess

PattyMomVA wrote:
I can't imagine ending friendships because
they don't have kids, nor did we skip out on our single friends when we
got married.

I'm not responding to anyone in particular here, but I have an
observation....

I believe the OP of this sub-thread said that she wouldn't stay close to
friends who did not *like* children, not those who did not *have* children.

She did say that (the former), and I agree the thread's veering further
and further from the initial point. But my problem wasn't with that,
but with her earlier statement; that if the couple getting married
didn't want the OOP (original original poster ;-) ) at the wedding
then were they really her friends? Actually, it's not even so much that
statement as the fact that the context wasn't about the couple not
wanting the OOP at the wedding (presumably they do or they wouldn't have
invited her, but about them not wanting the baby at the wedding.

The way it was sounding, it seemed that what Anne was trying to say was
that just because this couple didn't want the OP's baby at the wedding,
that must mean they weren't really her friends. I don't know whether
that was really how it was meant, but it seemed well over the top to
conclude that purely from the couple wanting their wedding to be child-free.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

wrote:

I think what I find
most clinical is that the guests don't even get to wrap the presents
which to me just seems to be an by-product of wedding lists - a feature
which again wouldn't be my choice either.

I don't think there's anything to stop the guests wrapping the presents
if they want to. Some people just find it easier to get them
gift-wrapped and sent.

I agree with what you say about it being clinical, though in practice I
can see cases where it might be the only thing to do (if there isn't a
store near you, say). Another point is that it can also cause practical
problems, given that the bride and groom are about to be away for the
next week or three. A friend of mine lost a wedding present that way,
due to the staggering incompetence of Royal Mail, who apparently have a
filing system for uncollected packages so apocalyptically stupid you
wouldn't believe it (they're filed according to what's *in* the package,
so if you don't happen to know what the package was then you're stuck).
She has no idea who sent it to her, let alone what it was, and no way
of finding out. She feels really bad about not having been able to send
a thank-you note to whoever it was, but there's nothing she can do about it.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

"Jess" wrote in message
news:eN8wg.164340$k%3.101174@dukeread12...
But we'll wrap ourselves and usually put the funny card in with the
present.

Do you also have yourselves delivered? hehehe
Marie

"Marie" wrote in message
...
Do you also have yourselves delivered? hehehe

That's a tempting thought.

.....

Hmm....



Jess

"cjra" ) writes:
if their names are not on the invitation, they *are* explicitly
excluded.

I disagree. In some cultures, not having their names on
the invitation may implicitly exclude them, but not explicitly.

"Leslie" ) writes:
Just a point of etiquette--the ONLY people invited to the wedding are
those whose names are on the invitation. Therefore, if only your name
and that of your husband were on the invitation, then only the two of
you were invited.

This is not a universal rule. Some families are not as
formal as that. Some people are invited by word of mouth,
and some people are welcomed even if not explicitly invited.
Also, some invitations say "and guest" or "and family" or
"children welcome", which invites people without printing their names.

Customs vary.

Workingmom ) writes:
Anne Rogers skrev:
Sadly it happens, that if the parents of both bride and groom disapprove of
the match and the couple want to get married straight away, they often have
little choice.

Or just plain don't want to spend more money on that specific
celebration than on any other celebration (birthday etc).

On the other hand - they shouldn't expect presents, then.

Tine, Denmark

Nobody should expect presents, IMO. I don't think I would
give a more expensive gift just because someone was spending
more money on their wedding; I might do the opposite, basing
the gift on what seemed to be needed: if they can afford
an expensive wedding, they're not as needy. I give
wedding gifts as a celebration and to help with setting
up a new household, not as a payment for a fancy dinner.

Sarah Vaughan ) writes:
Anne Rogers wrote:
Sadly it happens, that if the parents of both bride and groom disapprove of
the match and the couple want to get married straight away, they often have
little choice.

They could choose not to have a party that they can't pay for. A choice
you don't like is still a choice.

I agree with Sarah. It doesn't strike me as sad at all
that people choose to get married and don't spend a lot
of money. Actually, I'm more saddened about weddings where
a lot of money is spent.

"Sue" ) writes:
"Cheri Stryker" wrote in message
The ironic thing is, breastfed babies (provided mom's wardrobe is
cooperative) tend to be quieter/more easy to soothe (well, infants,
anyway) than bottlefed. At least that's been my experience comparing
mine to other babes.

?? hmm, I've never known the difference and is usually because of the
temperment of the child. And definitely not so in my family.

Similar things have been said in La Leche league publications
IIRC. It also makes sense: bf mothers usually use nursing a
lot to comfort a child in pain, to help a child fall
asleep, etc. Bottles don't tend to last as long and therefore (from
what I've heard) aren't as useful for those sorts of things,
and pacifiers often aren't as satisfactory to the child.
Many bf mothers have found that when their toddler weans,
they can no longer get the toddler to take a nap. Also,
bf babies have lower rates of almost every imaginable illness,
mild or serious, so they're less likely to be sick at any
given time. Of course individual babies vary in temperament,
but on average maybe the bf ones are a lot quieter.