We got a wedding invitation a few days ago that still has me puzzled. There was a response card included, which clued me in that we were being invited for the "whole" wedding, not only the chupah. And yet, at the bottom of the invitation, in beautiful italic script, was this:
"All our honoured guests will be seated for the dinner." Huh? Has anyone else ever seen this before? And what does it really mean? Without this caveat printed on the invitation does that mean if I send back my response card that I am coming that I only have a chance of sitting down to eat dinner? Does this mean that only the first people who race to the tables will get seated? Please, someone explain this to me. If it helps any, this is going to be a super frummy wedding.
Wonder if it's the same wedding. My parents got an invitation like that but without the response card. My dad says they are invited to the dinner and my mom says she isn't sure about that. Kind of embarrasing to have to call and ask what you were invited to.
Seems the proper thing to do would only be to include a meal response card for those invited to the seudah and not print such on an invitation. Seems tacky. But, then again, an invitation could be construed as an invitation to everything.
Oy! What a mess.
It does seem sort of baffling.
But I think I detected a clue that might help.
Note the spelling used - honoured - not honored. That is a British spelling. So I would guess that it is a UK or possibly continental/commonwealth thing.
At one time there were spelling reforms in the USA (there was a spelling reform association) which changed some spellings, e.g. removing the letter u from words like color and honor. The UK didn't go along with it.
Anyway, if so, asking someone from the UK might garner an explanation.
I might mean that they are assigned (specific) seats, in other words that the seating is not choose/grab a seat for yourself.
Another thing which might help understand this is that I believe in the UK they have a separation of time and place between chupah and dinner. It might be related to that.
*It might mean
What I got from this, and the exchange in the Yated, is basically that people who come to be Misameach the chatan and kallah don't have anything to do between dances, so they plan to feed everyone. Maybe they'll have tables for people who are "stopping by," but not of the same caliber of those invited with a response card.
This way nobody feels like a shnuk while their friends are chowing down and they're waiting for the next dance.
Then just send resp. cards to everyone, huh? That's why I assume it'll be a little less formal seating for those people.
d--They are both Brooklyn families and I'm pretty sure there is no British background there.
Michelle--I think you may have given me a plausible answer. I guess it's a polite way to tell those just dropping in for the dancing that they won't be expected to starve to death while the rest of us are eating.
Still, this is a confusing way of trying to give information on an invitation.
Speaking as a Londoner, I have not seen that statement on any UK wedding invitations in recent years. However, given that the norm for British weddings is to have a catered reception after the chuppah, which is then followed by a formal dinner, generally for a smaller number of invitees, this may be saying that you should not be looking for a separate dinner invitation card - the overall invitation is for the whole event.
British weddings have no 'smorgasboard' prior to the chuppah, so the reception then offers an opportunity for the family pictures to be taken and there is general chatting and mazel-toving with all those who were at the chuppah.
Hope this clarifies matters.
I think it is to contrast the habit some have of putting out less seats then the number of positive responses on the return card. It's done to counter the people that say they are coming and then either don't show up or leave right after the chupah
Post a Comment