The Unwanted Second-Hand Invitee

[sammycat]

Then I think A should do what Danika suggested: Respond privately to B and say, "I did not invite C, you will need to rescind the invitation, and you may not bring her. You may not invite people to an event I am hosting, you are not the host. If you want to determine the guest list, you will need to host your own event. I will understand if you decide not to attend yourself."

And then reply individually to all the people who said no, and say, "Bummer! I'll miss you. Oh, by the way, C will not be attending after all; I alerted B that since I hadn't invited her directly, he could not bring her along. I don't know if he's coming now either. Let me know if your plans change."

I agree. I like Toots's suggestion.

I was thinking that were I in A's shoes, I would do exactly that. Or I might not invite B again either. I would tell B not to invite people who aren't on my guest list, and also add that since everyone RSVPed no, clearly, the event is off.

Then I might wait a couple of days and create a new event, same guest list minus B, and start again, perhaps on a different date so that it's not too obvious what transpired.

But comparing what I was thinking to what Toots suggested, I think maybe Toots' suggestion is a little less drama-inducing.

I agree with the bolded in both these posts, and think that either option (emailing people or creating a new event) is a good solution.

typo

[sammycat]

I suspect that this advice is not etiquette approved, but here goes.

Perhaps your sister should start asking C for the $$$$ back each and every time that she encounters her at a social event.  She could ask about a lump sum, or a payment plan.  This would be done quietly and out of the hearing of others so as not to disrupt the party and make others uncomfortable.  For example, she could whisper in C's ear when C tries to cozy up to her.

Maybe C would get tired of being nagged, and stop coming to events.

Or at the very least, she'd leave your sister alone.

I don't actually think it needs to be whispered. I'd just start bringing it up at a regular conversational volume. Maybe even initiate the conversation--walk up to her and say, "Oh, hi, C, and Other Person. Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to ask--you owe me $2,780 from that project where you borrowed it two years ago. I've been waiting, can you give me some of it back now? I can write you out a receipt."

Then everybody will know she owes your sister money for years. That's actually an appropriate piece of info for people to know, and it's completely factual.

Yes, I support mentioning the money each and every time you see her, preferably with other people around. It might just save someone else from being conned as the sister was.

[TootsNYC]

Actually, I think maybe -yours- is less drama inducing.

I mean if only those 2 people are coming, it's sensible to call it off. And then you pick a different night, and you just don't ever invite B again.

Honestly, that kind of error--inviting someone to someone else's party--is a major etiquette sin, and it's worthy of being eliminated from future guest lists.

[Mergatroyd]

I've no idea what OP should do, but I am wondering- Would it be ok if after leaving early or declining the RSVP, to say something along the lines of "I would have enjoyed that but C was going and I'm just not comfortable around her" if questioned by the host? (I am envisioning an excuse of leaving early because of not feeling well and then the next day the host inquires as to your health etc?) I do understand not wanting to make waves while the gathering is in session, but surely a longtime member of the groups comfort would be held more important than the plus 1 of a married to another one male)?

[purple]

I've no idea what OP should do, but I am wondering- Would it be ok if after leaving early or declining the RSVP, to say something along the lines of "I would have enjoyed that but C was going and I'm just not comfortable around her" if questioned by the host? (I am envisioning an excuse of leaving early because of not feeling well and then the next day the host inquires as to your health etc?) I do understand not wanting to make waves while the gathering is in session, but surely a longtime member of the groups comfort would be held more important than the plus 1 of a married to another one male)?

I think that might be a know-your-audience thing.  I'm trying to imagine being in that situation and I don't know what I'd do.  Then, someone who I might be close enough to be honest about the day after like that would surely know me well enough to know that C was the reason and probably wouldn't have believed my illness excuse anyway.

[CrazyDaffodilLady]

It would be disingenuous -- if not downright catty -- to inquire about B's wife in front of C, or to start inviting the wife out socially.  O.P. stated that she had only met the wife once in four years. 

[perpetua]

It would be disingenuous -- if not downright catty -- to inquire about B's wife in front of C, or to start inviting the wife out socially.  O.P. stated that she had only met the wife once in four years.

I didn't catch that but you're absolutely right. Whole new spin. OP, if you've only met the wife once in four years, how do you know they didn't separate a long time ago?

OP also states how it's 'icky' because he's still married. That's a personal judgement. Many people start seeing other people while separated and long before a divorce is final because these things take a long time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think judgements are being made about peoples' relationship status that shouldn't be being made (terrible English, it's early here!) and I stand by my original statement that it would be terribly rude to big up the wife in front of C, *especially* considering that the OP doesn't even know her.

[wolfie]

Now, I'm wondering the following. Let's say that A does not like C. And he does not appreciate that B invited C, and put C on the "To:" line of the email instead of just asking A privately if he could add C to the guest list. What should A do? Should he email B privately and say "I did not invite C. Please, rescind the invitation. She is not welcome at my event"? And let's say that A suspects that others don't like C and that's why they might RSVP "no", how would A communicate that to everyone else? Should he email everyone privately and say "In the future, if you reply to all, please, ensure that C's name is not on the 'To:' line because she is not invited"? Or should he say nothing publicly and just let most of the people RSVP no and then he just has a tiny little gathering? Or should he cancel it outright, and then issue a new invitation (maybe for a different date to present the illusion that a date conflict is why he canceled the first gathering) to everyone except C? And except B?

That is such a hard question. Honestly all of those are fine but some are harder to pull off. For example I could never do the first - tell B that I didn't invite C and to rescind the offer unless I had a concrete reason to do so. So if I was hosting something that could only accommodate say 6 people then I could say "sorry but i only have 5 slots and they are all taken so you can't bring C" if I don't have a reason to point to then I just don't have the spine to say "she can't come". So I would suck it up and deal with it and then not invite B again.

[Arila]

It would be disingenuous -- if not downright catty -- to inquire about B's wife in front of C, or to start inviting the wife out socially.  O.P. stated that she had only met the wife once in four years.

I didn't catch that but you're absolutely right. Whole new spin. OP, if you've only met the wife once in four years, how do you know they didn't separate a long time ago?

OP also states how it's 'icky' because he's still married. That's a personal judgement. Many people start seeing other people while separated and long before a divorce is final because these things take a long time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think judgements are being made about peoples' relationship status that shouldn't be being made (terrible English, it's early here!) and I stand by my original statement that it would be terribly rude to big up the wife in front of C, *especially* considering that the OP doesn't even know her.

Yes, sorry, I had already discarded any idea of bringing up the wife, or inviting her for exactly the reasons stated.

As to being judgey: If they are separated, they should...separate. Not live in the same house with one another. Not be underhanded and shady with your new relationship. <NEW INFO> Not suddenly start to wear your wedding ring because people were "getting the wrong idea". If they are separated, why not tell your friends who are observing "bad" behavior and clear it all up? Honestly, we don't hold divorce against our friends (Actually, now that I think about it, one of the guys in the group did separate and eventually divorce, and started seeing someone who was welcomed into the group before it was all finalized). If that's what's going on, he should just say, "Wife and I are separated, and I'm seeing C now." As I said before, it's the one foot in, one foot out that I find the most distasteful.

Regardless of their circumstances, real or imagined, without a clear declaration of his attachment, B and C are not a social unit and are not to be afforded the privileges that come with that, such as joint invitations.

[perpetua]

It would be disingenuous -- if not downright catty -- to inquire about B's wife in front of C, or to start inviting the wife out socially.  O.P. stated that she had only met the wife once in four years.

I didn't catch that but you're absolutely right. Whole new spin. OP, if you've only met the wife once in four years, how do you know they didn't separate a long time ago?

OP also states how it's 'icky' because he's still married. That's a personal judgement. Many people start seeing other people while separated and long before a divorce is final because these things take a long time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think judgements are being made about peoples' relationship status that shouldn't be being made (terrible English, it's early here!) and I stand by my original statement that it would be terribly rude to big up the wife in front of C, *especially* considering that the OP doesn't even know her.

Yes, sorry, I had already discarded any idea of bringing up the wife, or inviting her for exactly the reasons stated.

As to being judgey: If they are separated, they should...separate. Not live in the same house with one another. Not be underhanded and shady with your new relationship. <NEW INFO> Not suddenly start to wear your wedding ring because people were "getting the wrong idea". If they are separated, why not tell your friends who are observing "bad" behavior and clear it all up? Honestly, we don't hold divorce against our friends (Actually, now that I think about it, one of the guys in the group did separate and eventually divorce, and started seeing someone who was welcomed into the group before it was all finalized). If that's what's going on, he should just say, "Wife and I are separated, and I'm seeing C now." As I said before, it's the one foot in, one foot out that I find the most distasteful.

Regardless of their circumstances, real or imagined, without a clear declaration of his attachment, B and C are not a social unit and are not to be afforded the privileges that come with that, such as joint invitations.

Slight sideline, but there are all kinds of reasons why a couple might separate and still continue to live together. You (you general) don't get to make that call or to judge whether it's distasteful or not when you don't know a couple's circumstances. I had to do it with an ex partner because he was to be the one to move out but he a) had to wait until he found somewhere suitable to rent that he could afford and b) had to save up the money to be able to do it. It was six months before he was able to move out.

All conjecture though, since we don't know.

[Arila]

Slight sideline, but there are all kinds of reasons why a couple might separate and still continue to live together. You (you general) don't get to make that call or to judge whether it's distasteful or not when you don't know a couple's circumstances. I had to do it with an ex partner because he was to be the one to move out but he a) had to wait until he found somewhere suitable to rent that he could afford and b) had to save up the money to be able to do it. It was six months before he was able to move out.

All conjecture though, since we don't know.

Sure, I have heard of that. I could go back and forth all day, point, counter point. I have thought of this and several other things. I used to like B. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and under the weight of several observations, come to an unfavorable conclusion. It still comes down to the fact that if he's separated, he's pretty much lied to us, and if he's together with his wife, he's treating her abominably. So to me, separated or not he doesn't look good.  Therefore, the issue of whether or not they are separated is moot.

[Outdoor Girl]

Regardless of their circumstances, real or imagined, without a clear declaration of his attachment, B and C are not a social unit and are not to be afforded the privileges that come with that, such as joint invitations.

I completely agree with this part.

I think the social group as a whole should give B one chance to show up alone (or with his wife), after being told that C is not included in the invitation.  But if he brings C, even after being informed she is not invited?  No more invitations for B.

[Vall]

Regardless of their circumstances, real or imagined, without a clear declaration of his attachment, B and C are not a social unit and are not to be afforded the privileges that come with that, such as joint invitations.

I completely agree with this part.

I think the social group as a whole should give B one chance to show up alone (or with his wife), after being told that C is not included in the invitation.  But if he brings C, even after being informed she is not invited?  No more invitations for B.

I agree that B and C are not a social unit but the subject of joint invitations and whether a host allows C to be added on is up to the person hosting.  Personally, I wouldn't invite B anymore but I can only dictate that when I am issuing the invitations.

[Outdoor Girl]

I was basing my opinion on the fact that after B indicated in a response to the whole group that he would be bring C, the rest of the group declined the invite.  So it sounds like the entire group would prefer that C not be included.  But yes, it would be up to each individual host to either invite B and tell him not to bring C or to not invite B at all.

[lowspark]

Now, I'm wondering the following. Let's say that A does not like C. And he does not appreciate that B invited C, and put C on the "To:" line of the email instead of just asking A privately if he could add C to the guest list. What should A do? Should he email B privately and say "I did not invite C. Please, rescind the invitation. She is not welcome at my event"? And let's say that A suspects that others don't like C and that's why they might RSVP "no", how would A communicate that to everyone else? Should he email everyone privately and say "In the future, if you reply to all, please, ensure that C's name is not on the 'To:' line because she is not invited"? Or should he say nothing publicly and just let most of the people RSVP no and then he just has a tiny little gathering? Or should he cancel it outright, and then issue a new invitation (maybe for a different date to present the illusion that a date conflict is why he canceled the first gathering) to everyone except C? And except B?

Actually, the second scenario happened just a couple of weeks ago. B responded affirmatively as "C and I" and added her to the To: line quite early. And...every subsequent RSVP was no. I am a little more interested in how you all think A should respond.

So... two questions. Do you have any way of knowing (or finding out) if the Nos were due to C's potential attendance? And by the same token, does A know or suspect that?

I wouldn't have any problem telling B that it's not ok to invite additional people to my house/event without checking with me first. Especially now that the party has been canceled (presumably) A can just tell B, "for future reference, please don't invite C or anyone else without checking with me first."

However, since apparently B is making a habit of this, it's safe to assume that this won't go over well and that he'll turn it around to somehow insisting that C should be invited in the first place.

If everyone really is declining because of C, chances are that they will eventually stop inviting B as well, which, at this point, may be the only way to deal with the situation.