Question re uninivited people or non RSVPers at receptions

[kareng57]

There have been a couple of threads about this sort of thing recently, and I didn't want to hijack.

I'm just wondering if anyone here has been in the position of having to turn people away at the reception who were not on the invitation-accepted list.  I'm thinking about - singles who assume that it's fine to bring a date/parents who assume that their children are included/ people who did not reply to the invitation, but just show up. - etc.  I'm not really talking about a toxic or abusive person (such as an ex) who might show up - usually, if the HC thinks that this is a risk, there is a "bouncer" person arranged previously.

I'm thinking more of the clueless guests.  30 years ago, the often-used etiquette advice was "a good hostess smiles through anything" - but I think that there were a lot fewer etiquette-clueless people around then.

Input, anyone?

[KeenReader]

I've never personally seen this but I've wondered about it too-especially when it really isn't possible to accommodate an uninvited guest or a non-RSVPer.

I have seen many people say that they would treat such people the same as invited guests and wouldn't turn them away, and I remember Ehelldame once posted that there were a couple of such guests at a wedding she coordinated once.  Her response was to admit the guests, but not provide them with seats or food until there was a vacancy at a table by invited guests' departure.  I'm not sure I would do this though-in large part it would depend on how many uninvited guests show up demanding to be admitted and treated like invited guests. 

If there's just a small number, they don't include anyone I or my new spouse don't want, and it's possible to accommodate them, I'd probably go ahead and do it.  Otherwise, I guess I'd have to say (assuming there were no problems with these people that would make me flatly wish to refuse them): "I'm so sorry.  It's very nice to meet you, but unfortunately, we're not able to accommodate you-we had told GuestBringingYou this, but through a miscommunication you didn't get the word about it.  I hope we're able to get acquainted at another time."

[TootsNYC]

Even today, the suggestion of many wedding planners is to accommodate those people instead of turning them away.

I think that if accommodating them *truly* causes big hardship, you aren't obligated to shield them from all evidence of that, and in fact can make them feel a little of that hardship for themselves.

But one of the *big* reasons not to make a big to-do about it is for the comfort of your INVITED guests.

Remember "the cut direct"? One reason why it is the etiquette nuke is because the fallout is SO awkward for everyone *else*. So you don't put the witnesses through that unless you have a phenomenally good reason, one you feel absolutely confident that they would understand.

Well, at a wedding, the invited guests are going to be very uncomfortable if they see or hear that you turned someone away.

[FunkyMunky]

DF's cousin found room for one non-RSVPer and his uninvited son. They showed no gratitude for the gesture.

Since DF and I will be pushing our space limit as is, if non-invitees show up, I'll see if they can get some food, but they'll have sit at the bar.

[GirlyJock]

I think it depends on the hardship for the HC. On one hand, if it's one or two people, and there's room for them, I don't think that that's such a big deal. If it's 5 or more, I think that the HC would be within their rights to turn the unplanned guests away.

But saefty trumps etiquette. If the HC + vendors + guests = the room's capacity, then I think that it should be explained to the uninvited people/nonRSVPers that it'd be a fire code violation to accomodate them.

[Genna]

Well, at a wedding, the invited guests are going to be very uncomfortable if they see or hear that you turned someone away.

I wouldn't be uncomfortable with it at all, I would think that in the future they will pay more attention to not RSVPing or dragging along uninvited guests.  What I would be uncomfortable with is if these people were squashed into the table I was at, crowding myself and everyone else.

[nyarlathotep]

etiquette nuke

Sorry to go off-topic, but that is an AWESOME way to describe it!

[BettyDraper]

Even today, the suggestion of many wedding planners is to accommodate those people instead of turning them away.

I think that if accommodating them *truly* causes big hardship, you aren't obligated to shield them from all evidence of that, and in fact can make them feel a little of that hardship for themselves.

But one of the *big* reasons not to make a big to-do about it is for the comfort of your INVITED guests.

Remember "the cut direct"? One reason why it is the etiquette nuke is because the fallout is SO awkward for everyone *else*. So you don't put the witnesses through that unless you have a phenomenally good reason, one you feel absolutely confident that they would understand.

Well, at a wedding, the invited guests are going to be very uncomfortable if they see or hear that you turned someone away.

I agree.  While the non-RSVPers and party crashers are clods, it's better to err on the side of gracious hospitality if at all possible.  Better to assume the surprise guests were socially clueless people with good intentions, and try to fit them in, than to assume they are cavalierly and maliciously flouting the rules of hospitality and barging in on a whim just to throw off the caterer's headcount. 

At least, as a hostess, that's how I'd prefer to reflect on my own reaction after the fact.  And I'd rather my legitimate guests see me as someone who can absorb a change in plans with grace and good humor rather than as a hostess with a spine of steel who didn't let those scurvy interlopers set one foot into her banquet hall. 

[Genna]

I am curious as to what people would do in the "interloper" brought a child along with them and it was a childfree reception.  Is the hostess still supposed to suck it up and let them in, which may anger those that followed the rules and got sitters or tell them that no children are allowed at the reception?

[kudeebee]

While the experts say to accomodate them, where do you put them if there is assigned seating? 

It doesn't seem fair that mom and dad show up with their 3 uninvited children and take 3 seats at the table that were assigned to someone else.  I would hope that the venue would have them wait at the side until alternate seating could be found.

It would not bother me as a guest to see someone turned away.  It would also not bother me to see mom and dad turned away with the 3 kids if it is a childfree wedding.  If the rest of the guests obeyed the rule, why should these two get a special privilege?  Also, noone who rsvp'd should have to give up their seat(s).

This shows why there should be someone at the door to check the list and tell people where they are seated if there is assigned seating or to direct them to sit anywhere if open seating.  They can also then have the interlopers/rulebreakers wait to the side until seating can be found/set up. 

[GirlyJock]

If someone brought their child to a childfree reception, it'd be the result of 4 possible scenarios:

1. Person bringing the child did not RSVP. (so 2 unplanned guests, one of which would not be welcome in the first place)
2. Person bringing the child did not RSVP for the child, and was a bit clueless.
3. Person bringing the child RSVP'ed for the child, and found out that the child was not welcome. Person brought the child anyway.
4. Person bringing the child had a babysitter, who cancelled last-minute.

IMO, the non-RSVP'ers should be sent away, if only because there would be other guests "following the rules" who might be upset that another child was permitted to attend the reception (especially in scenario #3, because the guest would probably announce that he/she knew the child was not welcome). I'd hope that the person in situation #4 would be able to find someone there who wouldn't mind splitting the sitter's cost, and would be able to drop the kid off between the church and the reception.

[Nurvingiel]

Since it is awkward to turn people away directly, head it off at the pass.

If you have people who don't RSVP by the deadline, call them. Ask if they're coming. Reiterate who is invited if you think this would be necessary.

Then, if you still think there might be issues with non-invitees, have the hotel staff turn people away for you.

This is a good reason to have assigned seating as well.

I have zero problem with turning away uninvited guests at a party.

[Mammavan1]

I cannot imagine a graceful way to handle this.  If you have assigned seating and the tables are set for the number of people who have responded, you cannot squeeze people in at a table that has already been set for the correct number of guests.  If the maitre d' were to have another table set up to accommodate two or three unexpected guests, it would be very noticeable. 

[BettyDraper]

I cannot imagine a graceful way to handle this.  If you have assigned seating and the tables are set for the number of people who have responded, you cannot squeeze people in at a table that has already been set for the correct number of guests.  If the maitre d' were to have another table set up to accommodate two or three unexpected guests, it would be very noticeable. 

Noticeable, and inconvenient, yes.  But better that than a showdown at the entrance to the reception hall, with bouncers/catering staff/etc. barring the door as an interested audience of proper RSVP-ers looks on.  Is that really the main memory people want associated with their reception, because a public fracas would be.  Discreet waiters whipping another table into place seems less dramatic. 

I'm the first to be a stickler for "traditional" etiquette rules like responding clearly and unambiguously to an invitation.  But as long as we aren't talking about toxic or unwelcome guests here (the child issue is a real conundrum) but rather clueless guests were originally WERE invited, and presumably welcome, but did not communicate effectively and/or changed their minds at the last minute, deciding to show up.  I would have a problem refusing to receive them and I'd think rather poorly of any host who chose to make a stand on principle rather than be compassionate about human foibles and do his/her best to make the visitors welcome. 

The only other possible solution would be, as someone above suggested, to head them off after the ceremony by saying "What a surprise!  Glad you could make the nuptials, so sorry you won't be joining us for the reception.  See you at PeeWee's graduation party!"  But crashers who show up at reception only -- shrug.  I'd put up with them.

[Mammavan1]

Noticeable, and inconvenient, yes.  But better that than a showdown at the entrance to the reception hall, with bouncers/catering staff/etc. barring the door as an interested audience of proper RSVP-ers looks on.  Is that really the main memory people want associated with their reception, because a public fracas would be.  Discreet waiters whipping another table into place seems less dramatic. 

I believe you are misinterpreting what I wrote.  I do not believe I ever suggested a "showdown" or "barring the door" as alternatives.  I'm not a big fan of the public fracas and do not participate in them.

I merely stated that moving tables already set for dinner and then inserting another table, bringing out linen, silver, china, (unfortunately, no centerpiece, favors, table name/number) chairs, and then having one table with two or three guests in a sea of tables for eight, ten, or twelve would be very noticeable and embarrassing.  If I were the guest, I would much prefer to be told quietly that, since I hadn't responded, there was no accommodation for me than spend the four or five hours of a reception sitting in such an obviously hastily improvised arrangement and having other guests speculate on the reason. 

If it's possible to quietly add one seat to a table that was not already full, that would not be a problem, but for most of the weddings I've attended, I don't believe that would be easily accomplished.