Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Scottish Wedding in England

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 20:55 GMT
My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near the
border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter from the
father of the bride to be. We have decided to accept this invitation, but
how do we reply in a way that is considered 'correct' according to customs
in Scotland? I know that we will have to answer the bride's family, but how?
What is the precise and recommended way of saying 'yes' in this situation.
(apart from that I have been asked to use a bow tie, but I am not familiar
with what kind of clothing goes with a bow tie (I am not wearing a kilt),
but I know this is beyond this group's agenda, so I shall just ask somebody
else about this, but an answer to how to reply to the invitation on a
ceremonial basis would be most welcomed, especially if you are Scottish or
at least are aware of the traditions there about weddings. The allegedly
happy couple are in their mid-thirties and younger, but I should very much
want to do this correctly.
Any suggestions, please?
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 06 Jan 2010 21:54 GMT
> My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near
> the border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter
> from the father of the bride to be. We have decided to accept this
> invitation, but how do we reply in a way that is considered 'correct'
> according to customs in Scotland?

The "correct" form of reply depends on the wording of the invitation,
and as you haven't divulged that it's not possible to answer your
question without a lot of guessing. As a  general guide, if the
invitation is in the third person then you reply in the third person;
if not, not.

> I know that we will have to answer the bride's family, but how? What is
> the precise and recommended way of saying 'yes' in this situation.
> (apart from that I have been asked to use a bow tie, but I am not
> familiar with what kind of clothing goes with a bow tie (I am not
> wearing a kilt),

Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt, and a Sassenach
is almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.

>  but I know this is beyond this group's agenda, so I shall just ask
> somebody else about this, but an answer to how to reply to the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> younger, but I should very much want to do this correctly.
> Any suggestions, please?

Signature

athel

Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 22:13 GMT
>> My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near
>> the border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> without a lot of guessing. As a  general guide, if the invitation is in
> the third person then you reply in the third person; if not, not.

The invitation goes:

Mr. and Mrs. (the bride's family's name) request the pleasure of Mr. and
Mrs. Arne Wilstrup at the marriage of their daughter (bride's name) to Mr.
(bridegroom's name) at (name of the hotel) on Saturday 7th August 2010 at
3.00 p.m.

RSVP

>> I know that we will have to answer the bride's family, but how? What is
>> the precise and recommended way of saying 'yes' in this situation. (apart
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt, and a Sassenach is
> almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.

As a Dane I don't think I should be considered a Sassenach (smile), but
you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very expensive,
so I don't think that I should ever approach such a clothing.

However, given the contents of the invitation, would you be able to suggest
the reply to the bride's family?
Ian Jackson - 06 Jan 2010 22:30 GMT
>>> My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England
>>>(near the border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>RSVP

Something like:
"Mr. and Mrs. Arne Wilstrup thank Mr. and Mrs. (the bride's family's
name) for their invitation to the marriage of their daughter (bride's
name) to Mr. >(bridegroom's name), and are pleased to accept."

>>> I know that we will have to answer the bride's family, but how? What
>>>is the precise and recommended way of saying 'yes' in this situation.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt

There's no "can" about it!

>>, and a Sassenach is  almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.
>
>As a Dane I don't think I should be considered a Sassenach (smile), but
>you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very
>expensive, so I don't think that I should ever approach such a clothing.

It will be considered a deep insult if you do not turn up in full
traditional Viking folk dress.

>However, given the contents of the invitation, would you be able to
>suggest the reply to the bride's family?

Signature

Ian

Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 23:26 GMT
 >>The invitation goes:

>>Mr. and Mrs. (the bride's family's name) request the pleasure of Mr. and
>>Mrs. Arne Wilstrup at the marriage of their daughter (bride's name) to Mr.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>However, given the contents of the invitation, would you be able to
>>suggest the reply to the bride's family?
Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 23:42 GMT
> In message <4b450afa$0$36580$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, Arne H.

> Something like:
> "Mr. and Mrs. Arne Wilstrup thank Mr. and Mrs. (the bride's family's name)
> for their invitation to the marriage of their daughter (bride's name) to
> Mr. >(bridegroom's name), and are pleased to accept."

That's what I needed - thank you very much.

>>> Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt
>
> There's no "can" about it!

(smile)

>>>, and a Sassenach is  almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It will be considered a deep insult if you do not turn up in full
> traditional Viking folk dress.

(G) what is a Viking folk dress? You English (thanks to our tourist brand,
aaargh) seem to think that Vikings wore helmits with horns, which was not
the case according to the archaeologists and historians, and the dress
consisted of a woolen clothing with a belt of leather, and some trousers of
leather too. Showing this clothing I should be considered a queer person.
(You might think I am, but let's keep this a secret, agreed?) Moreover, I
don't think that my hairy and wry legs would be appropriate at this wedding,
I'm afraid (G). I am going to a foreign wedding as a foreigner, and I should
like to think that Danes are considered diamonds in the rough instead of
giving  the impression that we are just roughs.

I shall try to be as quite and self-effacing as possible, which is not a
role I am used to, but the groom is an actor, so I might get some hints from
him, too of how to get along.

But again, thank you for your contributions.
Leslie Danks - 07 Jan 2010 10:52 GMT
[...]

> ... Moreover, I don't think that my hairy and wry legs would be
> appropriate at this wedding, I'm afraid (G).

You could always leave them in the corner of the room, telling Danish
jokes to those who are prepared to listen

> I am going to a foreign
> wedding as a foreigner, and I should like to think that Danes are
> considered diamonds in the rough instead of
> giving  the impression that we are just roughs.

Don't worry--it's a Scottish wedding.

[...]

Signature

Les (BrE)

Tom P - 08 Jan 2010 05:40 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> You could always leave them in the corner of the room, telling Danish
> jokes to those who are prepared to listen

Hey, I feel a thread coming on. Did you hear the one about the
Frenchman, the Italian, and the Dane?

>> I am going to a foreign
>> wedding as a foreigner, and I should like to think that Danes are
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> [...]
Ian Dalziel - 07 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT
>>As a Dane I don't think I should be considered a Sassenach (smile), but
>>you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very
>>expensive, so I don't think that I should ever approach such a clothing.
>>
>It will be considered a deep insult if you do not turn up in full
>traditional Viking folk dress.

Complete with a seax?
Signature


Ian D

Arne H. Wilstrup - 07 Jan 2010 21:00 GMT
>>>As a Dane I don't think I should be considered a Sassenach (smile), but
>>>you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Complete with a seax?

What is a seax?
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 22:27 GMT
>>>>As a Dane I don't think I should be considered a Sassenach (smile), but
>>>>you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>What is a seax?

It is a dagger or short sword.

According to the OED it the word is related to Old Norse "sax" (Swedish,
Danish "sax" scissors)

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

Arne H. Wilstrup - 07 Jan 2010 23:53 GMT
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:00:20 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>What is a seax?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> According to the OED it the word is related to Old Norse "sax" (Swedish,
> Danish "sax" scissors)
Arne H. Wilstrup - 07 Jan 2010 23:55 GMT
>>What is a seax?
>
> It is a dagger or short sword.
>
> According to the OED it the word is related to Old Norse "sax" (Swedish,
> Danish "sax" scissors)

Thank you - I thought it would be something of this kind. In Danish the word
"sax" is now spelled "saks" - and a sword is spelled 'sværd'.
Ian Dalziel - 08 Jan 2010 19:14 GMT
>>>What is a seax?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Thank you - I thought it would be something of this kind. In Danish the word
>"sax" is now spelled "saks" - and a sword is spelled 'sværd'.

The joke (feeble) being that the seax was used by the Vikings, but
also gave rise to the name Saxon, whence Sassenach.

(You are sure the venue is in England, are you? Gretna Green is north
of the border.)

Signature

Ian D

Arne H. Wilstrup - 09 Jan 2010 10:06 GMT
>>>>What is a seax?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> (You are sure the venue is in England, are you? Gretna Green is north
> of the border.)

We are going to Cumbria - it is just south of the border, Gretna Green is
just on the other side of the border I have been told from a local Scot. It
might be wrong as I have not investigated it myself, so I have to rely on
the information I have already got. (Too lazy to look it up)
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 07 Jan 2010 10:45 GMT
> [ ... ]

> The invitation goes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> RSVP

Then the formal reply goes:

            Elsinore, 7th January 2010

Mr. and Mrs. Arne Wilstrup thank Mr. and Mrs. Cavendish-Bentinck for
their invitation to attend the marriage of their daughter Mildred
Gertude Hilda to Mr. Gavin Henry Featherstonehaugh at the Highland
Hotel, Berwick-on-Tweed, on Saturday 7th August 2010 at 3.00 p.m. and
have great pleasure in accepting.

(no signature)

Signature

athel

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 11:17 GMT
>>> My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near
>>> the border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>you're quite right. Besides,  a kilt, which I don't own, is very expensive,
>so I don't think that I should ever approach such a clothing.

Very sensible.

Kilts are made of cloth woven in various colour patterns, These are
called "tartans". Each tartan is specific to a family, clan,
organisation or country. Because of my ancestry I am entitled to wear
the Robertson tartan:
http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_clans/clan_robertson/tartan.html

Danes are entitled to wear the Danish Tartan:
http://www.internationaltartans.co.uk/national/denmark/

   The Danish tartan has been designed and woven as a gift to the
   people of Denmark. The colours of the tartan combine the colours in
   the flags of Denmark and Scotland.
   
   The Danish tartan was officially launched at a reception organised
   by the Danish-Scottish Society at the Danish Cultural Institute in
   Edinburgh on Saturday 27th. May 2006. About fifty or so Danes living
   in Scotland, including the Danish Consul and the Director of the
   Institute, were present. to see the Director’s three-year old son
   Sebastian model the kilt in the Danish tartan.
   
   With the approval of the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, the kilt
   was specially made for Prince Christian to wear when he attains the
   age of three, and Sebastian's father, Mr. Kim Casperson, who left
   his post as Director and returned home to take up a new post in
   Denmark last week, delivered it personally to the Crown Prince and
   Princess at Amalienborg Palace.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

John Varela - 07 Jan 2010 19:32 GMT
> >The invitation goes:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>     Denmark last week, delivered it personally to the Crown Prince and
>     Princess at Amalienborg Palace.

From this side of the water it's unclear what "bow tie" means. If
it's what we call "black tie", then Arne must wear a tuxedo, or the
Scottish equivalent. That would give him the opportunity to wear a
cummerbund in the Danish tartan. The Scottish ladies will swoon.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Ian Jackson - 07 Jan 2010 19:55 GMT
>> >The invitation goes:
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>Scottish equivalent. That would give him the opportunity to wear a
>cummerbund in the Danish tartan. The Scottish ladies will swoon.

Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?
Signature

Ian

Pat Durkin - 07 Jan 2010 23:38 GMT
>>> >The invitation goes:
>>> >
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
>>
> Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?

Those fancy "Argyle" socks, right?  And shoes, of course.
Ian Jackson - 08 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT
>> Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?
>
>Those fancy "Argyle" socks, right?  And shoes, of course.

Did you accidentally omit "Only"?
;o))
Signature

Ian

Pete - 10 Jan 2010 18:37 GMT
> Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?

(Oh alright then. If no-one else can be bothered.)

No - it's all in perfect working order.

P.
Ian Jackson - 10 Jan 2010 19:59 GMT
>> Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?
>
>(Oh alright then. If no-one else can be bothered.)
>
>No - it's all in perfect working order.

I was beginning to think that no one would provide the correct answer.
But you forgot the "Boom BOOM!!!" ;o))
Signature

Ian

Pete - 12 Jan 2010 00:11 GMT
>>> Is anything worn beneath a Danish kilt?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I was beginning to think that no one would provide the correct answer.
> But you forgot the "Boom BOOM!!!" ;o))

Oh sorry. Boom BOOM!!! <g>

P.
Arne H. Wilstrup - 07 Jan 2010 20:58 GMT
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:17:13 UTC, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"

> From this side of the water it's unclear what "bow tie" means. If
> it's what we call "black tie", then Arne must wear a tuxedo, or the
> Scottish equivalent. That would give him the opportunity to wear a
> cummerbund in the Danish tartan. The Scottish ladies will swoon.

I have no doubt, but you forget: I bring my wife too - (why bring meat to
the slaughter, you might say, but that's the way it is.)
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 08 Jan 2010 12:04 GMT
[ .. ]

> From this side of the water it's unclear what "bow tie" means. If
> it's what we call "black tie", then Arne must wear a tuxedo, or the
> Scottish equivalent. That would give him the opportunity to wear a
> cummerbund in the Danish tartan. The Scottish ladies will swoon.

That wasn't clear to me either, but it's something that Arne needs to
find out. My guess is that it means the same as "black time", but it
would be best not to guess.

Signature

athel

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 08 Jan 2010 12:24 GMT
>[ .. ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>That wasn't clear to me either, but it's something that Arne needs to
>find out. My guess is that it means the same as "black time", but it

A typo for "black tie"?

>would be best not to guess.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 08 Jan 2010 16:43 GMT
>> [ .. ]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> A typo for "black tie"?

Right. How is it that despite re-reading all my posts before I post
them they nearly always have typos?

Signature

athel

Nicholas Adams - 08 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb:

>>> [ .. ]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Right. How is it that despite re-reading all my posts before I post
>them they nearly always have typos?

How come that when you put ten pair of socks into a washing machine
you'll get out nine pair and one single sock?

Nick
Arne H. Wilstrup - 09 Jan 2010 10:28 GMT
> [ .. ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> out. My guess is that it means the same as "black time", but it would be
> best not to guess.

Longman's Dictionary has bow tie: :a short piece of cloth tied in the shape
of a bow that men sometimes wear around their neck and has this example:

"He was painted by Modigliani and Picarbia in a white shirt and tiny bow
tie."

It might be wrong, but as far as I concern this reference should be
trustworthy, wouldn't you say?

OED has: tie n.  neck-tie, a cravat, a bow tie, in mod. use the tie or
neck-tie is usu. distinguished from the cravat.

So I might be wrong here, so please tell me what I do wrong in my
assumptions and I should be happy to correct it.
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 09 Jan 2010 13:30 GMT
[ ... ]

> Longman's Dictionary has bow tie: :a short piece of cloth tied in the
> shape of a bow that men sometimes wear around their neck and has this
> example:

I think you're missing the point. No one doubts that that 's what a bow
tie is. The question, however, is whether the words "bow tie" on an
invitation imply more than the bow tie itself. In US usage "black tie"
means more "wear the sort of tie you'd wear at a funeral".

Signature

athel

tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 14:01 GMT
>[ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>invitation imply more than the bow tie itself. In US usage "black tie"
>means more "wear the sort of tie you'd wear at a funeral".

"Black tie", to me, means formal wear; a tuxedo.  I'm not aware that a
black tie is required for a funeral.  I'd wear a dark suit and a
sombre tie, but I wouldn't necessarily select a black tie.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 09 Jan 2010 16:16 GMT
>> [ ... ]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> black tie is required for a funeral.  I'd wear a dark suit and a
> sombre tie, but I wouldn't necessarily select a black tie.

Arrgh. Once again I typed something different from what I intended:

"In US usage "black tie" means more THAN 'wear the sort of tie you'd
wear at a funeral'."

In this case the missing "than" was crucial, so pay attention, Arne.

Signature

athel

Arne H. Wilstrup - 09 Jan 2010 19:03 GMT
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> In this case the missing "than" was crucial, so pay attention, Arne.

I am just grateful that you do so much effort in order to help me out from
this predicament about what to wear in a wedding, so I shall be very humble
in yóur attempt to make a pighead like me to understand some of it.

I am not very keen on clothing - i.e. knowledge of what names clothes have,
so when I am to use some of it, I willingly follow my wife's advice or some
others'. In this situation my wife - who is very informal about clothing
too - was not able to help me out here, so every suggestion is appreciated
here.

Thank you againg for your efforts -
Arne H. Wilstrup - 09 Jan 2010 18:58 GMT
> [ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> invitation imply more than the bow tie itself. In US usage "black tie"
> means more "wear the sort of tie you'd wear at a funeral".

Oh, I see - I was not invited with a dress code. I simply asked my Scottish
friend what to wear on the occasion, and suggested a "butterfly" which
probably is a wrong word. She said, I probalby meant a bow tie. I answered
that this was what I probably meant, and I asked what to go with a bow tie.
She actually didn't know due to my lack of knowledge of the names of the
different formal suits to wear as a male.

I thank you for the information.
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 20:21 GMT
>> [ ... ]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>I thank you for the information.

I would doubt if your hostess was encouraging a particular type of
necktie.  "Black tie" is shorthand for a full formal ensemble.  

While I don't know what customs prevail in the particular situation
you ask about, in the US only members of the wedding party would wear
formal attire.  Guests would not.

A bow tie can be worn with a regular suit.  Why anyone would, though,
is beyond me.


Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Arne H. Wilstrup - 09 Jan 2010 20:33 GMT
>>> On 2010-01-09 11:28:43 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>> <nixenbixen@invalid.com>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> A bow tie can be worn with a regular suit.  Why anyone would, though,
> is beyond me.

Thank you for this interesting contribution to understand some of the
American culture!
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 21:08 GMT
>>>> On 2010-01-09 11:28:43 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>>> <nixenbixen@invalid.com>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>Thank you for this interesting contribution to understand some of the
>American culture!

Because you are not a NES, I'll clarify some things.  

"Formal attire" is a tuxedo or dinner jacket.  A regular suit is more
formal than casual attire, but even a black suit is not "formal
attire".

Bow ties are worn by ordinary Americans.  Some.  Proportionately very
few. Some celebrity figures, including some politicians, wear them as
some sort of trademark.  

I think they look silly.  Right up there with wide suspenders and no
suit jacket.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Pat Durkin - 09 Jan 2010 20:47 GMT
>>> On 2010-01-09 11:28:43 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>> <nixenbixen@invalid.com>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> though,
> is beyond me.
Anytime one eats, one prefers the bow tie.  It is out of the way when
one spills or drools, and doesn't drag in the salads or soups.

Makes a handy hanger for the corner of the napkin, too.
Bill McCray - 10 Jan 2010 00:48 GMT
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> A bow tie can be worn with a regular suit.  Why anyone would, though,
> is beyond me.

It's harder to get a bow tie to lie in the food on your plate.  Yes,
your inference is probably correct.

Bill in Kentucky
John Varela - 10 Jan 2010 01:45 GMT
> > A bow tie can be worn with a regular suit.  Why anyone would, though,
> > is beyond me.
>
> It's harder to get a bow tie to lie in the food on your plate.  Yes,
> your inference is probably correct.

It doesn't blow around in the wind, either. When I was young I
occasionally wore a bow tie. I have a photo of myself as a college
freshman wearing a bow tie.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

John Varela - 10 Jan 2010 01:33 GMT
> While I don't know what customs prevail in the particular situation
> you ask about, in the US only members of the wedding party would wear
> formal attire.  Guests would not.

That depends. Some years ago we went to a fancy wedding in
Greenwich, CT.  The reception was at the country club with the Eddy
Duchin orchestra. The invitation specified black tie and all the men
were in tuxedos. Even me.

That was the only time I have experienced that phenomenon because I
don't ordinarily move in those circles, but there are those who do.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

tony cooper - 10 Jan 2010 05:03 GMT
>> While I don't know what customs prevail in the particular situation
>> you ask about, in the US only members of the wedding party would wear
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>That was the only time I have experienced that phenomenon because I
>don't ordinarily move in those circles, but there are those who do.

Unless Arne is attending the wedding of the likes of Jay Gatsby, I
doubt if the guests will all be wearing formal attire.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Varela - 10 Jan 2010 01:38 GMT
> Oh, I see - I was not invited with a dress code. I simply asked my Scottish
> friend what to wear on the occasion, and suggested a "butterfly" which
> probably is a wrong word. She said, I probalby meant a bow tie. I answered
> that this was what I probably meant, and I asked what to go with a bow tie.
> She actually didn't know due to my lack of knowledge of the names of the
> different formal suits to wear as a male.

Go to the person who invited you and ask what you should wear. Get
him/her to spell it in English while you write it down. Then report
back here.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Ian Jackson - 10 Jan 2010 08:35 GMT
>> Oh, I see - I was not invited with a dress code. I simply asked my Scottish
>> friend what to wear on the occasion, and suggested a "butterfly" which
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>him/her to spell it in English while you write it down. Then report
>back here.

Despite all this banter and esoteric discussions about ties, I think
that Arne can be confident that unless you are one of the major players,
'smart casual' (maybe with a tie at the beginning of the proceedings) is
now fairly common at many weddings.

The sort of attire which you would wear for a job interview would
probably be fine but, for a festive occasion, you might like to make it
a little more flamboyant. Essentially, no one will give a damn what you
wear and, if it's a good wedding reception, none will remember.
Signature

Ian

Arne H. Wilstrup - 10 Jan 2010 11:53 GMT
>>> Oh, I see - I was not invited with a dress code. I simply asked my
>>> Scottish
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> more flamboyant. Essentially, no one will give a damn what you wear and,
> if it's a good wedding reception, none will remember.

I am quite sure that very few persons will know me at all, and some will.

I cannot, however, go to the bride's family as I don't know them at all. The
bridegroom's family I know, but they are not able to tell more about the
attire than you have already told me, so I shall yield to your
suggestions -i.e. all the suggestions I have got here will be taken into
consideration, and I thank you all hereby.
John Varela - 11 Jan 2010 02:38 GMT
> I cannot, however, go to the bride's family as I don't know them at all. The
> bridegroom's family I know, but they are not able to tell more about the
> attire than you have already told me, so I shall yield to your
> suggestions -i.e. all the suggestions I have got here will be taken into
> consideration, and I thank you all hereby.

After the wedding, report back and tell us how you did.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Arne H. Wilstrup - 07 Jan 2010 20:56 GMT
Very interesting - I didn't know that!

Arne

>>> On 2010-01-06 21:55:35 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>> <nixenbixen@invalid.com>
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>    Denmark last week, delivered it personally to the Crown Prince and
>    Princess at Amalienborg Palace.
John Dean - 06 Jan 2010 23:21 GMT
> Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt, and a Sassenach
> is almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.

Nonsense. I saw Elizabeth Hurley in a kilt and she looked lovely. It wasn't
a very *long* kilt but still ...
Signature

John Dean
Oxford

Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 23:45 GMT
>> Very wise. Even a Scot can look ridiculous in a kilt, and a Sassenach
>> is almost certain to look ridiculous in a kilt.
>
> Nonsense. I saw Elizabeth Hurley in a kilt and she looked lovely. It
> wasn't a very *long* kilt but still ...

A male Sassanach? (S)
mm - 06 Jan 2010 22:29 GMT
>My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near the
>border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter from the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>want to do this correctly.
>Any suggestions, please?

A simple note with a simple message: "Be there at eight.  Don't be
late."
Signature

Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa.   10 years
Indianapolis   7 years
Chicago          6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore       26 years

tony cooper - 06 Jan 2010 22:47 GMT
>My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near the
>border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter from the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>want to do this correctly.
>Any suggestions, please?

This is a US answer, but it may be interesting to see what the customs
are in different countries.

In the US, we do not normally respond to a wedding invitation.
Exceptions may be relatives or special guests.  Church seating is
open, and it doesn't make any tangible difference to the bride and
groom how many people come to the ceremony.

Where a response is called for is when the invitation is to a wedding
and a reception, and food and drink will be provided at the reception.
It's essential that the host family know how many will attend the
reception.  When a reception is involved, the wedding invitation
usually contains a card that is mailed back to indicate if the invitee
plans to attend.  If the guests are all or mostly local, the
invitation may provide a phone number to RSVP.

It's bad form in the US to receive an invitation to the reception and
not acknowledge whether or not you'll attend.  If a sit-down dinner is
part of the reception, then it's extremely bad form not to
acknowledge.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Arne H. Wilstrup - 06 Jan 2010 23:25 GMT
>>My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near the
>>border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter from the
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> part of the reception, then it's extremely bad form not to
> acknowledge.

Thank you for your interesting point of American wedding culture - I am
aware of the fact that we have to respond, and as we are polite persons we
shall definitely do so - both in an English/Scot wedding and in an American.
The wedding in question is not a church wedding. It will take place at the
hotel with a registrar (is this the correct word?) present.

I have deliberately tried to avoid too many questions according to culture
in this group as it is a group for the English language, so I am happy that
you have contributed to my cultural knowledge of how some of the traditions
are.  I  know very little about this and I am not aware of any group where
English customs and traditions are discussed, so I am grateful that you have
taken your time to explain it for me.Thank you very much.
tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 00:39 GMT
>>>My wife and I have been invited to a Scottish wedding in England (near the
>>>border of Scotland, near Gretna Green). We have received a letter from the
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>The wedding in question is not a church wedding. It will take place at the
>hotel with a registrar (is this the correct word?) present.

This would make a difference in the US only if the hotel setting has
limited seating.  Jewish weddings are often in hotels.  The same
comments that I made about church weddings would apply to a hotel
wedding *unless* the invitation made it clear that seating is limited.

The basic point is that the US sender of the invitation will make it
clear in the invitation if a response is required or expected.  If
it's not stated, no response is acceptable.

That said, the recipient of an invitation that does not ask for
confirmation may send a note of congratulations with a statement of
intent to attend or not attend.  Such a note would be informal and may
be phrased informally.  There's no standard style.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Cece - 07 Jan 2010 20:58 GMT
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:25:27 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tony, did you see that "RSVP" at the end?  Those initials mean
"repondez, s'il vous plait" -- respond, please.  It sounds to me like
a formal, engraved invitation and should therefore be answered quickly
and formally, with the answer handwritten on good stationery.  Just as
described in Post's Etiquette or Miss Manner's book on weddings.  And,
I think, in Debrett's Correct Form, which is the British etiquette
guide.  (Yes, British -- the paper book explains Scottish Masters of
Parliament and barons, the various means of identifying and naming
clan chiefs and their heirs, and more.)

Yes!  http://www.debretts.com/weddings/engagements-and-invitations/invitations.aspx
The text here explains that the style of the invitation indicates the
style and feel of the wedding.  And here is the page about replies to
wedding invitations http://www.debretts.com/weddings/engagements-and-invitations/invitations/replies.aspx;
exactly what the Rightpondians here said, except that the date is to
be written at the bottom of the page.

Now, the "bow tie" is still confusing.  When I searched at Debrett's
for "bow tie," it gave links to its pages on "Ties and
Cufflinks" (acceptable shops), "Black Tie," "White Tie," and various
orders.  Both Black Tie and White Tie call for bow ties, with the
correct jacket, trousers, shirt, etc. for each.  But White Tie is full
formal dress, reserved for evenings; as this wedding is not an evening
wedding, it probably means Black Tie.
http://www.debretts.com/weddings/bridal-and-dress-codes/dress-codes/male-dress-c
odes/alternative-dress-codes/black-tie.aspx

But check if you can!
tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:25:27 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
>Tony, did you see that "RSVP" at the end?

Of course I did.  And, I hope that you saw that I was presenting US
custom in general restricted to "we do not normally".  I was not
offering advice to Arne for his specific situation.  

>Those initials mean
>"repondez, s'il vous plait" -- respond, please.

Golly.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

HVS - 07 Jan 2010 22:27 GMT
On 07 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote

-snip-

>> Tony, did you see that "RSVP" at the end?
>
> Of course I did.  And, I hope that you saw that I was presenting
> US custom in general restricted to "we do not normally".  I was
> not offering advice to Arne for his specific situation.  

Well, it wasn't at all clear to this bystander that you were
excluding the RSVP -- all you said was that "In the US, we do not
normally respond to a wedding invitation", and your exceptions didn't
bother to refer to the RSVP on Arne's invite.

>> Those initials mean "repondez, s'il vous plait" -- respond,
>> please.
>
> Golly.

(I figure you deserved Cece's little sideswipe:  it did look like you
hadn't spotted it, or something.)

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 23:56 GMT
>On 07 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>(I figure you deserved Cece's little sideswipe:  it did look like you
>hadn't spotted it, or something.)

It's not my place to advise someone on the customary response to a
Scotsman's invitation to a Dane for a wedding to be held in England.
For all I know, the custom is to scratch the reply on a wedge of
Havarti cheese and post it off.

Custom in aue allows me to wildly digress and offer the cultural
habits of somewhere entirely different.  Only invading sci.langers
continue threads in the same confines as the original posts, and
that's only because they don't have the imagination to digress.

The last wedding invitation I received from a non-American was from my
Danish nephew and his intended to their wedding in Thailand, and he
was living in Iceland and she was living in Bangkok.  

It may all be covered in Wikipedia, but you'll never know, will you?

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 08 Jan 2010 16:59 GMT
> [ ... ]

> Tony, did you see that "RSVP" at the end?  Those initials mean
> "repondez, s'il vous plait" -- respond, please.  It sounds to me like
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> exactly what the Rightpondians here said, except that the date is to
> be written at the bottom of the page.

I wasn't sure about that (and I didn't have my Debrett handy), but I
didn't think Arne would find his invitation annulled if he put the date
in the wrong place.

I forgot to mention that his reply should be handwritten, and my
suggestion not to sign it incorporated an assumption that it would be
handwritten.

I saw "The Queen" last night, and was interested to see that (at least
in Stephen Frears's eyes) Brenda's househould is still run on Debrett
lines. However, there were various things in the film I had difficulty
in believing. Is it really the case that 10 Downing Street doesn't have
anyone (other than the Prime Minister's wife) to cook the children's
breakfasts? Is Cherie Blair as republican as the film presented her (a
social climber if I ever saw one)? Mind you, the actress playing her
was almost the only one (apart from Brenda herself, but we kept seeing
Chief-Inspector Tennison) who looked more or less the part.

Signature

athel

HVS - 08 Jan 2010 17:12 GMT
On 08 Jan 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote

> I saw "The Queen" last night, and was interested to see that (at
> least in Stephen Frears's eyes) Brenda's househould is still run
> on Debrett lines.

As far as I recall, pretty well.  For example, the arrangement of
private staff groups and admin departments in the internal telephone
directory is -- or at least was when I used one 10 years ago --
arranged by precedence rather than alphabetically.

(It was a quick-and-easy way to check the hierarchical precedence
when one needed to know -- just find where the department or name was
listed in the phone book.)

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Athel Cornish-Bowden - 07 Jan 2010 18:57 GMT
> [ ... ]

> In the US, we do not normally respond to a wedding invitation.

Even if the invitation says "RSVP" on it?

> Exceptions may be relatives or special guests.  Church seating is
> open, and it doesn't make any tangible difference to the bride and
> groom how many people come to the ceremony.

But then US churches are often gigantic and can seat hundreds, if not
thousands.

> Where a response is called for is when the invitation is to a wedding
> and a reception, and food and drink will be provided at the reception.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> part of the reception, then it's extremely bad form not to
> acknowledge.

Signature

athel

tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 21:31 GMT
>> [ ... ]
>
>> In the US, we do not normally respond to a wedding invitation.
>
>Even if the invitation says "RSVP" on it?

If the wedding invitation said "RSVP", we'd be obliged to respond.
However, the wedding invitation does not normally bear this.  The
reception card, if there is one, would.  That's covered downwind in my
post.

This is written on the assumption that a "wedding invitation" is being
discussed and there are no special circumstances.  That's a card that
invites the person(s) to the wedding ceremony.  The venue has been
decided, so the seating accommodation has been pre-determined. Nothing
needs to be provided based on the number attending.  

There is a style that some couples use where "Reception immediately
following" is added to the wedding invitation card, and that could
necessitate the addition of the RSVP request.  The couple needs to
know how much food and drink to have on hand.    
 
This version is used where everyone invited to the wedding is also
invited to the reception.  That can be costly, so it's more practical
to have a separate insert for the reception invitation.  

>> Exceptions may be relatives or special guests.  Church seating is
>> open, and it doesn't make any tangible difference to the bride and
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> part of the reception, then it's extremely bad form not to
>> acknowledge.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Cece - 08 Jan 2010 20:55 GMT
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:57:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Um, it's not the same all over the U.S.  Southern California can be
the strangest; I got a wedding invitation from there that I didn't
realize was an invitation to a wedding!  (Wannabe hippies.  Aged about
50, in the 1980s.)  I don't believe I've ever seen a separate card for
the reception -- the invitations are always to wedding and reception;
I know I've never seen a reply card.

A response to a formal engraved invitation must be in writing.
John Varela - 08 Jan 2010 21:19 GMT
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:57:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> the reception -- the invitations are always to wedding and reception;
> I know I've never seen a reply card.

I've seen a separate card for the reception, but I've never
experienced a wedding invitation that did not include an invitation
to the reception.

> A response to a formal engraved invitation must be in writing.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 01:36 GMT
>I've seen a separate card for the reception, but I've never
>experienced a wedding invitation that did not include an invitation
>to the reception.

There are different kinds of receptions.  There's the church kind
where the party moves to some other part of the church more-or-less
directly after the ceremony, and the kind that is held in a separate
venue later in the day.  The latter can be anything from a few
snackies and a glass of champagne to a sit-down dinner with an open
bar and wine with the meal.  

When the wedding is followed by a church reception or a snacks and a
glass of fizzy reception, the reception is usually part of the wedding
invitation and all are invited.  When the reception is more lavish,
and the cost-per-head starts to get into high figures, there's often a
separate invitation to the reception.

We've been to weddings where we were invited to the lavish reception,
and been to weddings where we were not on the second list.  It gets a
bit tricky in conversations held on the church steps after the wedding
where people are careful not to say "See you at the club later" when
it's not known if the other couple is on the second list.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Glenn Knickerbocker - 08 Jan 2010 21:59 GMT
> I know I've never seen a reply card.
>
> A response to a formal engraved invitation must be in writing.

Here in the bustling Northeast, I can't imagine anyone expecting guests
to sit and write out their responses longhand.  It's hard enough just to
get them to check a box or write a number on the card!

¬R
tony cooper - 08 Jan 2010 22:10 GMT
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:57:24 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>the reception -- the invitations are always to wedding and reception;
>I know I've never seen a reply card.

It's easy enough to check out.  I Googled "wedding invitations",
randomly opened one of the first listings, and then clicked on the
first invitation shown:
http://www.rexcraft.com/WE_ViewEns.cfm?prev=1&TempPrev=0&blnPreviewRequestSubmit
ted=0&recordsperpage=32&CompletedOrder=0&sBasketID=0&sItemCode=WedEns8610&FromHo
me=1&alogo=1&menu=none&morethanonepage=YES&HostDomain=www.rexcraft.com%2F&FirstT
imeThrough=1&format=WedEnsRR&internal=147


The "reception folder" "tips" are: "Reception cards are used to inform
guests of the location of the wedding reception and or dance. Since
reception cards are enclosed in with your invitation, mailing
envelopes are not necessary. Reception cards use the same folding card
as an informal and respond card."

The reply cards are shown as "respond cards" and "respond envelopes".
Click "tips" and it explains the use:  "Respond cards are used to help
determine how many guests plan to attend your wedding. An accurate
count is vital for preparing enough food, seating and other
accommodations so ordering respond cards can actually save you money.
Response cards should be enclosed with your invitation and returned by
guests by the date indicated on the card (usually two weeks before the
wedding.) Today, many cards are printed to allow guests to select an
entree as well as indicate if they will be attending your celebration.

When you purchase your response cards, free response envelopes will be
included. They should be printed with the address of whoever will be
tallying the guest count. As a convenience for your guests, be sure to
include a stamp on each envelope."

What you have seen, or what I have seen, is not necessarily indicative
of what is commonly done.  Unless we are in the wedding planning
business, we've seen only a relatively small sample of what is done.

Also, I wouldn't say that what I have seen is some sort of regional
custom at work.  The wedding invitations we've received in the past 30
years of living in Florida have been from non-native Floridian
families.  Almost all of the people we know are from somewhere else
and would be expected to follow the customs of someplace else.  The
bride and/or groom may have been born in Florida, but not the Moms,
and Moms are usually pretty involved in this particular process.

Our daughter had an open reception (all wedding guests invited)in a
local restaurant with a free bar (But with a cut-off time.  We should
have set a cut-off amount, though), but I've been to several weddings
where a sit-down meal reception was not open, and a separate insert
was the invitation.  

>A response to a formal engraved invitation must be in writing.

Uhhhh...If you consider that a printed wedding invitation - whether a
faux engraving printed product or a real engraved invitation - to
require a written response, you'll be greatly disappointed if you have
a daughter about to be married.  You'll be lucky to get a high
response rate in any form.  You'll get some notes, some phone calls,
and some response cards back if you send them, but you'll still have
to estimate attendance at much higher than the response indicates if
you're purchasing food and drink.  In our case, the venue had to bring
in an extra bartender during the reception to handle the unexpectedly
large crowd.

At my daughter's wedding, one couple arrived from out-of-state without
any notice and without having acknowledged the invitation at all.
He's the son of the former Director of the Organization of American
States in Washington DC, and she's the daughter of a former diplomat.
They picked up a gift locally on the way to the church and forgot to
include a card.  If it wasn't for the fact that he'd mentioned
something about the gift to my daughter the gift would have gone
unacknowledged.  You'd think they'd know.  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Glenn Knickerbocker - 08 Jan 2010 22:47 GMT
> The "reception folder" "tips" are: "Reception cards are used to inform
> guests of the location of the wedding reception and or dance. Since
> reception cards are enclosed in with your invitation, mailing
> envelopes are not necessary. Reception cards use the same folding card
> as an informal and respond card."

I should clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that separate reception
cards are unusual; I've just almost never seen a wedding invitation
without one.  Those not invited to the reception might receive a wedding
announcement, but rarely an invitation.

Around here, something that *is* seen occasionally is the other way
around.  Weddings on the grounds of the Vanderbilt Mansion are limited
to some absurdly small number like ten people.  If a large or even
medium-small reception follows, all the other guests will get the
reception card with a wedding announcement rather than a wedding
invitation.

¬R
Glenn Knickerbocker - 07 Jan 2010 23:16 GMT
> In the US, we do not normally respond to a wedding invitation.

but:
> Where a response is called for is when the invitation is to a wedding
> and a reception, and food and drink will be provided at the reception.

Isn't this latter the norm, though?  I think I've only ever received an
invitation to a wedding but not the reception once.  I've *sent* them,
because my own wedding was a concert event, and several people remarked
that they'd never seen it done before.  I've received a few open
invitations to pay-your-own and pot-luck receptions, but even those
asked for responses.

¬R
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.