A Scottish Wedding in England
|
|
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
|
|
|