Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!clarinews From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Judith Martin) Newsgroups: clari.feature.miss_manners Subject: Deciding how big a wedding should be Message-ID: Date: 4 Feb 90 05:27:02 GMT Lines: 94 Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com ACategory: lifesytle Slugword: FEA-manrs Priority: advance ANPA: Wc: 708; Id: z0812; Sel: qd--t; Adate: 2-4-9-1aed Note: SUNDAY, Feb. 4, 1990 SUNDAY, Feb. 4, 1990 For years Miss Manners let pass without comment (or much interest) the first rule of planning a wedding that she knew bridal couples were commonly told. Figure out the size you want your wedding to be, they are cautioned. This is determined not only by your taste but by your budget. When you know what you want the style of the wedding to be and what you can afford to spend to make it so, you will realize how many guests you can invite. That number should then be divided evenly between the bride's family and the bridegroom's. Not exactly fighting words, Miss Manners had supposed. Wedding size is not a decision based on etiquette, she told herself to assuage her conscience about her wandering attention. A proper wedding can consist of only the principals, or can include an entire nation lining the streets, simultaneously cheering and memorizing the design of the wedding dress for cheaper reproduction. Certainly no one should be financially strained for the sake of a wedding. Contrary to unpleasant belief, etiquette has never tried to dictate who should spend what on a wedding. When couples insinuate that their parents owe them the sponsorship of their dreams, or that social decisions are made according to who is putting up the money, Miss Manners reaches for her smelling salts. The only stake that etiquette has in the wedding size is making sure that people who legitimately expect to be invited -- there are a lot of illegitimate expectations floating around society these days, which their possessors are not shy of mentioning -- are not hurt. Alert readers will have noticed the lapse of logic that so long escaped Miss Manners. Suppose the size you decide upon, either because you prefer it or because that is all you can afford, or both, is smaller than the number of people who will be hurt if not invited? Of course, she said you couldn't hurt them, not that you had to invite them. To avoid doing both, you must limit the list by categories unrelated to individual likes or dislikes. ``There are so many close friends we would love to have, but we're having just a private ceremony with members of the immediate family'' is a polite explanation that ought to satisfy any reasonable friend. So is ``We're not having any children'' or ``We've had to define `family' only as far as first cousins, not second cousins.'' But what of the common variation of this -- ``We'd love to invite everybody, but we can only afford to have x people''? It has belatedly occurred to Miss Manners that there is something inherently rude in allowing style and cost to prevail over emotional bonds. When something has to be cut, it should be the menu and frills, not the guests. Let us say, for example, that you have a large family or a huge circle of friends who truly care about you and with whom you would like to share your wedding. But feeding them all dinner is prohibitive. The solution is to feed them all wedding cake and punch, rather than to feed everything to only a few of them. All that is required is not to set the wedding near a mealtime. And while the idea of dividing the list between the two families -- or four sets of parents, as can easily happen nowadays -- is a fair one, polite people will be flexible enough to count guests by relationship rather than number. If he has six uncles and she has none, it would be thoughtful to fit the list to his family, rather than demand that she throw in six extra acquaintances to make things even. She would like to hear of the families planning together by asking first, ``Whom would you like to have?'' and only afterward, ``Well, let's see -- what can we afford to feed them?'' It would be an excellent introduction, Miss Manners believes, to the special definition of fairness and generosity essential to a successful marriage. DEAR MISS MANNERS -- As a day-care program director, how do I get parents to shorten their picking-up and chatting time at the end of the day so that we can finish our end-of-the-day tasks and go home on time? Arriving on time to pick up the children is not a problem. But parents feel so comfortable with the environment that they linger for up to 30 minutes after our closing time, causing me and my staff stress and exhaustion by lengthening our already long (9-1/2 hour) workday. We have very warm, respectful, good communication with our parent-customers, and I'm stymied, as my next recourse seems to be a step into rudeness. GENTLE READER -- No, it isn't. Miss Manners knows that you couldn't run an obviously excellent day-care center -- as you recognize, the problem is a result of the parents' satisfaction -- without knowing how to stay calm and polite under stress. One way to solve this problem is by changing the logistics of the pickup routine. Could a member of your staff supervise outdoor play and hand over each child as his or her parent arrives? That person would instantly turn back to the remaining children. Meanwhile, you would stay indoors doing paperwork, from which you could look up politely -- plainly available only for important interruptions -- if a parent needs to consult you. Another way is to say: ``Look how good Kevin's being! That's all right, dear, I'm not going to keep your mommy chatting any longer. See you tomorrow.'' Planning a wedding? If you need Miss Manners' advice on whom to invite, what to wear, who pays for what, etc., send two dollars for her ``Weddings for Beginners'' pamphlet to: Miss Manners, in care of this newspaper, P.O. Box 91428, Cleveland, OH 44101-3428. Feeling incorrect? Address your etiquette questions (in black or blue-black ink on white writing paper) to Miss Manners, in care of this newspaper. The quill shortage prevents Miss Manners from answering questions other than through this column. Copyright 1990, United Feature Syndicate, Inc.