No Address on the Invitation

[Erin]

This girl at work just stopped by my desk and handed me the invitation to her wedding. She stayed around and chatted a bit and the first thing I noticed was this glittery silvery sticker of wedding rings sealing the envelope together so that''s all I was looking at.

After she walked away I opened it and there is no RSVP card - just the invitation with the locations and times.

I was going to show it to my boyfriend to put it on his calendar but then I noticed she didn''t address the front of the envelope. My guess is she didn''t do that for people she was hand delivering for work, to make it easy?

She is not what I would consider an etiquette observer or follower...

I guess I just go by myself since the option of a guest was not included. Or I ask around to see what others are doing?

How strange...

 

[SarahLovesJS]

Do you think it would be rude to ask if you could bring a guest? I guess she might get overwhelmed if she was planning for just you, but she should have included a RSVP then. I guess let''s see what everyone else thinks.

 

[misysu2]

In my experience, if there''s no RSVP, there''s no reason why you couldn''t bring a guest. I''m the first in my family amongst over 15 previous grandchildrens'' weddings to include an RSVP card. These weddings were all very open, informal, and family-oriented.

 

[cara]

RSVP cards are not technically correct - one is supposed to handwrite a reply on normal stationary!

Hand-delivery rather than post is also acceptable, though leaving off your name is strange, if that is what happened.

I would not assume that your boyfriend is not invited if neither he nor you were named on the invitation. Clearly you are invited as she hand delivered it, but I would just casually ask if its OK to bring your boyfriend, assuming she knows he exists and all.

 

[choro72]

Was your name on it at least?

If so, then most of my friends have done this to me when they got married. It was just easier for them to hand it over, and what''s the need to waste ink on address?
Well, these are VERY close friends, so maybe that''s why it was acceptable...They aren''t random coworkers.
I''ve never had non-RSVP though. I didn''t know that it was technically wrong.

 

[Erin]

Date: 3/19/2008 3:45:18 PM
Author: choro72
Was your name on it at least?

If so, then most of my friends have done this to me when they got married. It was just easier for them to hand it over, and what''s the need to waste ink on address?
Well, these are VERY close friends, so maybe that''s why it was acceptable...They aren''t random coworkers.
I''ve never had non-RSVP though. I didn''t know that it was technically wrong.

LoL NO! My invitation could have been intended for Diana Ross for all anyone knows.

 

[janinegirly]

If the front is not addressed to you (and is blank), I would ask about bringing a guest. I mean if she''s not giving you any information, it''s completely acceptable to ask.

If she did not include rsvp card, it''s possible work folks were her b-list (the rsvp would have a pre-printed rsvp by date) and she didn''t want to make that obvious. So she may figure/hope you''ll just verbally tell her if you can make it or she''ll verbally ask. Or maybe she''s just totally clueless!!

 

[Elmorton]

Do you know the details about the wedding? We had a blessing at my parents' church with a cake and punch reception - we sent out invites (and yes, I even took a stack, unaddressed, and handed them to some friends at my church) with no RSVP. While I would be really put off if someone did that for a formal wedding and sit down dinner reception (for my formal wedding, there were definitely hand-addressed invites and RSVPS) I don't think it's unusual for a casual wedding (and in that case, safe to assume your partner is invited).

 

[cara]

Date: 3/19/2008 3:45:18 PM
Author: choro72
I''ve never had non-RSVP though. I didn''t know that it was technically wrong.

The reply card was controversial when first introduced, as it implied invitees were too uncivilized to properly reply on their own stationary in a timely manner. I think you have to go back a generation or two to find people offended by them however.

But they are unnecessary. You may instead list the reply request/information last on the invitation. Some people will find it to much trouble to reply, but I am not sure it is related to the lack of a pre-stamped, pre-printed card as many of my invitees found it too difficult to keep track of that pesky piece of paper that had to go in the post (how old-fashioned!).

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 3/19/2008 5:05:02 PM
Author: cara

Date: 3/19/2008 3:45:18 PM
Author: choro72
I''ve never had non-RSVP though. I didn''t know that it was technically wrong.

The reply card was controversial when first introduced, as it implied invitees were too uncivilized to properly reply on their own stationary in a timely manner. I think you have to go back a generation or two to find people offended by them however.

But they are unnecessary. You may instead list the reply request/information last on the invitation. Some people will find it to much trouble to reply, but I am not sure it is related to the lack of a pre-stamped, pre-printed card as many of my invitees found it too difficult to keep track of that pesky piece of paper that had to go in the post (how old-fashioned!).

I''m had this dilemma with my parents who think it''s ridiculous to include RSVPs because ''people just know how to respond''.

In the end I went with a website with RSVP option on our website so that our friends are covered and family and my parent''s friends will do the traditional thing...


I would go and see the girl and just say:

I hope you don''t think this is rude or anything, but I just wanted to check if this is just for me or for both me and my SO. I know how it is with weddings and numbers and didn''t want to assume anything...

 

[bee*]

I agree with Pandora-I''d just go up and say it to her. I''m sure that she won''t mind you checking if your SO is invited.

 

[choro72]

Date: 3/19/2008 5:05:02 PM
Author: cara

Date: 3/19/2008 3:45:18 PM

Author: choro72

I''ve never had non-RSVP though. I didn''t know that it was technically wrong.

The reply card was controversial when first introduced, as it implied invitees were too uncivilized to properly reply on their own stationary in a timely manner. I think you have to go back a generation or two to find people offended by them however.

But they are unnecessary. You may instead list the reply request/information last on the invitation. Some people will find it to much trouble to reply, but I am not sure it is related to the lack of a pre-stamped, pre-printed card as many of my invitees found it too difficult to keep track of that pesky piece of paper that had to go in the post (how old-fashioned!).

Wow, good to know...Thanks! Not that I''ll forgo it...Once I get engaged

Starset, since you say the invitation may be addressed to a Pop Star, I would follow Pandora''s advice and just ask