The Buttonhole Debate

I've just got back from the local florists where I've managed to tick off another item on my endless wedding 'to do' list by ordering the flowers for the day. These comprise only bridal party flowers and buttonholes for some of the guests as my marvellous venue throws in (yes, throws in!) flowers for the ceremony and on the tables for the wedding breakfast. I have in front of me the florist's price list for providing these venue flowers and trust me, this constitutes a big saving.

This means that for £105 I have been able to order a bridal posy for myself and two smaller posies for the older two bridesmaids. I toyed with the idea of some kind of floral item for the two toddlers to carry, but based on the fact that the maximum length of time my small daughter will hold an item when passed to her before throwing it across the room is roughly ten seconds, I felt I would be more likely to retain my sanity if I just let the two small flower girls look cute without any floral enhancements. Also included in the £105 are eight single rose buttonholes and one double buttonhole to single out lovely fiance as the one I am actually going to marry. This is not as daft as it sounds as we are not having matching suits or anything for the men at the ceremony, so lovely fiance will otherwise blend in and I will have to spend my life pointing him out as the groom when I show people my wedding photos.

I am especially relieved to have finally placed the order because of my growing awareness of the minefield that is the subject of wedding buttonholes. I should add that this only becomes a contentious issue if you decide not to provide buttonholes for the entire guest list. A lot of brides do, I know, and therefore go on to get married without experiencing the stress that results from only having these things for the core members of the wedding party. Because by only providing buttonholes for the select few it then introduces a certain status for those who are included on the list, and more importantly can be interpreted as making a statement about those who are not.

Lovely fiance and I initially intended to have a buttonhole just for him and one for eleven year old son who is giving me away. By doing this we save rather a lot of money because the cheapest carnation spray our florist offers is £2.50. Multiply this by our fifty guests and you have over £100 - a tidy amount to save when you are trying to navigate the expensive waters of the wedding budget. Lovely fiance then suggested that we also include a buttonhole for the parents - this would be his mum and dad and my mum. All seems fine until we realise that really then the best man should have one in order to signify that he has 'a role'.

My mother further muddies the waters by pointedly saying that when she has her hair done on the day she will 'just pop in to the florist next door to the hairdressers and pick up a buttonhole for your brother, he should have one as he's family'. I realise that if I allow this to occur then my brother will undoubtedly stand out as his buttonhole is bound to be mismatched with the rest. I am left with two options therefore: I either bring my mother back into line or I add my brother to my own buttonhole list. I take the coward's option as I cannot cope with confrontation with my mother and it would threaten my general stress level (which is already being compromised by the buttonhole debate itself). I add him to the list.

Lovely fiance unhelpfully points out that if my brother gets a buttonhole then his sisters ought to have one. At this point I realise it's getting out of hand and so justify my brother's inclusion on the basis he is a witness (with 'a role')and the sisters are not. Lovely fiance then surreptitiously adds his youngest sister's name to the list as she is going to be the other witness.

The complexity of this entire argument makes me wish I'd just paid the extra money and got buttonholes for everyone. However we have finalised the decision by following this formula for whether you get a buttonhole - in order to qualify you must have 'a role'. As a result we add the names of two of lovely fiance's mates to the list as they will be acting as ushers. I have now put in the order and so to my relief the subject is closed, but I do think it typifies the stresses and strains of wedding planning. I find that the slightest tiny detail is never straightforward and often will be interpreted as speaking volumes about the personalities of lovely fiance and myself. I also find that families are prone to taking offence at the slightest thing. Or am I over-analysing? Probably...