Head table vs sweetheart table: the real trade-offs
Four ways to seat yourselves at your own wedding, and what each one costs you in money, photographs, floor space and conversation.
This decision looks cosmetic and is not. Where you sit changes how much of the meal you actually eat, who you speak to, what the room looks like in photographs, how many tables you need, and whether eight members of your wedding party spend dinner apart from their partners.
Here are the four main options, honestly compared.
The sweetheart table
A small table for two, usually near the front, facing the room.
What it gives you. Twenty minutes alone together, which is often the only time you get all day. You can eat. You can talk to each other. You can look at the room full of people who came. If time to yourselves matters more than the traditional look, this is the arrangement that delivers it.
What it costs. You are visible and slightly on display. Some couples find that awkward, though most stop noticing after ten minutes. You also lose the built-in dinner conversation with your closest friends, and you will be interrupted by well-wishers unless someone runs interference.
Knock-on effects. It is the cheapest to dress, because it is one small table rather than five or six metres of head table. It frees your wedding party to sit with their own partners, which usually removes the trickiest part of the whole chart. It uses the least floor space, which matters in a tight room.
Photographs. Clean, simple shots of the two of you, with the room behind. Easy for a photographer to work with.
The traditional head table
A long table at the front, everyone seated along one side, facing the room. You in the middle, wedding party fanning out either side.
What it gives you. The classic look, and your closest people within arm's reach for toasts. The speeches work naturally because the speakers are already at the front.
What it costs. You can only speak to the two people beside you. You cannot see the faces of anyone at your own table. And traditionally, partners of the wedding party are seated elsewhere, which means asking eight adults to spend dinner apart from the person they came with.
Knock-on effects. It is the hungriest arrangement in terms of floor space. A one-sided table for ten runs about six metres, roughly three times the width of the 6ft round that seats the same number, and it eats into the front of the room where you also want parent tables. It is also the most expensive to dress, because you are running florals and linen along a long run and only one side is seen.
Photographs. Very good from the front, and it makes for a strong wide shot of the whole party. Less good close up, because everyone is in a row.
The king's table
A long banquet table with people seated on both sides, usually running down the centre of the room, with you in the middle of one long edge.
What it gives you. A proper dinner-party feel. You can talk across the table as well as along it, and you can fit the wedding party plus their partners, or the party plus immediate family. It is the most sociable of the four.
What it costs. Money and space. A long table on both sides needs a run of florals down the centre, and the venue may charge for the specific trestles and linen. In some rooms it forces the rest of the layout into a shape you would not otherwise choose. And you are no longer facing the room, so some guests will spend the meal looking at the backs of heads.
Photographs. Excellent from above or from the end of the table. Difficult from the sides. Ask your photographer whether the room allows a high angle before committing.
Joining a family table
You sit at a normal round table with parents, siblings, or your closest friends, exactly like everyone else.
What it gives you. A relaxed evening. You are part of the party rather than the exhibit. It is the warmest of the four and costs nothing extra at all.
What it costs. You become slightly hard to find, which matters if guests want to come and say hello. You also have to choose whose table, which for some families is a decision with consequences. If your parents are separated, this option can be the hardest of the four, and is worth reading alongside seating divorced parents.
Photographs. Natural and candid. Fewer set-piece shots.
Side by side
| Sweetheart | Head table | King's table | Family table | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time alone together | Most | Little | None | None |
| Floor space used | Least | Most | High | None extra |
| Cost to dress | Lowest | Highest | High | Lowest |
| Wedding party partners | Sit together elsewhere | Usually separated | Can be included | Sit together elsewhere |
| Conversation at dinner | Just the two of you | Two neighbours only | Best of the four | Very good |
| Ease of photographs | Easy | Easy, wide shots | Needs a high angle | Candid only |
What to do with the wedding party's partners
This is the question that decides it for most couples. Four workable answers:
- Include them. A king's table or a wide head table with partners included. Kindest, and the most floor space.
- Seat the party among the guests. Pair with a sweetheart table. Everyone sits with their own person and the chart gets easier.
- One partners' table. Put all the displaced partners at one good table near the front. Works only if they know each other. If they do not, it is a table of strangers with one thing in common, which is not much.
- Distribute them. Spread partners across tables where they already know people. Fine, but tell each of them in advance rather than letting them find out from a place card.
Worked example: 90 guests, a rectangular function room
A traditional head table for ten takes roughly six metres of the front wall, all on one side. Two parent tables of eight then have to sit behind it, which pushes your grandparents back a row and puts the far tables near the DJ. Swapping to a sweetheart table for two frees that entire run: the parent tables move to the front corners with clear sightlines, the wedding party sits with their partners across three tables, and you gain a table's worth of floor for the dancefloor. Same guest count, better room.
Try both in the planner
All of this is easier to judge side by side. In the planner you can drop a banquet or rectangle table in as a head table and see honestly how much of your layout it swallows next to the rounds. Then delete it, put a small square table for two in the same spot, and compare. It takes about five minutes and it usually settles the argument.
Whichever you choose, place it before anything else. The top table position determines every sightline in the room, so it is the first thing on the plan and the last thing you should move. Once it is fixed, you can add the rest of the tables, paste in your guest list, and work outwards. If you are still deciding how many seats each table should hold, guests per table covers the numbers.
See how much room your top table really takes
Drop in a banquet table and a sweetheart table for two, and compare the two side by side on the canvas. The planner is free, no sign-up.
Open the planner →Common questions
- Is a sweetheart table rude to the wedding party?
- No, and most wedding parties prefer it, because it means they sit with their own partners instead of being split up. Tell them your reasoning early so it does not look like an afterthought.
- Which option is cheapest?
- A sweetheart table or joining a family table. Both avoid dressing a long run of table that is only seen from one side, which is where head table costs accumulate.
- What is a king's table?
- A long banquet table with guests seated on both sides, usually running down the middle of the room, with the couple in the centre of one long side. It seats more people than a one-sided head table and feels more like a dinner party.
- Do we have to face the room?
- No. Facing the room makes speeches and photographs easier and lets guests catch your eye. A king's table or a family table gives that up in exchange for better conversation. Both are common choices.