to be irritated when one or two people out of a much larger group order a starter...

[wonderingwondering]

when the rest of the table don't. So we all have to wait longer to eat. I think this is rude, and perhaps just about acceptable when a group of adults are out for the evening and drinking/chatting. But not at lunchtime, and esp when the group includes two toddlers.

Actually I am with WW.

If they were out for a quick lunch (which she says they were) not some huge family get-together why would 1 person want to keep 10 others waiting, especially when there are toddlers there who frankly make going out for more than a quick snack hard work at the best of times.

Ordering their food early to come with the solitary starter doesn't help, it just means they have finished eating and have got bored by the time everybody else finally gets their food.

Actually it is the kind of thing my father would do but unfortunately you could ask him to be reasonable and it would fall on deaf ears. His attitude is much as others on here - if I want it I will have it and to hell with the rest of you. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to ask my FIL not to order a starter. Not my place.

If WW's FIL was especially hungry he could have ordered an extra side order of something with his main course.

This wouldn't necessarily apply if the eating out was an event. You have to put up with it then but a meal to keep you fuelled so to speak - no need to make a meal of it

ahfeckit - we went out for a family meal last year, 14 of us. Service was appalling all the way through - 45mins between courses, would have driven WW mad. Then some meals were missing when they did arrive. We would have walked but it was Sunday afternoon and getting late and not much was open so we stuck it out. My very reasonable SIL had a very quiet word with them in the end and we got all the meals for free - just paid for drinks. Result!

I think life is made up of bill splitters and i dotters.

I fall on the bill splitting side. So it costs a little more, but it cuts down the hassle and I don't eat with people I don't like, so I don't mind buying them a little food now and then.

In terms of the starter scenario, there's always a solution to these things if you think them through. Everyone at a meal should be able to eat/drink what they like, have starters sweets without first gaining concensus. Especially when it's a family lunch.

I stand my YABU....

yes, izsaboy, I was on child-entertaining duty. That was a relevant factor - the children were there so sitting for a couple of hours isn't always easy.

Shant go out with you then Morris! No I would never palm my kids off on the PIL while I eat liesurely (as if that would rver happen - bitter laugh) but FIL will not have the kids sat next to him, ever, and will eat solidly through his meal without helping at all. We know that we have enough time to eat a main meal together happily. It is really not fair to expect very little ones to sit for longer in my experience.

Cross-posted, but yes, I do also think that it is my job to look after my kids, I don't expect anyone else to! Can't be doing with another flaming!!

.

It's about sharing you see Morris, each individual helping with the entertaining. Not just expecting to have what you want (starter) but to hell with the consequences re the kids. As for bill splitting I wouldnt care about that.

I'm with you on this one WW, as it was meant to be a quick bite to eat, not a leisurely lunch. But I do think most of the blame lies in the slow service, and ordering for a table of 11 is bound to be slow, regardless of whether starters are ordered.

This is all silly.

Clearly, many people are unaware of this starter rule. If you abide by the starter rule, then you should be specific and tell people that you do not want them to order a starter. I think it is very mean to get annoyed with people who have no idea that you had a hidden rule, and that is true of all hidden rules, not just starters!

If your child cannot sit through a long meal, then you can explain that, and should ask for your meal and their meal to be served ASAP and then you can leave early, rather than expecting others to rush too.

It is hardly complicated; it is just being straightforward and honest. No wonder men complain that women expect them to be mind readers, with all this taking offence over utter trivia going on.

Yeah well I always make it clear that we only have time for a mains but we get the table and FIL '..I'm going to have a starter..'

I'm with WW on this too.

I think your FIL was being a tad inconsiderate, TBH, in those circumstances in any case. I certainly wouldn't do it and don't know anyone else who would, but we are not really Starters kind of people - prefer treacle sponge and custard-type puddings personally!

how can anyone think going out for lunch in a group of 11 is likely to be "quick"?

exactly, kewcumber. it would be a 'quick' lunch if it was a few friends. but 11 is not exactly going to take a few mins to whizz around the table taking the order. some peoples expectations are pretty high...

izyboy, in that case I would not go out to eat with him any more. Seriously. He's being deliberately ungracious.

YABU - yes generally we have the starter conversation and as soon as i say im having one - rude or not the others generally decide to have one too. This is generally evening adult outings though not with children as macdonalds dont do starters . I much prefer a starter to a pudding and would feel id have missed out if i had to forfeit my starter so others could be fed quicker - the same way so i have missed a starter and i dont like dessert so perhaps i would be sat there still starved.

If toddlers are outi would ask for their meals first out anyway as they take an age to eat and agree they couldnt wait patiently.

But if we'd had the starters convo, then there's a consensus.

It's the going round the table and everyone ordering a main course, then the last one or two then ordering a starter. It means the rest of the table have to wait, or then call the waiter back and look like they are saying they don't want to 'miss out' or subsidise someone's else's larger meal (heaven forbid...).

Yeah, eightieschick, when they visited this time I agreed on a take away after the kids went to bed. It's just not worth the hassle while the kids are so young.

Dandy, will you and others please stop reading more into my comments! 'Generally very good to us' means just that - they are not perfect, nor are we. They sometimes aren't on our wavelength, they are 30 years older than us. It happens. I was only rebutting the suggestion that I didn't like them much anyway! Which is untrue and another leap to a conclusion based on a quickly-typed post!

exactly, but when ten other people have ordered a main course only, for the eleventh to order a starter is - in my opinion only - a bit odd.

Dandy, that I will give you

I've had the same starter for 30 years now and it never ever inconveniences anyone.

Wanna know what it is anyone?

I'll tell you anyway - save posting again

It's a double scotch and coke

Seriously.

I have it for pudding too

I actually can't believe I posted on this thread.

IT DOESN'T MATTER - if you think this is rudeness on the part of your FIL then you really should meet my SIL and BIL.

Sounds like you have a great family if this is the only kind of thing that irks you.

Oooh, I hate to just 'eat and run'. Even if I'm just having a cup of coffee and a cake plan of action I like to take my time.
YABU