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.

chequers, as I said, it is more a principle thing - FIL was just the last person to do it. My brothers do, and I have friends who cannot enter a restaurant without ordering everything on the menu! Wasn't at all meant to be personalised to him, it was just something I've always thought is odd. If no-one else is having a certain course, I wouldn't.

And I do have a great family. Doesn't mean I can't raise an etiquette question on AIBU

I must admit, if no-one else was having a starter, I wouldn't. Even if I really fancied something....I always ask for dd's meal to be brought at the same time if we do have a starter though.

If the FIL had ordered first then would that have been ok?

That's good you all get on so well WW.

I would have thought that from an etiquette POV there's as much of an argument for tolerating someone else's wishes to have a starter as there is for expecting them to not have one purely for your convenience

Perhaps he wasn't the only one who wanted a starter,often people do but because others are reluctant to speak up, no one is willing to risk possibly being the only one to say so.

Now I always say if I want one even if no one else does. It may not be etiquette approved but why should I pretend that I don't?

Yes, if he'd gone first I suppose it wouldn't have been so stark - but when you know no-one else is having a starter, ordering one regardless seems a selfish, or at least self-centred, thing to do.

It's not really about starters, it's about considering others, and as I was there with two toddlers, I thought there was a lack of consideration towards me. And as the only mum of young children there, I thought I deserved the consideration over the others, who were then off to spend the afternoon in the pub and pleasing themselves, whereas we had the children to look after. So yes, I did rate my convenience more highly on that occasion.

Surely there's more to this than you're telling us? You can't be that upset over a starter surely? The wait was the responsibility of the restaurant not of your FIL.

I don't think WW's annoyance is quite the crime, or the deep psychological disturbance, many posters seem to think it is! Surely AIBU exists to allow us to exorcise these things? To read some of these posts, you'd think people never got annoyed about anything that was less than life-threatening in importance. I agree it's not like firing a nuclear missile, but it is, as WW said, selfish to do this at the end of a big order that has otherwise been just mains.

All my friends know I love starters (I would rather starter than pudding) but if I know others don't want to spend 3 hours eating and no-one else is ordering one, then I wouldn't. It's not a tragedy for me, as I know I will more than likely have one the next time I eat out, and it is simple consideration. I think FIL could give this as well as the OP!

And I love my food so for me this would be quite likely and would not indicate a deep-seated resentment of my FIL or whoever.

Plus, it doesn't really matter whether it's down to the FIL or the restaurant: the outcome is still that you spend 45 minutes being hungry when you wanted to be eating...

Is it actually possible to have a quick lunch with 11 people?

It is definitely quicker if one of you doesn't order starters. That is a fact

We always discuss it first but it very often gets onto some starters and some not. I like a starter because I don't have a pudding. My mother can't eat a lot so sometimes she has a starter and a pudding. Does it matter? To me, having a meal is an event-if you haven't time grab a sandwich. Children can wait-it doesn't hurt them.

If you had asked for your food to come with his starter then you could have left all the rest of them to it seeing as they had a lazy, relaxed afternoon planned and you didn't.

I don't think that would have been terrible under the circumstances, then everyone would have been happy. Perhaps that was what they were expecting you to do - rather than expecting everyone to rush just because you had to.

yes, skinny, I guess we should have done, I just thought it seemed a bit rude, and figured that if the kids started kicking up I'd leave my lunch and go. But I thought it was a bit odd, nonetheless. And the 45 min wait def wasn't anticipated, which did make it worse because we were all (bar FIL ) starving by the time the food came.

DandyLioness, I agree it shouldn't - but it easily can if the starter eater is slow, if the waiting staff are busy and don't clear away quickly, etc. And you can't predict how it will turn out. So if you're waiting for a main, it can be only about 15-20 mins but it could also be 45. I went for a meal recently at a newly opened restaurant - lovely food but the kitchen was in disarray. Only one of our party had not ordered a starter, and had agreed that she was happy to wait - but when it took 1 hr 10 mins before the mains arrived, she was a bit miffed, and we all felt bad for her. They knocked some off the bill, but you've still spent an hour feeling hungry and pissed off. I can see why, with kids, you might not want to take that risk.

I will give that restaurant another chance, but I would certainly advise anyone I go with who's not having a starter to ask for their mains to come asap

btw eighties, you have summed up where I am coming from admirably!

That's good then WW - you can now see that you and FIL both had different expectations of the meal and that neither of you were right or wrong.

If ww hadnt of been there with little kids I would have said YABU but I know what it is like to have to entertain very fidgetty littlies while certain people scoff on oblivious. Deffo YANBU

I will concede that I was irrationally irritated by this at the time - I was hot, hungry and worried the kids were going to kick up. But it is (in case you hadn't worked this one out ) a little bugbear of mine generally. I do think that when you are all out together you consider what others are doing: not to necessarily all do the same, but if you are the ONLY ONE who wants lobster, or the ONLY ONE who wants a seven course menu, or there's only a couple of you out of a big group want to order champagne as opposed to beer, then you go with the majority. It is good manners, I think.

WW: "It's not really about starters, it's about considering others, and as I was there with two toddlers, I thought there was a lack of consideration towards me" - seems more like by not asking for your kids' food to be brought earlier, you were showing a lack of consideration towards them.