Etiquette Hell

Wedding Bliss and Blues => Receptions => Topic started by: goldilocks on August 28, 2017, 09:57:39 AM

Title: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 28, 2017, 09:57:39 AM
Not sure I've seen this before.   Friend came to me complaining of wedding drama with upcoming wedding.   Bride has stated no children at the wedding or reception.    However, there will be children there - junior bridesmaids, flower girl, ring bearer, etc.

Obviously family members that can't bring their children are upset.   

What do you think?   Can you exclude children but still include the wedding party?   
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lmyrs on August 28, 2017, 10:30:21 AM
Yes. I think that this is more common than people realize.

If your kids aren't invited, that's just the way life is sometimes. If it means you won't attend, that's unfortunate. I know a person getting married this fall who is inviting all cousins, aunts, uncles, etc of the couple, but only some of the cousins' children are invited. It's a space consideration. They both have enormous families and they have booked the only hall in their town. They have 500 people invited to the supper and that's entirely family. In other words, none of their university friends made the cut. Any cousin that decides it's unfair that their kid isn't invited, will have to think about why they are more worthy than any of the others that aren't in attendance.

I would never question a couple's guest list. Sure, there are always "consequences" to these decisions. But, they are tough decisions. And, if you're going to make it harder for the bride and groom, then I think you're an easy cut from the list.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: TurtleDove on August 28, 2017, 10:31:17 AM
Not sure I've seen this before.   Friend came to me complaining of wedding drama with upcoming wedding.   Bride has stated no children at the wedding or reception.    However, there will be children there - junior bridesmaids, flower girl, ring bearer, etc.

Obviously family members that can't bring their children are upset.   

What do you think?   Can you exclude children but still include the wedding party?

I think you can do whatever you want, but you cannot please all people all the time so the couple getting married should please themselves. In my experience, it is pretty typical for some children to be included while others are not, depending on all sorts of issues ranging from relationship to the couple to age to participation in the wedding. My husband and I are invited to a coworkers wedding, and will happily attend. My DD age 8 is not invited. The bride and grooms nieces and nephews and other young family members and probably kids of close friends are invited to the wedding and reception. In my opinion, it would be obnoxious for me to raise a stink about my DD not being invited. With family members it is different, but I still would accept whatever the couple has requested. It is not my wedding.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: TurtleDove on August 28, 2017, 10:32:05 AM

I would never question a couple's guest list. Sure, there are always "consequences" to these decisions. But, they are tough decisions. And, if you're going to make it harder for the bride and groom, then I think you're an easy cut from the list.

Very well stated. I agree.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: ClaireC79 on August 28, 2017, 10:45:47 AM
You can invite who you want, it does seem strange to me though to say that the rule is no kids and then have some kids there (the rule of only invited guests and only 3 of those guests being under a cut off is not - even though the outcome is the same)

I could see being a little upset if it was the children in the wedding party were at the same level as my children (ie they have invited the nieces to be bridesmaids and to the wedding but the nephews aren't invited) - however if it was friend/cousin etc getting married and they didn't invite my kids but invited those who they are related to or have a close relationship with, that wouldn't upset me at all.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 28, 2017, 11:03:35 AM
To clarify, the kids in the wedding are family, and so are the ones not invited.   I could perfectly understand that my child is not invited if I am just a friend, but not if we are family and other family (of the same relationship), is invited.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gramma dishes on August 28, 2017, 11:05:05 AM
To clarify, the kids in the wedding are family, and so are the ones not invited.   I could perfectly understand that my child is not invited if I am just a friend, but not if we are family and other family (of the same relationship), is invited.

Are there big age differences?
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: HannahGrace on August 28, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
To clarify, the kids in the wedding are family, and so are the ones not invited.   I could perfectly understand that my child is not invited if I am just a friend, but not if we are family and other family (of the same relationship), is invited.

By same rel'ship do you mean same level of kinship (cousin, niece, etc) or same level of closeness?  These are all adults, but we invited my two cousins to our wedding and none of my husband's. We are close to my cousins and my husband hasn't seen his in over a decade, and I've never met them. They are not equivalent to my cousins just because they all hold the title of cousin.

To me it also depends how many of each group were included / excluded. If two children are in the wedding party and a number of other children are not invited, that doesn't feel like a slight. If the wedding party has 10 kids and only one family kid isn't invited, that feels wrong. Is it a small wedding or a 300+ person event? Like so many things, I think this is fact- and situation-specific and it is hard to have a bright line rule.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 28, 2017, 11:48:14 AM
To clarify, the kids in the wedding are family, and so are the ones not invited.   I could perfectly understand that my child is not invited if I am just a friend, but not if we are family and other family (of the same relationship), is invited.

By same rel'ship do you mean same level of kinship (cousin, niece, etc) or same level of closeness?  These are all adults, but we invited my two cousins to our wedding and none of my husband's. We are close to my cousins and my husband hasn't seen his in over a decade, and I've never met them. They are not equivalent to my cousins just because they all hold the title of cousin.

To me it also depends how many of each group were included / excluded. If two children are in the wedding party and a number of other children are not invited, that doesn't feel like a slight. If the wedding party has 10 kids and only one family kid isn't invited, that feels wrong. Is it a small wedding or a 300+ person event? Like so many things, I think this is fact- and situation-specific and it is hard to have a bright line rule.

My thoughts too - situation specific.  There have been many threads about this through the years. 

If you become the difficult guest I think you get a reputation as well and future events might limit their guest list (you know, as in, you are off of it...)

A couple get one chance to have the perfect day, they don't want ill behaved children spoiling it.  Some parents think their children are perfectly behaved until the one time they aren't... I don't blame the HC.  But again, I don't know the limits and allowances being made to the children that are invited and those that aren't. 

 
 

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: rose red on August 28, 2017, 12:31:30 PM
IMO, I can understand only inviting the JB, flower girl and ring bearer. They have a special job and not just attending to watch and party.

Sure, it might be strange not to invite children if there were only 2 other ones that age, but I can understand not inviting children if there were 10 or more in the extended family tree.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: ClaireC79 on August 28, 2017, 12:32:23 PM
relationship and level of closeness being similar

Cousin to me is not immediate family in the way siblings and nieces and nephews are - and therefore invitations are based on relationship not blood line (but I'd probably treat each individual family group the same way, so if I invited cousin Jane's 6 year old daughter because I see them every month at grandmas house I would include her 8 year old stepbrother who I don't see that often because he's at his mother's often, but I may not invite Jane's brother (Jos) 7 year old who lives in a different country and I never see -probably wouldn't invite Jo either if I'm honest
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: camlan on August 28, 2017, 12:59:56 PM
The general rule has always been to that if you invite most of a category of people, you invite them all, in order to avoid offence. I.e., you can't invite 15 of 16 first cousins. (Unless you have given that 16th first cousin the cut direct.)

Now, things have loosened up in these modern times, and as PPs have said, it's not unheard of to simply not invite cousins/aunts/uncles whom you haven't seen or communicated with in years.

In this case, the category is "children who are part of the wedding party." Not "children who are related to the bride and groom and many of their close family members."

Clearly, the two groups intersect--the young wedding party members are also related to the bride and groom.

But the Happy Couple really isn't picking some of their nieces and nephews over others in terms of the guest list. They did pick some over the others when it came to being in the wedding party.

But weddings are expensive. Every couple has to make tough decisions over who gets invited.  People shouldn't treat invitations as if they are owed invitations. Either accept the invitation as given, or not.

Creating a family feud over whether or not nine-year-old Brittany gets to go to the wedding of a cousin who is 25 years older than her is a bit much.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 28, 2017, 01:29:15 PM
Camlan said: Creating a family feud over whether or not nine-year-old Brittany gets to go to the wedding of a cousin who is 25 years older than her is a bit much.

This, just so much this.  Don't start a family feud over this.  Is this Brittany's hill to die on or yours?  Weddings have enough stress without a family member adding to it. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: TootsNYC on August 28, 2017, 04:34:27 PM
People who get mad about this sort of thing piss me off.

Children are not accessories to their parents. They are actual people, who might have actual relationships with the bride and groom.

And so they might be invited, or included, because of their relationships with the couple.

If you want your kids to be so important to the couple that they get invited, you need to invest some time in cultivating that relationship BEFORE the wedding.

My kids were included in a wedding because my son was the ring bearer (and his older sister was included because they didn't think they should omit only one of our children).

One of the aunts (my FIL's sister-in-law) was invited, and her children were, but not her grandchildren. When she saw that my FIL's grandchildren were included (my kids), she demanded of the MOG: "Why weren't MY children invited?"

The MOG said, "Your children barely know my son. My son sees Toots' kids at every holiday."

My MIL tried to sort of apologize/gossip about the fact that at the next wedding in that family, my kids weren't invited (my son actually once said something like, "which one is Danny?" and the MOG said, "well, that will make it easy deciding whether to invite you to his wedding!" I laughed.). Nor were most other people's children.

But the bride had included the boy she had babysat for something like 12 years of his life.
I shut my MIL down pretty quickly.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: LadyL on August 28, 2017, 04:45:48 PM
I think "kids in the wedding party only" is a very fair line to draw. Those children are close enough that the HC included them in their ceremony. It's understandable that only a small number of children fall under that level of close relationship.

We created a guest list cutoff by age  once we realized that if we invited all kids of family and friends, we'd have 10-20 children under age 5 at our evening wedding in a historic venue that is very not kid proof and full of breakable things. I like many of my nieces and nephews just fine but wanted an adult event that would involve dancing  till late in the night, past when most small kids would need to be put to bed. Only my 9 and 12 year old relatives were invited and they tore up the dance floor until the very last song just as we hoped :).

It was not at all meant as a slight against anyone's children but more a matter of logistics and the kind of wedding we wanted to have. We gave people many months to make arrangements with child care and as far as I know no one had to decline because of that issue. If someone was resentful that their 3 year old wasn't invited when there were a dozen other toddlers also not invited, I consider that their problem, not mine.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Winterlight on August 28, 2017, 06:45:16 PM
Like most things, this can be done rudely or politely. Cutting it at "children in the wedding party only" seems reasonable to me.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on August 29, 2017, 12:14:52 AM
I think one of those he things that throws fuel on this fire is thinking of it in terms of whether this in an acceptable exception to a "rule" or "cutoff" the HC made.  But this is a wedding, not a swimming pool! 

No one would think of complaining that they should have been invited because some other 35-year-olds were.

I agree that it is wise and kind to go ahead and invite all of a group if you are inviting most.  But the person in the OP who felt that everyone's children (or anyway hers) were entitled to invitations because there were some children in the wedding party was being ridiculous -- but she didn't realize it because she was thinking of it as a "rule."  I wonder whether, if her children had been invited, she would have complained that it wasn't fair for some but not all of the children to be in the wedding party. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: mime on August 29, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
Yes. I think that this is more common than people realize.

If your kids aren't invited, that's just the way life is sometimes. If it means you won't attend, that's unfortunate. I know a person getting married this fall who is inviting all cousins, aunts, uncles, etc of the couple, but only some of the cousins' children are invited. It's a space consideration. They both have enormous families and they have booked the only hall in their town. They have 500 people invited to the supper and that's entirely family. In other words, none of their university friends made the cut. Any cousin that decides it's unfair that their kid isn't invited, will have to think about why they are more worthy than any of the others that aren't in attendance.

I would never question a couple's guest list. Sure, there are always "consequences" to these decisions. But, they are tough decisions. And, if you're going to make it harder for the bride and groom, then I think you're an easy cut from the list.

All of this.

I had a small-ish wedding, and 4 kids were invited. Several others weren't. The 4 who were invited were all of our nieces and nephews, who we knew (and still know) well. The ones who weren't were kids of friends, kids of neighbors, kids of cousins, etc. Most of these kids we didn't even know. In fact, *I* didn't even know the parents of any of those kids. It was such an easy line to draw!

That didn't stop uninvited kids from showing up anyway.

Do you ever have those odd little conversations where people discuss "if I could plan my wedding over again..."? You wanna guess who doesn't get re-invited to mine?

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on August 29, 2017, 11:58:16 AM
I guess this happens where people are used to guests being invited by whole family, so they think that everyone is invited over the age of some cutoff point and get upset if their 8 year old isn't invited (or assume that s/he is) if another 8 year old is invited. 

But I think that's an unsafe assumption.  In my community, it's very common to have children of relatives included but not children of friends, unless there is a particular connection (like the kids the bride or groom babysits or where the relationship is whole-family-to-whole-family).  It's also very common to see wedding that are basically adults only but include a very few children - very closely related and/or in the wedding party.  If some friend or distant relative felt that their child was entitled to be invited because the HC's own children or nieblings were, I'd think that was ridiculous. 

I understand that relatives might be disappointed, because although of course the wedding of the HC is the focus, it's also a family event and a rare chance to see each other and celebrate together, especially when they live far apart.  In my experience, even when the wedding or reception are adults-only, the rest of the children in the family attend all the other events of the weekend (we tend to have several!), so that satisfies that issue.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Outdoor Girl on August 29, 2017, 12:34:52 PM
The wedding party exception is a perfectly valid line to draw when deciding no kids for your wedding.  So is an age cutoff.  I have one friend with two kids.  The older one?  I could handle having her at my wedding.  The younger one?  Would drive me mad.  And his parents wouldn't reign him in enough, as far as I'm concerned.  The last thing I want to be on my wedding day is annoyed because this kid is driving me 'round the bend.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Hmmmmm on August 29, 2017, 01:08:53 PM
To clarify, the kids in the wedding are family, and so are the ones not invited.   I could perfectly understand that my child is not invited if I am just a friend, but not if we are family and other family (of the same relationship), is invited.

Just because the kids are family, still doesn't mean they would be included. I do think that the same groups within a family should be included. For example if the groom has a sister with 2 kids who will be flower girls, but he also has a brother with 1 child who will not be part of the wedding. I would still expect the brother's child to be included.

But if the niece of the groom will be a flower girl, I don't think his cousin's children should automatically be included because a child is there.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 29, 2017, 02:08:13 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others.  Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there? 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: TurtleDove on August 29, 2017, 02:21:21 PM
Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

I think $200 is rather high, but the answer is that your kids were not invited (general you). That's why. If you want to attend the wedding, then you will need to decide what to do to ensure your children are cared for.

Kids are wonderful, but they do cause their parents to do or not do certain things. Here the parents simply need to make a choice whether to attend without their kids or decline the invitation.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: bah12 on August 29, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others.  Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

I get that this is upsetting, but the reason you have to pay for a babysitter, is because your kids are not invited.  It's not the HC's responsibility to go through all the logistical challenges for you and make sure they are mitigated so you can attend their wedding.  And I don't think that the HC is required to open their wedding up to all kids (or even all 'family') or forgo having flower girls/ring bearers so that they don't offend other family members.  People are allowed to have different relationships with different people and different members of their family.  And whether or not the closeness of your children to the HC is based solely on geography, it is what it is.  It makes perfect sense for them to allow children in the wedding the party but not want other children there.  Even if the kids are of the same relational level (i.e.  all nieces/nephews). 

But, while this is not an etiquette problem, I do understand that it is a relationship one.  If your kids are the only kids not invited, I might think that the HC should go ahead and include them for the sake of family harmony.  But, my advice to you (or the person who is coming to you) is to let it go.  I get that it seems hurtful on the surface, but this is not about you/your kids and is more about what they want for their wedding.  If they are close enough that you would consider hiring a babysitter and making travel plans to be there on their wedding day, then they should be close enough for you to grant them their very reasonable request without making it all about how it causes problems for you logistically.  If this really is a personal slight (as proven by your past relationship or the fact that your kids are the only family kids left out), then it's totally understandable that your future relationship will be affected. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: MagnesiumOxide on August 29, 2017, 02:45:41 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others.  Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

I think the first bolded is a terrible attitude to take.   Why would the HC KNOW you couldn't make it?  And, really, if they had not sent an invitation at all, that would have gone over better?

Second bolded:  the kids who are "invited" are doing a job and performing a service. 

Wedding invitations and attendance are hardly an entitlement!
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lmyrs on August 29, 2017, 03:22:24 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others. Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

Because they are your kids, that you made and it is your job to take care of them. Unless the HC somehow forced you to have your children then how are they responsible for ensuring they are cared for? You might as well ask why it's your responsibility to find care for your children while you're at work.

I understand that you (or your friend) is upset at the inconvenience this causes you. But, that doesn't make the HC rude. How many times have you seen someone say on here that just because someone is mad at you, it doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. That applies here too. They're not rude. The person that is insisting that they are somehow wrong for making perfectly reasonable guest list decisions is rude if they start bad-mouthing the HC.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: HannahGrace on August 29, 2017, 03:28:05 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others. Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

Because they are your kids, that you made and it is your job to take care of them. Unless the HC somehow forced you to have your children then how are they responsible for ensuring they are cared for? You might as well ask why it's your responsibility to find care for your children while you're at work.

I understand that you (or your friend) is upset at the inconvenience this causes you. But, that doesn't make the HC rude. How many times have you seen someone say on here that just because someone is mad at you, it doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. That applies here too. They're not rude. The person that is insisting that they are somehow wrong for making perfectly reasonable guest list decisions is rude if they start bad-mouthing the HC.

Agreed. This is a terrible attitude. Should no one invite adults to any event without their children? It's not someone else's job to troubleshoot your childcare.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: LadyL on August 29, 2017, 03:29:59 PM
So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others.  Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?


I didn't know the childcare resources of the ~20 parents I invited to my wedding without inviting their kids. I also invited some infirm relatives I knew would never travel, because it was a gesture of inclusion. An invitation is not a summons. If it inconveniences you too much, you are free to decline.

I would certainly keep the above complaints to yourself, they are presumptive and ungracious.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Margo on August 29, 2017, 04:23:08 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?[/b]

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others. Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

Bolded the bits which stood out to me.

- They invite you because they see you are a friend/member of the family and they would like you to be there. They are not making assumptions about whether or not you can come.  For all they know, you have close friends, or relatives from the other side of the family,who you could leave the children with, or you might chose to ask local family members for a babysitting recommendation, or indeed you and your spouse might decide that one of you would attend the wedding and the other would care for the children. 

- "I want no children ruining my wedding" is a personal choice of the bride and groom, and I think that having 2 or 3 children who are close to the couple, who have specific tasks to do is very different to having large numbers of children present. Quite apart from anything else, if you have 3 children and 100 adult guests there is a totally different vibe to when you have 15 children and 85 adults. And anyway, if it isn't your wedding it's not your choice.

- Why do you have to pay whatever the babysitting costs? Because you have made a choice to have children. Whether someone else is paying for childcare is irrelevant. You (and your spouse) get to choose whether you want to attend the wedding if you have to pay for / organise  child care as well as everything else, and if you don't, or if it is not in your budget, then you send polite regrets. Different guests are always going to have costs, the fact that it costs a different guest less to attend the wedding is nothing to do with you. It's a bit like arguing that it isn't fair you had to use up paid time off and your retired aunt didn't; it isn't unfair to anyone, it just reflects the fact that not everyone's personal circumstances are the same.

No one is entitled to an invitation, but anyone how is not happy with the terms of the invitation they have been given is free to (politely) decline.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: chigger on August 29, 2017, 04:37:57 PM
I had a no children except for out of town family wedding. The one local woman, that said anything about it, had the absolute worst behaved son. He was the reason I did not invite children. He was completely uncontrollable. She said to me at the wedding. Oh, I thought there were no kids,and I just told her these are family out of town, no sitters. She didn't like it, but oh, well.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Bert on August 29, 2017, 04:54:25 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others.  Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there? 


I don't want to rehash what the other posters said, though I do agree with them.  Also, a kid is a person, and takes up a place at a table, a piece of cake, a dinner, and a place on the venue's "maximum capacity" chart.  I realize that some seem to think of inviting their kids as an extenuation of inviting them, but to the people hosting the party, that is a separate guest in number and presence. 

Stop and think for a second about the couple's reasons for not inviting certain kids.  Logistics can certainly be a reason, so can the behavior of certain children, and relationships, and money, and a number of other reasons.  I don't believe that one of those reasons is "the couple is trying to be mean and inconvenience you".  If someone thinks that someone would do that to them, they should decline.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Hmmmmm on August 29, 2017, 04:59:40 PM
Some clarification.   

The problem with no kids is that means the parents, who were invited, have to do something about the kids.   I can't get Grandma to babysit because she's also at the wedding, and babysitters cost an arm and leg these days.   I agree -not HC's problem.

However - when I'm invited to a wedding that is in another state and will require travel and hotels, what am I supposed to do with my kids?    So, of course, I either come up with a plan or decline the invitation.   And so why did you invite me in the first place if you knew I wouldn't be able to come?[/b]

I think the problem stems from the HC loudly announcing that they wanted NO kids at the wedding and reception.   Which I understand, an adults only party is their right.  But you can't have it both ways.   This was not a case of your kids aren't invited because I barely know them, it was - I want NO children ruining my wedding.   

Once stated this way- I think it causes issues to invite some kids but not others. Why do I have to pay $200 (just guessing, I have no idea how much babysitters cost) for a babysitter, when there were other kids there?

Bolded the bits which stood out to me.

- They invite you because they see you are a friend/member of the family and they would like you to be there. They are not making assumptions about whether or not you can come.  For all they know, you have close friends, or relatives from the other side of the family,who you could leave the children with, or you might chose to ask local family members for a babysitting recommendation, or indeed you and your spouse might decide that one of you would attend the wedding and the other would care for the children. 

- "I want no children ruining my wedding" is a personal choice of the bride and groom, and I think that having 2 or 3 children who are close to the couple, who have specific tasks to do is very different to having large numbers of children present. Quite apart from anything else, if you have 3 children and 100 adult guests there is a totally different vibe to when you have 15 children and 85 adults. And anyway, if it isn't your wedding it's not your choice.

- Why do you have to pay whatever the babysitting costs? Because you have made a choice to have children. Whether someone else is paying for childcare is irrelevant. You (and your spouse) get to choose whether you want to attend the wedding if you have to pay for / organise  child care as well as everything else, and if you don't, or if it is not in your budget, then you send polite regrets. Different guests are always going to have costs, the fact that it costs a different guest less to attend the wedding is nothing to do with you. It's a bit like arguing that it isn't fair you had to use up paid time off and your retired aunt didn't; it isn't unfair to anyone, it just reflects the fact that not everyone's personal circumstances are the same.

No one is entitled to an invitation, but anyone how is not happy with the terms of the invitation they have been given is free to (politely) decline.

PODing here.

I had kids. I went places where I couldn't take my kids. I hired childcare. My kids stayed with hotel recommended childcare in a hotel, at a friend's home with child care they found for me, with a distant relative at their home when my kids traveled with me and my husband to a convention. It can be done if you want to do it.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 29, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
And I agree with all of you - I'm just pointing out how some people will feel.   And for the wedding in question - I'm not even invited!!!

Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.


As many of you have pointed out, the HC can do what they want, but (and this is true of both sides), is it really worth ruining family relationships over?   Some people have. 

Also part of the problem is that when people get a wedding invitation, they automatically think it means the whole family.    I really don't know how to get people to see that it's only the people on the invite.  So if kids are not on invite, they are not invited.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 29, 2017, 05:13:04 PM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: bah12 on August 29, 2017, 05:51:18 PM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

This goes both ways though.  Is it really worth your friend ruining family relationships because she thinks her kids should be invited to a wedding just because the flower girl get's to go?  And do you really think the HC should kick kids out of a reception that were part of a wedding party? Or not have kids in the wedding party simply because they don't want to invite and deal with every child in their extended family on their wedding day?  Where do you draw the line?

I get that your friend is very upset about this, but IMO, she's (he?) is being very unreasonable.  Buying plane tickets for her children was her mistake.  The HC doesn't owe them a pass because they didn't read the invitation properly.  And having the plane ticket already wasn't a problem until she found out that other kids were going, so I don't really buy the notion that the HC has caused them an extra expense at this point.  She can also get a babysitter at the location and I don't know her kids, but judging by my own experiences, they may even be grateful that they don't have to go.

It sort of sounds like your friend wants to make this all about her and what is best/most convenient for her.  And honestly, that's a crummy and immature attitude and if she's so upset that she would literally never speak to her family member again over this, then it's probably best she not go at all.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: AustenFan on August 29, 2017, 05:53:38 PM
If that family member can't handle reading an invitation or being corrected on a mistake without pitching a fit and never speaking to me again then it's no loss to me. Your friend sounds like a very rude, entitled drama llama if what you're describing here are her thoughts and reactions.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Bert on August 29, 2017, 06:23:00 PM
I also think it's important to not try and give the person spinning a hundred plates another plate to spin.  Frankly, the HC invited your friend to a wedding.  If they would like to attend, then that is up to them to figure out.

I really can't get behind how hard finding childcare and cancelling mistaken flight reservations is in this context because, as it compares to putting together a wedding?  In my experience...it doesn't.  The bride and groom don't have time to throw at this problem. 

People don't get to take bad actions (assume they are ok to bring uninvited kids) and then get angry at the results of those actions.  Other people aren't doing them wrong.  Your friend made an inaccurate assumption, and is holding others responsible for it, and trying to frame it differently to get what she wants.  The couple is not making decisions to jeopardize the relationship, they are making decisions to make their wedding day work for them.  Your friend is making bad choices and reacting poorly, and it will affect her relationships.   
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: HannahGrace on August 29, 2017, 07:09:27 PM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

The friend should read the invitation before booking anything. No one is stopping her from traveling with her children but she would need to find local childcare.  I don't see how the flight reservations are relevant.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lmyrs on August 29, 2017, 10:28:41 PM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

If someone with whom I have a previously positive relationship is willing to blow it up because their kid isn't invited to my event, then that's on them. It's not on me.

Why does the HC have to take the responsibility for creating bad feelings when they've made a perfectly reasonable and polite choice? Shouldn't the blame fall to the person creating the drama?
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lakey on August 30, 2017, 01:08:04 AM
Quote
Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.

In my family there were 54 first cousins. Sometimes all children were invited. Sometimes high school age children were invited. Sometimes no children were invited except for those in the wedding party. I think that assuming it must be all or nothing is a bit extreme. I don't think there's anything wrong with an adult reception, while making an exception for the flower girl and ring bearer.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Margo on August 30, 2017, 05:49:42 AM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

That goes both ways, I think it is only going to ruin family relationships if you have family members who are unreasonable.

If the parent is the sort of person who will never speak to you again because she failed to read an invitation and then sulked when the arrangements were not changed for her convenience,then, well, you might well feel that that is something you are more than happy to live with!

Similarly if a  family member with children is prepared to cause a row / family rift because their child wasn't invited, that is on them at least as much, if not more, than on the bride and groom who chose not to invite that that child.

Of course you can get married without a ring bearer / flower girl. But if you want that specific child or children to be present that you are free to invite them, and that does not mean that you should then be pressured, or feel obliged, to ask every other child connected with your guests.

To be honest, your friend sounds very entitled and demanding.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: iridaceae on August 30, 2017, 06:08:14 AM
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

Yes. Because I'm not going to be her scapegoat.

Here's something else indignant relative should understand: not everyone is going to agree with her definition of family. Of how weddings should be done. Of her opinions of her kids.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: MagnesiumOxide on August 30, 2017, 08:36:42 AM
And I agree with all of you - I'm just pointing out how some people will feel.   And for the wedding in question - I'm not even invited!!!

Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.


As many of you have pointed out, the HC can do what they want, but (and this is true of both sides), is it really worth ruining family relationships over?   Some people have. 

Also part of the problem is that when people get a wedding invitation, they automatically think it means the whole family.    I really don't know how to get people to see that it's only the people on the invite.  So if kids are not on invite, they are not invited.

This is absurd and ridiculously self-absorbed thinking.  Ugh.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Zizi-K on August 30, 2017, 08:47:15 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with the PPs who point out that couples getting married are free to choose their own guest list, and that there is nothing to be gained by taking offense to the very reasonable decision to limit children at a wedding.

I wanted to chime in with one anecdote. Last year we attended the wedding of my husband's niece. It was a very fancy affair--church wedding and reception at a very nice hotel--and beautifully done. There was no mention of our infant daughter on the invitation, and I rightly assumed that she was not invited. We ended up asking our nanny to travel with us (involving an overnight at a hotel), and so we had childcare for the ceremony and the reception. Like many baby girls, my daughter received more than a handful of impractical fancy dresses as gifts when she was born, dresses she basically never got to wear...because how many formal affairs does a baby attend?? I wanted to dress her up in at least one of them, and to try and get a photo with baby and bride if there was the chance. Our nanny brought her down, and we did get the quick photo. I also wanted to briefly take her into the reception hall so that a couple of people could meet her. However, the music was so loud that it scared her, and as I approached the door she burst into tears and could only be consoled by moving somewhere quieter. All of that is to say, I couldn't have had her at reception even if I wanted to and if she was invited. There's no way she could have handled it.

The next morning, I met a couple at breakfast who did have their 6 month old with them in the reception--she slept in her car seat under their table the entire time. Wow! After I got over my amazement that a baby could sleep through such a din, I assumed that they had cleared it with the bride and groom and did not think for a second about why their baby was invited and mine wasn't, etc. The guest list wasn't my business.

For the OP's friend, it would be one thing if theirs were the only child excluded, but just because a couple has a flower girl and ring bearer doesn't mean they open up the floodgates to everyone's kids.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: camlan on August 30, 2017, 08:58:50 AM
Quote
Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.

In my family there were 54 first cousins. Sometimes all children were invited. Sometimes high school age children were invited. Sometimes no children were invited except for those in the wedding party. I think that assuming it must be all or nothing is a bit extreme. I don't think there's anything wrong with an adult reception, while making an exception for the flower girl and ring bearer.

This is how things were with my dad's family. There were 38 first cousins. Frequently, there was an age cut-off for weddings.

I think I've mentioned this here before, but one cousin's wedding had an under-16-years-old-not-invited policy. One wedding guest, a family friend and neighbor of the bride, threw an enormous hissy fit at the reception--because the bride's 11 year old brother was in attendance. It was bad enough that her husband dragged her outside to calm down. She seriously thought that the bride's own brother should be excluded because he was under the age cutoff.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 30, 2017, 09:15:43 AM
I am in complete agreement with the HC being able to control their guest list.  As far as I am concerned they can not invite the one child that is a little beast and invite everyone else's children.  It is their event.

I think this situation is more about family rel@ti@nships.  And agree with others, if this is your hill to die on over your children being included then that is on you (generic you), not the HC.   

You received an invitation that did not include your children - accept or decline, the logistics for you to attend are your responsibility.

On a side note, I was not invited to my cousin's wedding because I was under the cut off age of 16 (I was 14), it hurt my feelings but I stayed home while my brother was allowed to attend.  Two years later cousin needs a babysitter and I am now old enough to do the job, I declined.  Petty of me at 16, yes, but my own revenge.  My mother asked why and I said she hurt my feelings and now she wants me to watch that little brat of hers, no way, mom said your choice.  Family relati@nships can be damaged at a young age and have lasting effects. 

But I still agree - your wedding, your choices.         

 

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on August 30, 2017, 01:12:23 PM
To be fair to goldilocks, she didn't really say that if you include any children, even in the wedding party, you must invite everyone's children.  She said:

IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   .... I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there."
 
And I can see how that -- having a few kids when you announced you were having none -- might cause family problems, yes.  (I still think her friend was being ridiculous to complain that there were children in the wedding party of a "child free" wedding, though.  Like complaining at a dry wedding reception "But they used sacramental wine in the ceremony -- so I should be able to have a cocktail!")

But I would add that it's best not to announce that in any case.  It can be useful for hosts in making the guest list decisions to use age or degree of consanguinity or some other objective standard as a cutoff, but they don't have to -- there doesn't need to be any cutoff.  Indeed, sometimes it makes more trouble than it saves -- like a "12 and over" cutoff that results in inviting 15 out of 16 cousins, and the excluded one is 11. 

In any case, discussing what criterion you used does push you into being absolutely consistent with it -- which is entirely unnecessary, because having a criterion at all is unnecessary -- and sets you up for misunderstandings and possibly arguments.  Just invite whom you are inviting.  Don't justify your decision with a "rule."

This strikes me as yet another area where we think that citing some etiquette or bright-line rule is going to help, but it doesn't -- often, it makes it worse.

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: turnip on August 30, 2017, 01:44:10 PM
I'll state that the only exception I see with this is for nieces and nephews.  Unless the number of nieces and nephews of the B&G goes well into the double digits, I think inviting some and not others is probably going to cause problems.

Whether the B&G want to accept these problems is up to them.

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: bah12 on August 30, 2017, 02:29:30 PM
Just because something could cause family problems, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  And just because someone stated a 'rule' and then made an exception or two, doesn't mean there is an issue with the rule.

Problems and drama are caused by all kinds of things...but the one thing that most drama has in common is that it's caused when one or more people cannot be reasonable.  Most of the time, it is completely unnecessary.  The OP may be right that allowing the children in the wedding party to attend a wedding after stating to the other guests that no children were invited could cause family problems.  But, I don't believe that allowing the flower girl and ring bearer to come to the wedding is unreasonable.  The unreasonable behavior that would cause the drama, is the family member who feels that unless her children are invited, then the couple needs to forgo having children in the wedding party all together...and worse, although she did not read the invitation properly , upset that the HC will not fix her logistical challenges for her.

For the family member's part, they are entitled to be upset, feel hurt, etc.  Especially if this indicates that their children do not have the relationship with the HC that the children in the wedding party do...or more importantly, the relationship that they thought they had with each other.  But, relationship issues are not the same as etiquette issues...and they usually aren't resolved when one person says "give into my demands or else I'll never speak to you again."  So again, even if I can agree with the OP's assertion that allowing the wedding party kids after they said NO kids can cause problems, I don't think the HC is responsible for avoiding or mitigating those problems, because they are not problems that are born out of a reasonable response to a reasonable request.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Outdoor Girl on August 30, 2017, 02:36:50 PM
And having experienced it first hand, though not wedding related, giving into demands doesn't necessarily mean the relationship survives going forward, anyway.

The happy couple should get to have the wedding they want to have, within reason.  If people get their knickers in a twist because they don't agree?  That's on them, not the HC.  I do agree that it would be hurtful to include most of one category of people (eg. 1st cousins) but excluding 1 or 2, without a cut direct being in play.  If 1 or 2 were included, that the HC interacts with on a regular basis, and the rest excluded?  Fine.

For an extreme example, a friend of a friend was getting married and told everyone up front that she would be making all her own decisions and didn't want to hear anyone's 'suggestions' for what she had to have for her wedding.  After a couple of 'suggestions' and the bride-to-be saying, 'Well, I'm just not going to have that', everybody learned to keep their mouths shut.  There was no wedding cake because of her stand but she did get to plan what she wanted.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: turnip on August 30, 2017, 02:52:11 PM
Just because something could cause family problems, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  And just because someone stated a 'rule' and then made an exception or two, doesn't mean there is an issue with the rule.


I think it's both correct to say that, but also somewhat simplified.

I have good relationships with both my parents and my ILs.  I don't have to invite my parents over for Christmas even though I invite my in-laws.  But if I didn't, they'd be hurt and upset and it would probably damage my relationship with them.

I know that's kind of an extreme scenario.  At the same time, while it's accurate to say that the B&G can invite whoever they want, I don't think it's fair to say that any potential guests should just cheerfully accept their decision. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 30, 2017, 03:15:34 PM
And I agree with all of you - I'm just pointing out how some people will feel.   And for the wedding in question - I'm not even invited!!!

Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.


As many of you have pointed out, the HC can do what they want, but (and this is true of both sides), is it really worth ruining family relationships over?   Some people have. 

Also part of the problem is that when people get a wedding invitation, they automatically think it means the whole family.    I really don't know how to get people to see that it's only the people on the invite.  So if kids are not on invite, they are not invited.

This is absurd and ridiculously self-absorbed thinking.  Ugh.

Excuse me?   
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: AustenFan on August 30, 2017, 03:31:35 PM
And I agree with all of you - I'm just pointing out how some people will feel.   And for the wedding in question - I'm not even invited!!!

Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.


As many of you have pointed out, the HC can do what they want, but (and this is true of both sides), is it really worth ruining family relationships over?   Some people have. 

Also part of the problem is that when people get a wedding invitation, they automatically think it means the whole family.    I really don't know how to get people to see that it's only the people on the invite.  So if kids are not on invite, they are not invited.

This is absurd and ridiculously self-absorbed thinking.  Ugh.

Excuse me?

I think the point being made was no third party gets to dictate who a couple invites, and stating that they don't need a flower girl/ring bearer was rude. Nobody needs a wedding with family there. Nobody needs to attend someone else's wedding. These are all things done because we want them, and if someone wants kids in their wedding party they have every right to have them even if no other children are invited. To think someone gets to determine who the host couple invites based on what an uninvolved party thinks the host couple needs/should be allowed is ridiculous.

By your reasoning my kids couldn't attend my wedding, should I choose to remarry, since I don't plan on having other kids there.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: bah12 on August 30, 2017, 03:33:50 PM
Just because something could cause family problems, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  And just because someone stated a 'rule' and then made an exception or two, doesn't mean there is an issue with the rule.


I think it's both correct to say that, but also somewhat simplified.

I have good relationships with both my parents and my ILs.  I don't have to invite my parents over for Christmas even though I invite my in-laws.  But if I didn't, they'd be hurt and upset and it would probably damage my relationship with them.

I know that's kind of an extreme scenario.  At the same time, while it's accurate to say that the B&G can invite whoever they want, I don't think it's fair to say that any potential guests should just cheerfully accept their decision.

Guests don't have to accept anything.  But if someone is really going to refuse to speak to someone because their children aren't invited but there are children in the wedding party, then it feels more entitled and unreasonable than a legitimate situation where they would be slighted or hurt.  It's not even close to the same thing as not inviting parents for Christmas, and even then, if your parents refused to speak to you forever because you had a holiday without them, that would be a bit OTT.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: goldilocks on August 30, 2017, 03:37:03 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: AustenFan on August 30, 2017, 03:47:10 PM
No, we aren't missing the point. Having a couple children in the ceremony she or the groom have a special relationship with doesn't undermine her point, and for all you know they may not attend the reception.

Many posters have pointed out that they didn't want a particular child at the reception. How would your friend feel if it were pointed out that her children are the ones spoiling it for everyone else? Would she be happier then?

Your friend is free to have hurt feelings, nobody is arguing that. If she needs to cause drama and cut the host couple out of her life over this, when she's the one who failed to read the invitation, then that may not be viewed as a loss by the host couple. Your friends needs a little perspective and to realize someone else's wedding isn't about her and her children, she had her own wedding for that.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on August 30, 2017, 03:54:03 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

I see your point, but do you see how your question is an example of mine?

There's just too much weight being put on "adult-only" as if it were a real rule, like drinking age or something. 

A reception for 200 people with two or three kids who are in the wedding party is still an adult party.  It's not a matter of "exceptions."  Only, shmonly -- it's childish and pedantic for someone to act as if the hosts had misrepresented anything or treated anyone unfairly.

And that is exactly why the mistake is announcing that you used any sort of cutoff criterion in the first place, as if you were required to do so. 

If someone flat out asks you, you can be vague and evasive.  The only time I have said anything at all like this was once when a friend asked if he and his wife could bring their very young twins to our son's wedding.  I told him that unfortunately we were only able to include children who were relatives.  If he noticed that the bride's family's guests included two unrelated children, he was mature enough not to come complaining, "But you told me ...!!!!!"
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lmyrs on August 30, 2017, 04:02:22 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

I didn't miss that at all. It's still your friends fault if this causes irreconcilable differences in the family. It's not the HC's fault at all. They are making a normal and rational decision and your friend is trying to tell everyone that they're wroooooong because she's faaaaaamily. If your friend thinks it's important for her children to have a relationship with this couple, she should have made the effort prior to the wedding. Instead she's trying to convince you that the couple is doing something wrong. They're not.

I know this is your friend. But, you have an overwhelming majority of unbiased people to this situation telling you over and over in a bunch of different ways that you are wrong. That your friend is really, really wrong. It's fine you don't believe us. But, it doesn't make it less true.


Honesty, if I was the bride, I'd be praying that your friend declined to give me the "honour" of her attendance. The best thing that could happen is if she could stay home. It's clear that she is not able to get over this perceived slight.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: bah12 on August 30, 2017, 04:18:28 PM
OP, I'm curious what your friend thinks would resolve this or would have made this better?  If the HC had said "no kids except for the wedding party kids" would that have been ok for her?  And if that's the case, then how is this any different other than she wasn't explicitly  told ahead of time?  She still doesn't get to take her kids and she has to figure out childcare/travel.  Even if I could stretch and say that she should have been given that information ahead of time, the fact that she wasn't doesn't change the outcome.

Or is really the only acceptable outcome is for the HC to give in and allow her children and/or change their entire wedding party plan because your friend cannot get past the fact that someone else is getting something she isn't.

I understand that she's hurt and no one is arguing that she isn't allowed to be hurt.  But, this just shouldn't be this big of a deal.  It's so totally reasonable to allow kids in the wedding party and still not want any other kid there.  It might inconvenience your friend that her kids can't go, but she is not being singled out.  I really hope she is able to take a step back and evaluate this situation from the HC's perspective and see that this isn't about her and she shouldn't take it so personally. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: HannahGrace on August 30, 2017, 07:43:51 PM
OP, I'm curious what your friend thinks would resolve this or would have made this better?  If the HC had said "no kids except for the wedding party kids" would that have been ok for her?  And if that's the case, then how is this any different other than she wasn't explicitly  told ahead of time?  She still doesn't get to take her kids and she has to figure out childcare/travel.  Even if I could stretch and say that she should have been given that information ahead of time, the fact that she wasn't doesn't change the outcome.

Or is really the only acceptable outcome is for the HC to give in and allow her children and/or change their entire wedding party plan because your friend cannot get past the fact that someone else is getting something she isn't.

I understand that she's hurt and no one is arguing that she isn't allowed to be hurt.  But, this just shouldn't be this big of a deal.  It's so totally reasonable to allow kids in the wedding party and still not want any other kid there.  It might inconvenience your friend that her kids can't go, but she is not being singled out.  I really hope she is able to take a step back and evaluate this situation from the HC's perspective and see that this isn't about her and she shouldn't take it so personally.

This is a very good point. It feels like the friend is trying to catch the bride and groom in some technicality about "any" kids rather than accept that she/he made an incorrect assumption about the guest list.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on August 30, 2017, 08:28:44 PM
It feels like the friend is trying to catch the bride and groom in some technicality about "any" kids rather than accept that she/he made an incorrect assumption about the guest list.

That's it in a nutshell.  Well put. 

I get it about wanting to bring children to family milestones, I really do, especially when the family is spread out and there are few occasions for kids to meet their relatives.  That's why I didn't mind a bit when a cousin who lives in the Caribbean called to ask if kids were going to be invited to my son's wedding (she needed to know before the invitation came as she was arranging travel), and even urged a bit.  She wanted to bring her two little girls for the weekend with the extended family, which was of course wonderful and expected, and I could see how she felt they'd be awfully disappointed not to be at the wedding itself in their party dresses.  I just told her truthfully that I didn't know whether the HC had decided about kids yet, but if they decided on no kids at the wedding and/or reception, they'd still be at all the other events, and we'd make sure there would be fun child care during the wedding/reception.  She was fine with that answer.  And I was fine with her asking us to consider it. But if she'd made a fuss if they'd said no, and then she saw the bride's two little sisters as flower girls?  I'd have been shocked at such childishness.  And unfortunately that's what I think of the OP's friend's reaction. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: TootsNYC on August 30, 2017, 09:05:26 PM
I'll state that the only exception I see with this is for nieces and nephews.  Unless the number of nieces and nephews of the B&G goes well into the double digits, I think inviting some and not others is probably going to cause problems.

Whether the B&G want to accept these problems is up to them.

yeah, this is going to cause problems.

As your sibling, I might understand that you are actually closer to our other siblings' kids, but refusing to invite mine (if ages are similar) is saying to me that you don't ever want to become closer to my kids.

That's phenomenally hurtful. I'll be honest--I'd be pissed off.

I didn't care about the time my kids weren't invited, because it's cousins. And my kids had plenty of time to spend with those cousins at family gatherings but didn't, so it's totally fine.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: iridaceae on August 31, 2017, 01:40:42 AM
I'll state that the only exception I see with this is for nieces and nephews.  Unless the number of nieces and nephews of the B&G goes well into the double digits, I think inviting some and not others is probably going to cause problems.

Whether the B&G want to accept these problems is up to them.

Well, you're assuming families are all big, congenial groups who know each other. My family gets along fine with each other, but my brother, who is much younger than our sister and I, only met  his paternal cousins for the first time when he was 23. The last I'd seen them was back in 1994 or so. We just don't do big family whatevers and never really have.

That said, if your friend is going to get more and more worked up, goldilocks, she probably shouldn't go.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: mime on August 31, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
OK, I can see that the "no kids" statement followed by *kids actually playing a role in the ceremony* could cause some double-takes among guests who wanted to bring their kids along.

I'd consider that to be just a casual/careless/over-generalizing use of language rather than some intentional slight against any parents who were invited to the wedding without their kids.

Then there's the issue of inviting parents and leaving them to figure out how to get childcare, especially if they're traveling great distances to be there. I think it is best to still invite the parents if you think there's a chance and an interest in attending. Some people can leave kids with grandparents on the other side of the family than the HC. Around here, receptions are common in hotels, and some have great onsite care programs, depending on the age of the kids. On the other hand, some parents will just realize that they're in a season of life that doesn't allow for flying across the country for a wedding, whether their kids are invited or not. An invitation keeps the parents included, and lets them make the decision for themselves.

I also want to address this:
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

I agree that the parent should have read then invitation. But as for that last question: is she willing to never speak to the HC again over her own mistake? It looks to me like this proposed cut would be her doing, not theirs.

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: rose red on August 31, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
I don't understand what the plane tickets have to do with exceptions being made regarding children in the wedding party. Even if there are no children in the wedding party, the mistake in buying tickets still would have happened since that had to do with misreading the invitation and not about children in the wedding party.

Sounds like your friend just want to blame her mistake on the HC because, to me, those are two separate issues. Or what HannahGrace said:

It feels like the friend is trying to catch the bride and groom in some technicality about "any" kids rather than accept that she/he made an incorrect assumption about the guest list.

That's it in a nutshell.  Well put.   
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: lakey on August 31, 2017, 12:00:24 PM
Quote
Re: no kids - except for.....
Reply #54 on: Yesterday at 03:37:03 PM
Quote
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

Because most of us understand that they generally don't want kids at the reception, but will still include children of the HC, young siblings,  or members of the wedding party.

The fact that someone says they want an adults-only reception doesn't mean they can't have a flower girl. It is unreasonable for your friend to think that because the HC want a reception for adults, they can't have a flower girl. I've never heard anyone who felt this way.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Hmmmmm on August 31, 2017, 12:09:25 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

I've been to weddings where the flower girl and ring bearer attended the wedding but did not attend the reception. Some times because it was an adult only reception* and other times because it was the parent's preference to not have the kids at the reception so that they could have a fun evening without having to parent their kids. Your friend is even making a leap that the reception won't be completely adult only.

*And don't complain about the kids being used as props. In one of these cases, it was my sister and me who were flower girls and participated in the rehearsal dinner and the wedding ceremony but were taken home for the reception. At ages 4 and 7, we were much happier dressing up, taking photos and walking down the aisle and skipping the reception where we knew we would be required to sit politely, make small talk with relatives or people we didn't really remember and not whine about being ready to go home. I did not feel like a prop. It probably wasn't until I was 10 or older that I really liked attending a 4 hour wedding reception. And at 19, my son is just now to the point that he's content to stay the 4 plus hours. He was a ring bearer at age 8 at his uncle's wedding. About 2 hours into the reception we'd wrangled a ride home with friends so that he could leave early.


Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: wolfie on August 31, 2017, 01:04:56 PM
OK, I can see that the "no kids" statement followed by *kids actually playing a role in the ceremony* could cause some double-takes among guests who wanted to bring their kids along.

I'd consider that to be just a casual/careless/over-generalizing use of language rather than some intentional slight against any parents who were invited to the wedding without their kids.

Then there's the issue of inviting parents and leaving them to figure out how to get childcare, especially if they're traveling great distances to be there. I think it is best to still invite the parents if you think there's a chance and an interest in attending. Some people can leave kids with grandparents on the other side of the family than the HC. Around here, receptions are common in hotels, and some have great onsite care programs, depending on the age of the kids. On the other hand, some parents will just realize that they're in a season of life that doesn't allow for flying across the country for a wedding, whether their kids are invited or not. An invitation keeps the parents included, and lets them make the decision for themselves.

I also want to address this:
one more point - what really makes this wedding in particular an issue - one of the guests had already made airplane reservations when she was called and told her children were not invited.   Again - she should have read the invitation.   But are you willing to have this relative never speak to you again?

I agree that the parent should have read then invitation. But as for that last question: is she willing to never speak to the HC again over her own mistake? It looks to me like this proposed cut would be her doing, not theirs.

If someone told me this story as an explanation of why they don't talk to that branch of the family it isn't the other branch I would be finding fault with.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: amylouky on August 31, 2017, 01:49:21 PM
I think part of the issue is that people assume that couples plan kid-free (or nearly kid-free) weddings because they find kids annoying, or don't want to make their party kid-friendly (ie, maybe they plan on playing old school gangsta rap and don't want to have to censor the lyrics?  ;) )  or have something against the presence of children in any form at their wedding.

We briefly considered only inviting adults other than nieces or nephews to our wedding, but it was because the venue we had our eye on for the reception had a strict capacity limit. I have a huge family (20+ first cousins, most married with their own kids) and inviting all of their children would mean there was no room on the list for anyone on DH's side.  But, I didn't want to do the pick and choose with my cousins or aunts and uncles.

We eventually decided to just find a larger venue, but we were lucky that we had that option financially, since our caterer was pretty affordable. But if it's a choice between inviting all of the adults that I want to, or only 1/2 of the adults and their kids (who are likely to be bored and would rather be at home playing their xBox instead?) Yeah, I'm leaving off kids, other than close family.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 31, 2017, 02:20:20 PM
No, we aren't missing the point. Having a couple children in the ceremony she or the groom have a special relationship with doesn't undermine her point, and for all you know they may not attend the reception.

Many posters have pointed out that they didn't want a particular child at the reception. How would your friend feel if it were pointed out that her children are the ones spoiling it for everyone else? Would she be happier then?

Your friend is free to have hurt feelings, nobody is arguing that. If she needs to cause drama and cut the host couple out of her life over this, when she's the one who failed to read the invitation, then that may not be viewed as a loss by the host couple. Your friends needs a little perspective and to realize someone else's wedding isn't about her and her children, she had her own wedding for that.

Pod the bolded. 
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Sharnita on September 01, 2017, 08:07:19 AM
Honestly, I see them as members of the wedding party, not children. It strikes me as stranger to exclude some of the wedding party because of their age.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: iridaceae on September 01, 2017, 08:42:11 AM
Honestly, I see them as members of the wedding party, not children. It strikes me as stranger to exclude some of the wedding party because of their age.

I was in a wedding as a kid but the reception was adults only. I was the most upset about not getting any cake. I was promised  they'd bring cake back, and they did.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: LifeOnPluto on September 01, 2017, 11:16:44 PM
OK, I can see that the "no kids" statement followed by *kids actually playing a role in the ceremony* could cause some double-takes among guests who wanted to bring their kids along.

I'd consider that to be just a casual/careless/over-generalizing use of language rather than some intentional slight against any parents who were invited to the wedding without their kids.



POD. At most, I'd be surprised (and maybe mentally roll my eyes a little at the HC for trumpeting so loudly about their 'No Kids" wedding, when they had intended to invite several children to be in the wedding party) but I certainly wouldn't be offended. As other's have pointed out, it's not rude to exclude some children based on factors like levels of closeness, age, wedding party, etc.

That said, there are definitely instances where it would be incredibly rude to invite some children but not others. I recall a post here a few years ago, where the HC had invited all their nieces and nephews to their wedding, except for one teenage niece who used a wheelchair. (I recall their dubious reasoning was "There will be dancing at this wedding, and we don't want her to feel bad."). In that case, I think the HC were definitely rude not to invite that child!

Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gellchom on September 02, 2017, 09:25:53 AM
The rudeness pales next to the cruelty.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: desireesgranny on September 03, 2017, 06:22:22 PM
And I agree with all of you - I'm just pointing out how some people will feel.   And for the wedding in question - I'm not even invited!!!

Anyway, IMO, I feel that if you state you want no kids at your wedding - then there should be NO kids.   period.   You can get married without a flower girl or ring bearer.   I believe it causes family problems to say no kids, but then there are kids there.


As many of you have pointed out, the HC can do what they want, but (and this is true of both sides), is it really worth ruining family relationships over?   Some people have. 

Also part of the problem is that when people get a wedding invitation, they automatically think it means the whole family.    I really don't know how to get people to see that it's only the people on the invite.  So if kids are not on invite, they are not invited.


I had to do the same thing with my Dad. A cousin was getting married. The invitation was addressed to my Dad. I kept telling him that my sisters and I were not invited. I actually had to call my cousin from my Dad's house to ask before my Dad believed me. My cousin was very apologetic but I assured him that it was fine.

I also have to explain to a friend of mine that if I am invited somewhere that does not mean that I can bring her. She says, " They know me. They won't mind." Cue me explaining for the hundredth time, no invite, no go.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: crella on September 03, 2017, 07:33:46 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

Because they are the wedding party, not guests.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Harriet Jones on September 03, 2017, 07:39:50 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

Because they are the wedding party, not guests.

Plus, as PP have mentioned, they may not even be at the reception. A couple of kids in the wedding party is *not* the same as having many many kids there.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: gramma dishes on September 03, 2017, 07:40:44 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

Because they are the wedding party, not guests.

And they may be in the wedding but never make an appearance at the reception.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: kudeebee on September 04, 2017, 07:11:13 PM
Heres' the point that I think you've all missed.   And why it will cause hurt feelings.

The bride didn't say - Oh, we are only inviting nieces and nephews, or we are only inviting cousins, or anything like that.   She made it clear to the world that she wants an adult-only reception.   How on earth can you have an adult-only reception with children there?

1. They may not be at the reception.
2.  They may be at the reception for the meal and then whisked away with a babysitter.
3.  They are part of the wedding party.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: FauxFoodist on September 06, 2017, 11:25:34 PM
This topic reminds me of the first post on this link, http://www.tickld.com/x/fbk/horrified-wedding-guests-share-the-worst-behavior-theyve-ever-seen-at-a-wedding (http://www.tickld.com/x/fbk/horrified-wedding-guests-share-the-worst-behavior-theyve-ever-seen-at-a-wedding).

I love the HC's spine and hope that it made the SS-guest think twice about ever pulling this again after traveling all that way just to have to spend the time in their hotel room with her DD while her DH attended the wedding (DH was the friend of the bride).

The bottom line here is the OP's friend needs to remember that the wedding is not about her and there could be consequences for her if she tries to force the issue like in the link.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Twik on November 10, 2017, 08:50:52 AM
I'll state that the only exception I see with this is for nieces and nephews.  Unless the number of nieces and nephews of the B&G goes well into the double digits, I think inviting some and not others is probably going to cause problems.

Whether the B&G want to accept these problems is up to them.

yeah, this is going to cause problems.

As your sibling, I might understand that you are actually closer to our other siblings' kids, but refusing to invite mine (if ages are similar) is saying to me that you don't ever want to become closer to my kids.

That's phenomenally hurtful. I'll be honest--I'd be pissed off.



You see, I'd just never look at it that way. Not inviting my (hypothetical) children to this wedding says nothing about whether any future relationship might exist.

And second-guessing the guest list is generally rude.
Title: Re: no kids - except for.....
Post by: Kiwipinball on November 11, 2017, 09:08:45 AM
I'll state that the only exception I see with this is for nieces and nephews.  Unless the number of nieces and nephews of the B&G goes well into the double digits, I think inviting some and not others is probably going to cause problems.

Whether the B&G want to accept these problems is up to them.

yeah, this is going to cause problems.

As your sibling, I might understand that you are actually closer to our other siblings' kids, but refusing to invite mine (if ages are similar) is saying to me that you don't ever want to become closer to my kids.

That's phenomenally hurtful. I'll be honest--I'd be pissed off.



You see, I'd just never look at it that way. Not inviting my (hypothetical) children to this wedding says nothing about whether any future relationship might exist.

And second-guessing the guest list is generally rude.

For almost anyone else, I would agree. But I'd be really hurt if my sister didn't invite my (hypothetical) children but invited others. Extremely hurt. And it would send a message to me. If she invited no children, it wouldn't bother me.

The flip side of this, of course, is if a HC makes it more difficult for guests to attend (no children, destination, whatever), they need to be even more gracious/understanding if guests can't or won't make it. A friend of the family recently got married (her parents and my parents have been friends for a long time, she and I are the same age and were reasonably close growing up; my sister is three years older and not particularly close). Due to the venue, chidlren were not invited. Although my sister probably could have found child care, she didn't feel like it and politely declined. I'm not 100% sure if she would have gone if the kids could go - it would have been more likely. She wasn't mad her kids weren't invited, it just influenced her decision. The HC's child was at the reception, but that makes sense and no one (that I saw) was offended. The HC wasn't at all bothered that my sister didn't come. I think she was mainly invited because they felt weird inviting my parents and me and not her. But the point is, my sister would have been rude to have a fit that her kids weren't invited. The HC would have been rude to have a fit that she didn't come. Obviously when people have closer relationships, these behaviors could be more hurtful, but as others mentioned, that's a rel@tionship issue, not an etiquette one.