Wedding invite policy on children

[*inviteseller]

That is a weird invitation.  Putting on the invitation that you will vet some kids out to see if they can be accommodated?  I would just make it an adult reception and leave it to the out of town guests to decide on their own how to handle it.  In 13 years of working in the wedding invitation business, I have seen some interesting wording, but this is a new one!

[kareng57]

I agree with some PPs, they likely mean that they will try to co-ordinate babysitting for children of OOT guests, not so much that these kids will be invited as opposed to kids of in-town guests.

But ideally, this info should have been provided on a separate card for OOT guests who have kids, not on the for-all invitation.  Otherwise, it could definitely seem as though OOT kids were invited for the entire event (ceremony and reception) whereas kids of in-town guests were excluded, even if they might have been closer (emotionally) for the HC.

[Bluenomi]

To me it sounds like they want the out of town guests to basically justify why they need to bring their kids and the might let them bring them if they have a good enough reason. If I was an out of town guest I won't bother going. Either way it is something the HC should have only put on the invitations for the people it would effect, not everyone.

[lady_disdain]

That is a weird invitation.  Putting on the invitation that you will vet some kids out to see if they can be accommodated?  I would just make it an adult reception and leave it to the out of town guests to decide on their own how to handle it.  In 13 years of working in the wedding invitation business, I have seen some interesting wording, but this is a new one!

After many years in eHell, I think that means that they can provide some accommodations for children but not 100% vegan, organic, allergenic free (including the rare oxygen allergy that precious has), indigo, bright pink, good enough for Princess accommodations complete with helipad for helicopter parents. If they said "children will be accommodated", perhaps they know some of their Special Snowflake family or friends will take it to mean the above.

[Sharnita]

To me it sounds like they want the out of town guests to basically justify why they need to bring their kids and the might let them bring them if they have a good enough reason. If I was an out of town guest I won't bother going. Either way it is something the HC should have only put on the invitations for the people it would effect, not everyone.

That's how it sounded to me.  I also kind of wondered if it does mean they will get some babysitters for out of towners does that dip into the known pook of babysitters that the in towners would use?  I mean, you figure that some of the people/family who might otherwise babysit will be guests and unavailable.  Then the available babysitters the guests know migh also know the HC.  If the HC has snagged them to babysit the kids of out of towners then it might cause a shortage for locals. 

I think they can have the wedding they want and if they want to talk to people individually about trying to help with some of the details then so be it.  Publishing a policy of "this guest, not that guest" in the invites is just off.

[BeagleMommy]

I think the wording is clumsy and should not have been printed on the invitation.  It would have been much simpler to place a small card or piece of paper in the invitations of those attending from out of town to let them know to call if they needed a babysitter.

[Cat-Fu]

I think the wording is a bit odd, but they're free to invite whoever they please, and I think it's quite nice that they are offering assistance for out-of-town guests with kids.

[Lynn2000]

It doesn't sound like the invitation is saying, "local guests can't bring kids, out-of-townies can." It would probably have said as much. Saying that children of people travelling a long way can be "accommodated" sounds more like they are trying to be mindful of how hard it is to get someone to watch over children for a few days, and maybe they're going to help out with finding babysitters or something else of the sort.

I read this as "no children at our wedding thanks, but if you're travelling a long way and that makes things difficult for you, let us know and we'll help sort things out." It really sounds like they're trying to be very hospitable.

It's their wedding. If they don't want kids, there's nothing wrong with that. If they're going the extra mile by trying to help out those for whom children make attending the wedding difficult, good on them for that.

This is how I read their intentions, but I don't like putting it on the invitation. I think a separate note with more info in the out-of-towners' invitations would have been better--"Our event is adults-only, but if you're not sure what to do with your kids when you travel to the wedding, let us know because we know some great local babysitters we could connect you with." Otherwise I think it is just causing further confusion, as evidenced by the various interpretations here.

[JeanFromBNA]

I don't mind their "policy," but they shouldn't put it in writing, especially in an invitation. 

[miranova]

I don't mind their "policy," but they shouldn't put it in writing, especially in an invitation.

POD. 

I think it is very tacky to put these instructions anywhere near an invitation.  Seriously, just pick up the phone and talk to people.  Ask your cousin who lives 1000 miles away if it would help if you offered childcare and if she would use it if you did.  It may be slightly more work, but it's a lot less clunky and weird than having it printed on an official wedding invitation.

[bopper]

I agree that perhaps the invitation was not the place to put this. But it is good that the B&G is considering the guests situations.

For example, my SIL wanted to have her wedding in upstate NY and wanted it to be adults only.   We live in NJ so it would have to be an overnight trip.  Normally we might ask a family member to watch the kids overnight, but they were all going to the wedding.  So really our choice is to not attend.  But MIL/FIL would really like us there as they are hosting.  First the HC was going to "accomodate" us by hooking us up with a local babysitter that they know and trust but it ended up that the children were invited to the wedding (and yes we made sure they were the little darlings that they should be). 

SO yes, the HC doesn't have to "accomodate" out of towners with children, but the other choice might be for them not to attend.

[amandaelizabeth]

Our business does a lot of work in the wedding season, providing Nannies and Baby sitters for children whose parents are attending a wedding.  As there are restrictions on numbers and rooms we can use to do this, most happy couples give preference to out of town attendees.  Often we run a match up service with local attendees who open their homes to a Nanny and other children.  That way they get their children looked after too.  It seems to work well. 

Some weddings hire someone who will look after slightly older children at the reception venue. 

[Fleur]

While this is clumsily worded, I don't find it all that rude. I agree with those who say that it is about babysitting, not about some children being invited and not others. It actually seems pretty sensible to me, but I agree that the HC should have put that detail to out of town guests only.