News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • November 25, 2017, 12:04:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Problem page letter - child free wedding drama  (Read 18002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: Problem page letter - child free wedding drama
« Reply #120 on: September 09, 2016, 06:56:06 PM »
I assumed she meant a sitter, saying "entertainer" meaning the sitter would keep him amused.    I don't think they'd hire a magician or balloon artist for one three year old and one infant. 

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: Problem page letter - child free wedding drama
« Reply #121 on: September 09, 2016, 08:32:34 PM »
I assumed she meant a sitter, saying "entertainer" meaning the sitter would keep him amused.    I don't think they'd hire a magician or balloon artist for one three year old and one infant.
Oh, I think grandma totally would.

Nothing to see here.

TootsNYC

  • Member
  • Posts: 33792
Re: Problem page letter - child free wedding drama
« Reply #122 on: September 09, 2016, 09:30:50 PM »
That's what I would have thought--a magician, a balloon artist, etc.

Which actually isn't that cool (hence the "though..."), bcs that might easily be happening in the party, in front of all the guests.
   The entertainer could be doing the tricks, clown stuff, whatever, in another room for the kids only, but that's not the same thing as having a place they can go for the whole thing.

(My mom created a side room for the kids to hang out in at her anniversary reception, with babysitters, movies, toys, etc.)

LifeOnPluto

  • Member
  • Posts: 8132
Re: Problem page letter - child free wedding drama
« Reply #123 on: September 09, 2016, 11:30:53 PM »

While some posters are saying perhaps the children are ill-behaved, the point is that not including the sister's children is then a statement of some sort on those children. Completely child-free is one thing. "Not your children" is another, regardless if they are in the wedding party or not. In fact, as some mentioned, it could be considered a double slap in the face, especially from a sibling. If the issue is that the groom wants his parents' full attention, that's entirely fair. Then you set up that as a requirement for the children to attend. They must have a caregiver during the ceremony, or the sister must assume care of them throughout, something that is a compromise.



I agree that the issue is likely to be that the Groom simply wants his parents' full attention during his wedding.

Ideally, the Groom would have talked reasonably with his parents about this wish, and ideally the parents (LW and her husband) would have agreed that they'd do their best to give him their full attention. And ideally, they'd all come to some compromise - as a PP suggested, the LW and her husband could have carried the grandkids around during cocktail hour, then handed them over to a babysitter during the ceremony/reception part.

Unfortunately, I suspect the LW and her husband aren't really the compromising type. I suspect that in all likelihood (and despite any assurances they give to their son), they'd end up holding the kids all day, and fussing over them, playing with them, allowing the kids to cling/clamber all over them, showing them off to the other guests, etc. And I suspect that's what the Groom is concerned about.