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, 02:18:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: no kids - except for.....  (Read 7651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bert

  • Member
  • Posts: 249
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #30 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.

Hmmmmm

  • Member
  • Posts: 8883
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #31 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.

goldilocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 845
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #32 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.

goldilocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 845
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #33 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?

bah12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6866
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #34 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.

AustenFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 708
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #35 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.

Bert

  • Member
  • Posts: 249
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #36 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.   

HannahGrace

  • Member
  • Posts: 1285
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #37 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.

lmyrs

  • Member
  • Posts: 1766
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #38 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?

lakey

  • Member
  • Posts: 968
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #39 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.

Margo

  • Member
  • Posts: 2153
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #40 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.

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #41 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.
Nothing to see here.

MagnesiumOxide

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #42 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.

Zizi-K

  • Member
  • Posts: 2090
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #43 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.

camlan

  • Member
  • Posts: 9273
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #44 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.
Nothing is impossible, the word itself says, “I’m possible!” –Audrey Hepburn