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 21, 2017, 12:55:10 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: no kids - except for.....  (Read 7487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Redneck Gravy

  • Member
  • Posts: 3812
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #45 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.         

 


gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #46 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.


turnip

  • Member
  • Posts: 862
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #47 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.


bah12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6859
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #48 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.

Outdoor Girl

  • Member
  • Posts: 16402
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #49 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.
After cleaning out my Dad's house, I have this advice:  If you haven't used it in a year, throw it out!!!!.
Ontario

turnip

  • Member
  • Posts: 862
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #50 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. 

goldilocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 844
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #51 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?   

AustenFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 707
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #52 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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 03:33:59 PM by AustenFan »

bah12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6859
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #53 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.

goldilocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 844
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #54 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?

AustenFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 707
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #55 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.

gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #56 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 ...!!!!!"

lmyrs

  • Member
  • Posts: 1764
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #57 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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 04:04:01 PM by lmyrs »

bah12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6859
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #58 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. 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 04:24:13 PM by bah12 »

HannahGrace

  • Member
  • Posts: 1281
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #59 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.