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, 05:18:02 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: no kids - except for.....  (Read 7657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #60 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. 

TootsNYC

  • Member
  • Posts: 33793
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #61 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.

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #62 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.
Nothing to see here.

mime

  • Member
  • Posts: 1824
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #63 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.


rose red

  • Member
  • Posts: 9554
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #64 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.   
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM by rose red »

lakey

  • Member
  • Posts: 968
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #65 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.

Hmmmmm

  • Member
  • Posts: 8883
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #66 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.



wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Member
  • Posts: 6894
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #67 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.

amylouky

  • Member
  • Posts: 1523
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #68 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.

Redneck Gravy

  • Member
  • Posts: 3812
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #69 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. 

Sharnita

  • Member
  • Posts: 22408
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #70 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.

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #71 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.
Nothing to see here.

LifeOnPluto

  • Member
  • Posts: 8132
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #72 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!


gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #73 on: September 02, 2017, 09:25:53 AM »
The rudeness pales next to the cruelty.

desireesgranny

  • Member
  • Posts: 175
    • www.TickerFactory.com
Re: no kids - except for.....
« Reply #74 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.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 06:36:35 PM by desireesgranny »