How would you respond to this email, Brothers wedding invite?

moggylover

Person_one wrote: »

I must be even older than you, because I thought marriage was originally about the transfer and protection of assets, adding 'love' into the mix is a pretty modern idea actually.

Your post is unnecessarily judgemental and condemnatory. The assumption that 'show and pomposity' are the reasons for a child free wedding, when not a single poster here has expressed that and many have explained their actual reasons, is uncharitable at best.

Well, I'm not usually known for being judgmental, condemnatory or uncharitable (in fact I'm usually flamed for being far too much of an old softy:D): but on this one I stand firm and I certainly won't be apologising for stating it like it is:)

This Country has seen a general decline in "family" and an extreme growth in "show" in the 52 years that I have been around. It has NOT been for the better and certainly hasn't made for more lasting marriages or a better and more cohesive society in general.

These days many weddings cost an extortionate amount of money, often borrowed money, for one day of pomp and circumstance which makes absolutely NO account of what marriage is supposed to be about and show far more desire for a Katy Price moment than any real desire to celebrate a special occasion with special people. As I have already said, it would probably be something that would never even come up apart from the US and here: the two countries most obsessed with conspicoous consumption and show, and least committed to family values of any kind.:(

Fang_3

If someone chooses to have a child-free wedding then that is up to them. It's a perfectly valid choice, and in no way makes them or their wedding and indeed marriage, lesser than someone who has children at their wedding.

I do think there's an element of rose coloured glasses in use in the thread when dealing with the past. It's probably easy for someone to forget that children being included is a relatively modern concept, and was as fleeting in the grand scheme of things in the blink of an eye. It wasn't that long ago that children were excluded from adult events - weddings included.

It's also worth noting that actually life is far, far better for a great deal (the majority?) of people in this country now than it was during this 'golden age'.

sparky1989

I went to a wedding recently where no children were invited.Lets just say they were not missed. Especially by their parents.

Lottie_Clements

Perhaps the couple are swingers, polygamists or sadomasochists and are choosing the wedding as the correct time to tell everyone about their lifestyle, thus making it highly inappropriate to invite children anyway?

I jest, a little. But the silliness of my response only mirrors the silliness of this thread! It is not for us to debate whether or not the couple are doing the right thing in having an adults only wedding, it's their wedding after all.

The only question you need to ask yourself is; can I get childcare that day and possibly night? If the answer is yes, great! Go to the wedding, let your hair down, and enjoy a grown up celebration of a couple, as a couple. If you can't get childcare, then thanks and apologies will have to do. It's a shame, but if 8 months notice isn't enough to get childcare, then perhaps the problem is more on your side than theirs.

peachyprice

moggylover wrote: »

No wonder the wedding planners joke that the more that is spent on the "big day" the shorter the term of the marriage is likely to be:(

Well that rather contradicts everything you 'believe'. Add everyone's children to the bill and there's another oooh, say 3rd again spent.

libsmum

I didn't have kids at my first wedding - would have been so much better if I'd have banned the groom !!! (bad man! :mad: )

On the other hand, as for costing money and baing all about show, i'm getting married next month and it's only going to be me and my OH + 2 friends to witness!

One extreme to the other, in more ways than one ! :T

floss2

tsstss7 wrote: »

lol I think being child free perhaps they have not thought this one through......

TBH, I think it's the other way - I think they HAVE thought it through, which is why the original email is very tactful, and possibly why it has been sent, so that the recipients can have the discussion / argument without it being face-to-face and without the possibility of anybody saying something in the heat of the moment and regretting it later.

Also, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, there may well be a very good personal reason why they do not want children present - whether it be financial, medical or psychological - and that is their business and nobody elses.

ilikewatch

The last 3 weddings I have been to have all been child free, and I must admit that I have enjoyed them so much that I'm determined my own wedding will also be child free.

esmerelda98

moggylover wrote: »

This Country has seen a general decline in "family" and an extreme growth in "show" in the 52 years that I have been around. It has NOT been for the better and certainly hasn't made for more lasting marriages or a better and more cohesive society in general.

These days many weddings cost an extortionate amount of money, often borrowed money, for one day of pomp and circumstance which makes absolutely NO account of what marriage is supposed to be about and show far more desire for a Katy Price moment than any real desire to celebrate a special occasion with special people. As I have already said, it would probably be something that would never even come up apart from the US and here: the two countries most obsessed with conspicoous consumption and show, and least committed to family values of any kind.:(

I don't think you make a cogent argument for having children at weddings. If everyone had a traditional family set-up and there was no divorce or re-marriage, it would not negate any of the reasons people have postulated for not having children at weddings. Parents are allowed to enjoy time away from their children. Indeed I find it very unhealthy when people seem to think it is a virtue that they are rarely away from their children, or that they have dedicated their lives to their children. And I say this as a person who considers herself to be quite traditional, who was raised in a traditional set-up.

Parents these days seem to worship their children. They are given so much materially and so little is expected of them. Most childen don't have much in the way of chores, discipline is very relaxed compared to these other countries you are looking at wistfully. Contrary to your viewpoint, I think children rule the country. Adults are afraid to confront bad behaviour they see in public, because if the children don't give you a load of abuse, attack you or start a campaign of intimidation against you, their parents will surely go straight to the police if the adult so much as touches the child in restraint. I get the impression that where there is a dispute involving adults and children the police take a hard line with adults, whereas the 'children' (large, aggressive teenagers hunting in packs are still children) get chance after chance. I think placing children on a pedestal is very damaging to families, not to mention that if you do you are building a rod for your own back.

I am not anti-children or even a proponent for child-free weddings. I hope to have a few, moggylover, after I am married (traditional enough for you?). However, they will not be my raison d'etre. I love them dearly, and they haven't even been born yet, but they will not be my everything.

aliasojo

I'm a bit hesitant to say this...but what the hell. I think it's a tad self centered to think 'anyone' (whether it's a child of the family or dotty old auntie madge) should be invited to someone else's occasion.

If it's your occasion you are hosting, then you can feel he or she 'should' be there as much as you want but if it's not your occasion then I think it's very self centered to have any thoughts along these lines at all tbh.

If we were all less full of our own feelings and more accepting of how others might just want to do things differently, there would be a lot less bad feeling in the world methinks.

Oh and OP, you are seeing issues where there are none.

*runs*