No children wedding

Evil_Olive

I know exactly how you feel FBaby - we're having a pagan ceremony, also in August, which is traditionally held outside, but we booked a village hall with an attached meadow because we had to have a backup inside space available in case of torrential rain. As this is a very real possibility we had to limit the numbers to those who could fit in the hall should it be necessary. Very annoying as the meadow could fit several hundreds

Si_Clist

dollywops wrote: »

It is the bride and groom's day and I truthfully feel they are entitled to have what they want.

Exactly.

And friends and family who can't get their heads round that fundamental concept should just do the decent thing - put up and shut up.

cazziebo

Yes, it is the bride and groom's day but that doesn't mean to the absolute exclusion of what their nearest and dearest think and feel. It's expensive being a wedding guest - especially as weddings have become ever more elaborate and gift lists (or requests for money) more expensive. Many brides (not all!) do get carried away with creating this whole Princess for the day ideal and if they just chilled out a bit they would have a much better day!

The children issue is difficult. It can be a huge expense to add on. Some parents have no will/skills to encourage their children to behave appropriately at events. It can be a very long day for adults, never mind children. I think if you're going to exclude children then you have to be prepared and respect that many guests will be unable to attend, no matter how much they want to share your day.

I think Spendless words it clearly and eloquently :

'Unfortunately due to space constraints we have had to limit guest numbers to adults only. Thank you for your understanding on this matter' . Am I alone in finding the twee poems offensive?

pelirocco

aeb wrote: »

I would say make it clear and be tactful

Last month I received an invite from my niece to her wedding in October. It states 'no children except for wedding party' This is my late husbands sisters daughter.
OK, so not my children, I understand that.

Then a note on the back to say that of course my three eldest children are invited (10, 8 and 6) but the triplets (4) born 6 months after my DH died were not invited. On talking to my SIL this is for two reasons, "they weren't born when DH was alive so therefore not really his family and also because they are too much of a novelty, I should know because I had twins"

I'm still working out the logistics as it's 200 miles away.

tbh i wouldnt be going if they couldnt invite all my children , bit of a sla in the face isnt it

pelirocco

cte1111 wrote: »

I agree that it is difficult to ensure you cater for every guest's wishes when organising any event. However having children with whom you usually spend your free time and would struggle to offload for a long period (as weddings are also now all day and evening events) isn't exactly a one off oddity. I do think it's a shame that child-free wedding seem to have become the norm.

I do too , we had 120 guests at our wedding , church and local school hall , very basic buffet ( done on the cheap )

I can ( sort of ) understand limiting children to immediate family only , but to exclude siblings children is pretty selfish imho. Weddings are about making a commitment to each other in front of and celebrating with family and friends

We got married nearly 33 years ago ( that was in the days when you could marry at 9;) ) It was done on the cheap , everyone had a good time, but at the end of the day its just a day , its not the most important day of your life ,every day is important .

making a go of a marriage is bloody hard work , a wedding is just a day out with a new frock

tinkerbellkirst

pelirocco wrote: »

[/COLOR]

I can ( sort of ) understand limiting children to immediate family only , but to exclude siblings children is pretty selfish imho. Weddings are about making a commitment to each other in front of and celebrating with family and friends

Luckily none of our siblings have children, otherwise I agree we would want them there. My best friend's daughter will be there as she is flower girl. All of the other children are just children of friends/colleagues etc, not many that we have a real relationship with except my other 2 close friends (and BM's) children, who have both said they would quite like a relaxing day without the kids! So no problem there.

74jax

cte1111 wrote: »

I I do think it's a shame that child-free wedding seem to have become the norm.

I'm guessing you like kids and would have them there. Not everyone does. I had no one at my wedding I didn't know or want there. I invited cousins I knew and didn't invite cousins that I hardly know, even if mother insisted I did. The same with kids, if I knew the kids and would go out for the day with them then they were invited, if I know of the kids but didn't like them or want them there they were not invited .

I think as long as you accept the parents might not come then it's fine. You can't force things on to people, if you definitely want someone there and they can't leave their kid, then you'll have to compromise and either give in or not have them there .

Just because you invite one child and not another doesn't mean it's wrong. I invited three people from my old work and not the fourth as we aren't as close as the other three. Just because they are kids doesn't change the fact if you don't like them or want them there you don't have to invite them.

POPPYOSCAR

pelirocco wrote: »

[/COLOR]


I do too , we had 120 guests at our wedding , church and local school hall , very basic buffet ( done on the cheap )

I can ( sort of ) understand limiting children to immediate family only , but to exclude siblings children is pretty selfish imho. Weddings are about making a commitment to each other in front of and celebrating with family and friends

We got married nearly 33 years ago ( that was in the days when you could marry at 9;) ) It was done on the cheap , everyone had a good time, but at the end of the day its just a day , its not the most important day of your life ,every day is important .

making a go of a marriage is bloody hard work , a wedding is just a day out with a new frock

Reminds me of a wedding I went to.

Everyone was told no children which was accepted. However, at the wedding there were two children there. They were the children of friends of the bride.

The groom was not happy when the photos were taken as both his sisters had gone home to 'check on the children'.

lisyloo

as both his sisters had gone home to 'check on the children'

People can't have it both ways.
If the groom or sister are claiming this was a momentous event in their lives then why couldn't they sacrifice some savings and pay for a baby sitter for only 1 day?

If their children are more important than being at the wedding then fair enough - but that's their choice isn't it.

Aren't they just complaining about their own priorities here?

74jax

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Reminds me of a wedding I went to.

Everyone was told no children which was accepted. However, at the wedding there were two children there. They were the children of friends of the bride.
I don't see a problem here, obviously closer kids to the bride and she wanted them at their wedding.

The groom was not happy when the photos were taken as both his sisters had gone home to 'check on the children'.

I don't think the groom had a right to be annoyed, does he have kids? Maybe his sisters felt uneasy leaving them all day, the timing of them going to check on them wasnt great, but as a mother, you can't help that.

What would he have done if they choose to spend the whole day away from his wedding as they didn't want to leave their kids at all.