No children at wedding

onlyroz

duchy wrote: »

I think the issue (whether real or perceived) is whether the bride and groom trust the parents to ensure they (and by extension their kids) WILL be considerate or not. If you've attended weddings where parents have behaved considerately then your attitude to having children at your own wedding is likely to be entirely different to if you've attended a wedding where parents have not behaved considerately and this impacted noticeably on the wedding. The actions (or inaction) of one parent at one wedding - can impact negatively of several future weddings.

The "issue" (if there is one) is that weddings seem to have evolved from a friendly family gathering into a huge extravagant, orchestrated and wildly expensive event which must be perfect in every way lest it be "ruined".


As this whole discussion is about the absolute right of the bride and groom to deny entry to whoever they please, then surely they can simply not invite those people whom they think will ruin their wedding due to delinquent children?

duchy

onlyroz wrote: »

That's not a problem with the children, but with the parents though, isn't it? In a typical wedding with a few hundred guests it'll always take a while to serve three courses to all tables. I've never been aware of proceedings having to be delayed because of mums eating slowly and insisting on having their puddings delivered only once they've eaten the last morsel of their main - but if you're sure this is a common occurrence then I bow to your superior wisdom.

Of course it's a problem with parents !
Not sure why you have changed tack from Mothers leaving the room to deal with their kids and returning to eat to Mothers eating slowly. Two different things surely ?

Most decent venues won't serve a pudding until the main is cleared from the place setting however -standard silver service procedure . Might work OK getting the pudding before you've finished the main at a Harvester but the wedding party are paying for silver service for their guests so they get those standards.

duchy

onlyroz wrote: »

The "issue" (if there is one) is that weddings seem to have evolved from a friendly family gathering into a huge extravagant, orchestrated and wildly expensive event which must be perfect in every way lest it be "ruined".


As this whole discussion is about the absolute right of the bride and groom to deny entry to whoever they please, then surely they can simply not invite those people whom they think will ruin their wedding due to delinquent children?

Which is fine until the delinquent children belong to a sibling and family war breaks out with parents or siblings threatening not to attend unless "Damon" is included

Frankly I'm amazed more people don't elope !!!

I don't think expense has anything to do with it though. If I've invited those closest to me to hear me exchange vows and make a lifelong commitment I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to hear the vows and for a respectful silence to fall during them. Mobiles off and screaming kids taken outside for that short time. Regardless of whether the wedding party are going to the Dorchester or the Pig and Whistle for after ceremony refreshments.

onlyroz

duchy wrote: »

Not sure why you have changed tack from Mothers leaving the room to deal with their kids and returning to eat to Mothers eating slowly. Two different things surely ?

I'm not the one changing tack. I suggested that it was normal for parents to slip away quietly for a while if their child needed attention (whether for a feed, nappy change, or because they were getting bored). And then I was jumped on saying that this would result in the whole reception being delayed, with speeches being held up, and other guests waiting ravenously for their pudding, as they waited for these parents of errant children to return to their table.


Perhaps it's simply because I've not been to a huge number of weddings (I've been to five that I can remember which involved long formal dinners) but I've simply not experienced any of these issues. Sure, I've known some kids to get a bit bored or hyper but not to the extent that the progress of the wedding was disrupted or impacted on to any significant extent.

anon123456

why not just do what we did

"Due to space constraints only children of the close family have been invited. We apologise that we could not stretch to children of friends.
We fully understand if this means you are unable to attend"

Also though from my point of view having two girls. If my wife and I were invited to a wedding with no mention of our children but also no mention that children aren't invited I would assume that the children were invited

onlyroz

anon123456 wrote: »

"Due to space constraints only children of the close family have been invited. We apologise that we could not stretch to children of friends.
We fully understand if this means you are unable to attend"

Fine, no problems at all with that.

Person_one

onlyroz wrote: »

I'm not the one changing tack. I suggested that it was normal for parents to slip away quietly for a while if their child needed attention (whether for a feed, nappy change, or because they were getting bored). And then I was jumped on saying that this would result in the whole reception being delayed, with speeches being held up, and other guests waiting ravenously for their pudding, as they waited for these parents of errant children to return to their table.


Perhaps it's simply because I've not been to a huge number of weddings (I've been to five that I can remember which involved long formal dinners) but I've simply not experienced any of these issues. Sure, I've known some kids to get a bit bored or hyper but not to the extent that the progress of the wedding was disrupted or impacted on to any significant extent.

I don't think that would ever happen. The next course would just be plonked at the empty seat regardless at the same time as everybody else's.

onlyroz

duchy wrote: »

Which is fine until the delinquent children belong to a sibling and family war breaks out with parents or siblings threatening not to attend unless "Damon" is included

Frankly I'm amazed more people don't elope !!!

I don't think expense has anything to do with it though. If I've invited those closest to me to hear me exchange vows and make a lifelong commitment I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to hear the vows and for a respectful silence to fall during them. Mobiles off and screaming kids taken outside for that short time. Regardless of whether the wedding party are going to the Dorchester or the Pig and Whistle for after ceremony refreshments.

If your sibling has a delinquent child then sit them in the back corner well away from the top table. Regarding the ceremony, at the last wedding I attended the registrar asked for "phones off" at the start, and pointed out the exit at the back through which parents could quietly slip if they needed to take care of their children. If there was a particular guest you were concerned about then perhaps you could employ a burly usher who could have a quiet word in the ear of anybody refusing to attend to a delinquent child.

duchy

anon123456 wrote: »

why not just do what we did

"Due to space constraints only children of the close family have been invited. We apologise that we could not stretch to children of friends.
We fully understand if this means you are unable to attend"

Also though from my point of view having two girls. If my wife and I were invited to a wedding with no mention of our children but also no mention that children aren't invited I would assume that the children were invited

And that is another can of worms
If I received the same invitation -if my child wasn't named on the invitation my assumption would be that they WEREN'T invited !

Wedding etiquette says you say who is invited on an invitation and to specify who isn't is impolite. Of course not everyone follows the rules of etiquette preferring clarity and avoiding the risk that people won't turn up with more people than you've catered or budgeted for !

If one of your children is invited to a birthday party with their name on the invitation....do you assume your other daughter is also invited even though her name isn't on the invite ? If you are invited to a dinner party do you assume your daughters are also welcome even if the invitation was only for you and your wife ? What makes a wedding invitation no different if it says "Invites Mr and Mrs X" rather than "Mr and Mrs X and family"

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

I don't think that would ever happen. The next course would just be plonked at the empty seat regardless at the same time as everybody else's.

Well exactly. The waiter would ask "Shall I take away this plate?" if it was obvious that a meal had only been half eaten, and then ask "Shall I leave this dessert here?" if a chair was empty when the puddings arrived. I can't see why it would be a big deal, or why it would result in hold-ups.