No children at wedding

Jagraf

duchy wrote: »

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 !

Same here. Why would people assume their children are invited?

Ive had invitations for me only, for me plus partner, for mr and Mrs Jagraf plus weeny jagrafs. It's all quite simple. or to family Jagraf. Isn't that the point of an invite? Mind you, I have sent birthday invites out to my daughters friends when she was younger and have been asked if their sibling can come along too:eek:

duchy

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.

At the Harvester maybe - a silver service waiter doing that would be likely to get fired. (Actually if it was done at a Harvester I'd get them to take it back to the kitchen until we were ready anyway)- I wouldn't expect anyone to have their food plonked on a chair - plus if their dinner is still there where does the pudding go when they sit to finish their main ?

I realize you like to argue just for the sake of it - but do try and apply a little logic or common sense!

System

When my daughter got married there were plenty of babies/children at the ceremony but their parents sat by the door to make a swift exit if need be.

My daughters' son had just had his 2nd birthday and was suited and booted just like his Daddy and the Groomsmen were. He wasnt really much trouble, he played with his Great Nans wheelchair for a while and came toddling over to us when he got a bit bored with it. Both sets of nannies came with 2 sets of dummies and a few jelly tots which kept him amused until after the ceremony.

coolcait

duchy wrote: »

At the Harvester maybe - a silver service waiter doing that would be likely to get fired. (Actually if it was done at a Harvester I'd get them to take it back to the kitchen until we were ready anyway)- I wouldn't expect anyone to have their food plonked on a chair - plus if their dinner is still there where does the pudding go when they sit to finish their main ?

I realize you like to argue just for the sake of it - but do try and apply a little logic or common sense!

I think you have misread Person-One's post - unless your final sentence is directed at yourself .

The dishes from the main course would be cleared away from the table. The dessert dish would be put on the table, at the place seating by the empty seat.

When a meal is being served with time constraints - whether that's because it's a wedding, and the speeches are due at a certain time; or because it's a high-level dinner, with speeches/departure of guest of honour due at a certain time - then it's perfectly appropriate for that to happen.

It's more inappropriate to disrupt the entire timing of the event - which affects everyone involved - by waiting for one or two guests to return to the table.

Person_one

duchy wrote: »

At the Harvester maybe

Oh honestly, do you realise how this makes you sound?

I wouldn't expect anyone to have their food plonked on a chair

Also, um, what?

onlyroz

coolcait wrote: »

It's more inappropriate to disrupt the entire timing of the event - which affects everyone involved - by waiting for one or two guests to return to the table.

The only circumstance where I can imagine the speeches being delayed would be if one of the speakers had to absent themselves for a while. I just can't imagine any scenario where the whole proceedings would be halted just because a few mums or dads nipped out to change a nappy or take a hyperactive toddler out for a walk.

coolcait

onlyroz wrote: »

The only circumstance where I can imagine the speeches being delayed would be if one of the speakers had to absent themselves for a while. I just can't imagine any scenario where the whole proceedings would be halted just because a few mums or dads nipped out to change a nappy or take a hyperactive toddler out for a walk.

I totally agree. I was trying to make that point, but I'm starting to realise that my cold and flu meds are interrupting the messages being sent from my brain to my fingertips. :rotfl:

HB58

It's more than 30 years since we got married - way back in the dim, distant 80s when weddings were often a little less ostentatious.

The previous year we had been to BIL's wedding and seen children behave in ways which made us - childless as we were then - shudder. One made a racket throughout the ceremony - ably assisted by his father who thought it appropriate to ward off grizzles with a noisy tickling session. At the reception a mob of children ran riot around the room and knocked the wedding cake off the table :eek:

It was an easy decision when it was our turn, especially as we had no children in our close family. We invited the adults and had a quiet word to ensure they understood the 'no children' rule. If anyone was offended they did not show it and I think we are still friends with most, if not all, of those who would have been affected.

It really is up to the people who are paying as to whom they invite, for whatever reason. If we have been invited to any function we would never have assumed that DS was included unless he was specifically included on the invite.

OP - do what suits you and I hope you have a lovely day. Even more importantly, I hope you have a long and happy marriage.

lobbyludd

disclaimer: I've been to a lot of weddings, and whilst I was grateful to be invited to all of them and glad to be able to celebrate/share the day with the bride and groom, I have thoroughly enjoyed very few of them.

these have ranged from very relaxed affairs with children and comedy grannies aplenty to very formal adults only capers far away costing a fortune for guests to attend.

As a guest you sort of expect a fair amount of hanging around, being a wee bit bored, food you wouldn't have chosen yourself, drunken relatives you need to avoid, music you'd never normally countenance being in the same room as etc... i.e. very far from "perfect". Guests go because they want to support and celebrate the wedding of the bride/groom, not in order to have the best experience of their lives, so a screaming toddler would only potentially @ruin@ the day of the bride/groom and immediate family. Only you know how relaxed you all are about that sort of thing. e.g. very few people other than the front rows care about hearing the vows word for word and I can't remember a wedding where crying children were not whisked away promptly. Often they have added the most memorable features of a wedding and a good vicar/registrar can handle interruptions.

Think about the weddings you've been to that you've enjoyed and how they have handled this - that might be your best bet.

If you don't want children there don't have them, that is a fair enough decision. But it comes with the responsibility of accepting that a number of people won't be able to come and don't get upset about that.

At my own wedding we had our own child so a "no child wedding" would have left him really bored! and everyone we knew who could babysit was invited. The children of siblings and step siblings ran to 12, so we limited the children invites to those children, my maid of honour's children and added hand written notes on the invitations for parents that we were sorry we hadn't invited their children, but if that was going to cause them problems let us know and we'd see what we could do. 2 couples got in touch and we invited their children, some of my cousins with kids declined the invitation - we all still get on, it's no drama.

duchy

Loved the last post but it highlights for me a big point- Most children are bored at weddings . They are expected to sit through a service and whilst some may be accustomed to doing this at church - many won't be . Even as an adult I've sat at weddings wishing they'd get on with it if the service is long and dragging a bit - then they are expected to hang around whilst photos are taken, and adults chat, then sit and wait for a meal to be served -then sit theough grown ups making speeches ....... It's a big ask for small children not to be disruptive especially if they aren't accustomed to sitting through a church service or eating formally .

A short service and a buffet can be enjoyable for a child - a fussier more formal do .......can be a recipe for disaster. Lots of people have talked about their own weddings in the past - but weddings have changed . The fashion for a "show day" and pretentious or aspirational settings are far more common. Children don't do formality and the old way of a reception in a hall with a buffet and a disco afterwards where no one is tethered to their table for a long meal, speeches, then "entertainment" before the kids can even get up is a very different prospect. Kids aren't used to having to sit still for long periods -even at school they have far shorter periods of sitting than in the past.

As weddings have become more aspirational and less family friendly then children have become less catered for as they have grown up in a society which is generally less formal -many kids don't ever eat formally at home or have to wait til everyone has finished before getting down from the table -so a posh wedding is no treat for them the way it is for an adult as they are simply too restricted . I do think with that in mind it is often kinder on everyone if thought is given to if a particular wedding is suitable for children below a certain age - for everyone's sake - but I also believe the bride and groom if they want a family inclusive wedding need to make sure their event is suitable too- as hosts their job is to make sure their guests are comfortable , If they want a big showy do then sometimes a no kids rule makes sense- but if they want children there (and they know the kids they are inviting and the parent's parenting style after all) then expecting them to suddenly change from children of today into Victorian kids who will be seen but not heard can be unrealistic.

If a bride and groom want a particular style of wedding and ambiance they need to consider who they are inviting and if thae two match up . Personally I hate big show off weddings and when we've had to go when my son was small I' opted not to take him as he'd have got fed up and I'd have spent all my time distracting him and not enjoyed the day either. At least child free i could have a couple of glasses to soften the impact !

Everyone is entitled to the style of wedding they choose to pay for but sometimes childfree can be kinder on everyone .

Oh and a tip for brides -if you don't want children getting super hyper at your reception - lose the sweet buffet =Kids having sat for hours then released REALLY don't need a massive sugar boost on top !!