Children not invited to Wedding

Another reason not to include them MissAdventure!

Reminds me of a 'you've been framed' clip.
The couple are saying their vows, and a child goes marching past saying "I want a poopoo!"

That is for people who become indignant and annoyed when people can not attend their weddings.

Do people do that? Why?

Neither should be upset at the decision of the other.

This 100%

My DD solved this problem at her wedding by setting up a professionally managed creche for small children at the hotel where the ceremony was taking place and many of the distant families were staying for the weekend. This enabled those with small children to come to the wedding and dip in and out of the Ceremony, the meal and speeches and evening dancing which went on till 2am. A few of the little ones had an afternoon nap in the creche, then returned to the party refreshed. Happy children = Happy parents

I can see your point CafeAuLait, breast fed babies wouldn't be any financial cost at a wedding and it sounds as though the wedding that you were invited to just didn't want any children there at all; their wedding : their choice.

I think it's good to be very clear on the invitation who is invited and who isn't. Especially if the people you are inviting are close family. No room for misunderstandings then.

The couple have the right to invite or not invite whoever they want. The invited people have every right to accept or decline, depending how the terms of the invitation work for them. Neither should be upset at the decision of the other.

Chewbacca

^For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work^ both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

Guests not being able to arrange childcare isn't the wedding couple's problem to sort out though; that's down to the parents to deal with. Maybe the wedding couple are on a fixed budget and just cannot afford to cover the cost of additional guests - children's meals still have to be paid for. Quite correct that an invitation isn't a summons; and it doesn't have to be an all-inclusive summons either!

Breastfed newborns in arms sleep, don't take up any space and don't need a meal. I just laughed when that was the reason given that my newborn couldn't come to a wedding. It was in another city, hours away, so easy decision not to go. Not all babies can take bottles.

Same Lolo81 - not on Mumsnet so no idea what people say. DD1 went to wedding when DGD was small baby and breast feeding. Bride said to bring her - no-one else had feeding babies and guests were happy with this. We looked after her brother. It's up to bride and groom but generally stated on invitation.

Chewbacca

^For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work^ both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

Guests not being able to arrange childcare isn't the wedding couple's problem to sort out though; that's down to the parents to deal with. Maybe the wedding couple are on a fixed budget and just cannot afford to cover the cost of additional guests - children's meals still have to be paid for. Quite correct that an invitation isn't a summons; and it doesn't have to be an all-inclusive summons either!

You've taken that comment out of context.

That is for people who become indignant and annoyed when people can not attend their weddings.

"..just got someone to look after us" is not always easy for a lot of families.
I do think that it needs to be made clear. Many people assume that if parents are invited, so are children. Certainly the first time I was invited to a child-free wedding, I needed it spelled out, as I'd never heard of such a thing. I didn't have family nearby, and although I had good friends and neighbours, asking them to care for young children for a whole day is a big favour.

I think it's completely up to the couple and if children aren't invited, then parents of young children may not be able to attend. No need to take offense either way, but some understanding is needed. It can be expensive and awkward to cater for young children at a wedding, and also expensive and awkward to arrange childcare for some.

We didn't want children at our wedding in 1975. We were both teachers and wanted a child-free day! Also, it was a sit-down meal with no dancing after (because we didn't dance!). Not very much fun for children.

So we said something like "Regret no children" on the invitation. Two of my cousins didn't come because they had a long journey and their parents were coming so couldn't babysit. One phoned me on the morning of the wedding to wish me luck. The cousin who made the biggest fuss came!

But it didn't cause any family rifts.

For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

Guests not being able to arrange childcare isn't the wedding couple's problem to sort out though; that's down to the parents to deal with. Maybe the wedding couple are on a fixed budget and just cannot afford to cover the cost of additional guests - children's meals still have to be paid for. Quite correct that an invitation isn't a summons; and it doesn't have to be an all-inclusive summons either!

We went to a child-free wedding when my son number one was a baby and still feeding. We managed by having my mum babysit and racing home from the church to feed him (half an hour drive) and then going back for the reception. It worked but I was a bit anxious! Apparently decades ago, one of my aunts had a childfree wedding. I was about six and my brother and sister younger. Mum just got someone to look after us.

Bibbity

For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

I completely understand that, I’ve had to decline offers myself when our children were younger. My point was more about the attitude I’ve seen around this (from some) take us all or no-one comes. I think most people would accept their invite being declined for any number of reasons. The issue as I see it is the “ultimatum” (best way I could think to phrase it) of I’m not coming without my children.
I don’t see how it’s entitled to not invite children, as you say it’s an invitation not a summons.

People asked if that included their children??
How rude and self entitled. I would actually assume that people like that are the very ones who would allow their kids to shout and scream during the ceremony and not bother to take them outside and would let them run around when the meal is being served and staff are carrying hot dishes. In other words the ones whose children will be a total pain in the arse and are the reason why many Brides and grooms want child free weddings.

Bibbity

For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

Not sure what your point is. When you have children you know that there will be events you can’t attend because children can’t attend. When you invite people to your wedding you know some people won’t be able to attend. When you are paying you are entitled to choose who is invited.

An invitation should state who is invited ie Jack and Joan or Jack, Joan and John. No name, you’re not invited. We didn’t want children at our wedding and so we actually stated on the invitation “regrettably children can not be accommodated, we are sure you understand”. We did have people ask if that included their children and tried to persuade us how well behaved they would be (mainly people who had only been invited for political reasons).
Your wedding, your rules.

For many people they can not go if their children are not invited. The entitlement can work both ways. An invitation is not a summons.

I’m in Scotland and all my life any wedding I’ve been to the people invited are named on the invite. Some have included the children some haven’t. I personally don’t understand the indignation I’ve seen from some on mumsnet and the like “If the children aren’t invited we won’t be there”. There have been various times where DH and I have been thrilled to get a day/night out without ours!!

Some people feel clarity is a must. I would think that if an invite is to the guests on the envelope. "Mr. and Mrs." means the couple, "The Jones Family" means parents and children.

However, people seem to miss that, so being clear that it's an adult only event saves the couple from fielding calls from who knows how many potential guests, asking if their kids are invited as well.

Of course there will always be those who believe that their children are somehow the exception to every rule, and will either call or simply show up with kids in tow, but they're obnoxiously rude.

It makes sense to let people know exactly who is invited to the wedding. If children are not included if the invite says so it avoids any misunderstanding.

We're your children's names included on the invitation or did guests just know they could bring their children?

I've never been invited to a child free wedding or reception so I can't comment

I think it's more a cheeky fucker thing than anything else.

Someone always assumes the rules do not apply to them. And when planning an wedding you want to avoid all potential arguments.