To think a no kids wedding should mean no kids at all?

(123 Posts)
CardiffUniversityNetballTeam Sun 25-Aug-13 09:42:27

Friend is getting married. Invite says no kids. Fair enough. But her DC will be there. And her nieces and nephews. But no one else can bring their children as it will mean there are "too many".
How many kids is too many kids? Where do we draw the line? And what about DC to whom she is godmother? And what about teenagers? What is the cut off point? 13? 18?
Fucking weddings.

GampyWabbit Sun 25-Aug-13 10:00:30

We were invited to a 'no children wedding' when dc3 was 3 weeks old and ebf. There were no children allowed at all (even tiny new babies), so we didn't go in the end.

MortifiedAdams Sun 25-Aug-13 10:01:24

Meh...."family children only" seems perfectly acceptable to me.

I live childfree weddings as then I dont feel guilty for leaving dd behind (who I do for every wedding).

SJisontheway Sun 25-Aug-13 10:01:31

Cardiff, do you really think they should exclude friends who they would like to share their day with so that you can bring your children? I think that is a strange attitude.

CardiffUniversityNetballTeam Sun 25-Aug-13 10:01:56

No, attheend, I don't think she should not include her own children.
I am happy to accept I have BU in this case!
Still definitely not getting married myself though. Everything about it seems too stressful. Not that anyone's asked me yet so I might never have the chance.

ShipwreckedAndComatose Sun 25-Aug-13 10:02:13

I'd be leaping at the chance to ditch my kids and have a proper knees up personally!

Can't understand why you are stressing!

Sirzy Sun 25-Aug-13 10:03:16

With your logic though she would either have to exclude her own children or accpet everyones children. She has gone for the sensible middle ground.

neunundneunzigluftballons Sun 25-Aug-13 10:03:29

Yep sounds fine to me family children and bf and maybe even non bf tiny babies. Why would grown adults want to hang about with my children if they were not closely related to them.

eurochick Sun 25-Aug-13 10:05:33

Weddings don't have to be stressful. They are only that way if you make them stressful or allow other guests to.

Lots of venues have strict numbers limits for fire safety reasons or simple capacity. Children would restrict the number of adults. And you also have to pay for them, so they increase the costs. If most of the couples you want to invite have 2 kids, you would effectively need to halve the adult guests to have them there.

mrsjay Sun 25-Aug-13 10:05:40

No kids means no kids if she wants her family children there than of course that is fine can you imagine how big the wedding would be if everybody who had children took them, confused her family children are important to her and her nearly husband guest children are not important harsh but true

fluffyraggies Sun 25-Aug-13 10:05:41

See - i find it feels ... odd ... when we get an invite saying 'no kids', with some ''then we can all let our hair down'' clause, or whatever.

We've had invites like this from both family and not family.

I think many couples are hung up on the big flashy do with bells and whistles - then find they cannot afford to have half the people they'd like to invite to join them. So then they try to chop the numbers by saying 'leave the kids at home please'. Invite half the family. I think it's sad.

I know it's your day, your rules etc. But if you can't afford to have it all, and invite a whole families, then either have a tiny 'boutique' wedding, or a big cheap knees up.

trixymalixy Sun 25-Aug-13 10:06:12

YABU, how weird to think they shouldn't invite their own children if they can't fit the kids of every wedding guest in hmm.

CardiffUniversityNetballTeam Sun 25-Aug-13 10:06:17

No SJ, when you put it that way I don't.
I will look forward to enjoying an evening child free and stop poking my nose into things that aren't my business grin

mrsjay Sun 25-Aug-13 10:06:55

weddings are only stressful if people let them imo

woodlandwanderwoman Sun 25-Aug-13 10:07:26

YABU, it's their wedding and they want to have the most important people to them there. Depending on ages etc, you can often find that between your friends, there are A LOT of children.

Most wedding venues seat and charge up to c. 120 people, the only discount kids get is on food. This can mean you pay up to £5-800 for a family of four.

We had children of family / wedding party and babies too young to leave parents but no others. If we HAD invited everyone else's, there would have been another THIRTY children! That's 15 LESS couples we could have asked.

This then means bride and groom have to choose between THEIR friends, and other people's children. This wasn't a difficult choice for us!

Lastly, your point re family children, don't forget that family means aunts, uncles etc too, all of whom will be the grandparents of many of the family DC. So by not inviting family DC but inviting their most trusted babysitters in many cases, you can put family in a v difficult position and often mean they are unable to come because they don't want to leave kids (often overnight... Not everyone had family on their doorstep) with unfamiliar people.

Finally, if I was your friend and knew that you'd described the biggest day of my life as a "fucking wedding" I'd be gutted. Shame on you.

Bajas Sun 25-Aug-13 10:07:47

We did this at our wedding last year- nieces and nephews (11 children) and bf babies (2).

As we got married at almost 40 nearly all our friends have children. If we had invited all dc, we would have had a total of 90 adults and 67 children (some of whom we have only met once or twice) which would have been (a) very expensive and (b) more like a children's party.

As it was we had 88 adults and 13 children- more affordable by far.

I think you need to consider the whole picture.

CardiffUniversityNetballTeam Sun 25-Aug-13 10:08:57

Shame in me woodland you're right.

What sort of friend am I? sad

mrsjay Sun 25-Aug-13 10:10:51

and kids hate weddings it is boring they dont really want to go anyway

CardiffUniversityNetballTeam Sun 25-Aug-13 10:11:03

I have got some real perspective on here. Who am I to judge other people's choices about their weddings?
The whole thing has probably cost her a bloody fortune. I'm so selfish.

susiedaisy Sun 25-Aug-13 10:11:38

Family children - yes
Everyone else's -no

I can never understand why friends with kids who get invited to another friends wedding get arsey about not being able to take their kids, why not just have a day without your children and enjoy some adult company and relax and eat a meal that you haven't had to cook for once!

meditrina Sun 25-Aug-13 10:13:22

I think that having a children's "cut off point" is pretty tacky, actually. As family/friends never divide tidily, it's hard to do it fairly, and tends to breed resentment ('how can it be child free when there are several of the little blisters running round?)

I think it's better to have a 'normal' wedding, where you invite everyone or a 'select' wedding, adults only, perhaps not OHs.

These modern hybrids (largely pushed as acceptable by a wedding industry keen to have people overextend) strike me as a retrograde innovation.

lifeissweet Sun 25-Aug-13 10:15:49

My ex BIL had a 'no children' wedding and it caused an almighty row in the family - BIL has brothers who have small children, some of whom are still being breastfed. The brothers were upset that, because of the blanket 'no children' rule, either they, or their wives (the groom's SIL) would be unable to attend. As weddings are family occasions, this was seen as a bad idea.

The brothers tried to persuade him to have family children only, but he stuck to his guns, which was his right. In the end, two of the brothers didn't attend the wedding, which was a real shame. I think asking friends to find babysitters/potentially causing breast-feeding friends to stay at home is one thing. Causing siblings to be unable to attend is another.

So the solution here to allow family children is acceptable in my book.

And anyway - it's their wedding!

Nanny0gg Sun 25-Aug-13 10:20:34

Sounds fine to me.

ceres Sun 25-Aug-13 10:20:51

I am irish and this is totally normal for irish weddings. typically weddings are 'no children' but this does not include close family members e.g. the couple's own children or nieces and nephews.

this is not a recent thing. i remember my parents attending loads of weddings. i went to my first wedding aged 17.

I don't like lots of children at weddings. I find absolutely nothing cute about tripping over toddlers on the dance floor.

i don't understand why some people feel their children must be included in absolutely every event. there is nothing wrong with having an adult party.

woodlandwanderwoman Sun 25-Aug-13 10:22:44

Sorry to sound a bit harsh, but please remember this would have been a very hard choice for your friend to make. She wouldn't have wanted to upset anyone but you have to make decisions somewhere. Hope you enjoy the day xx

TheFallenMadonna Sun 25-Aug-13 10:23:58

I'm going to a wedding today, without my children. I found the "half a family" description upthread interesting. When DH and I do something without our children, I rarely seethe two of us as half a family - rather as a couple. It's a natural division in a family.
I love weddings - child free, child full, fancy, shoestring - however they come. I had no idea before MN how much judgement surrounds them, and it bewilders me. People are weird about weddings.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now