Children at Weddings?

Glinda

OP, it really boils down to one question - and people are almost always strongly of one view or the other, so you should find it easy to decide whether:

1. The wedding is a family event
or
2. The wedding is between the bride and groom only

If 1. then children, especially closely related ones, are clearly part of the family and that's that. If their parents don't bring them then that's not your issue but they deserve an invite same as all other family members, not because of your relationship with their parents but because of your relationship with them directly. Similarly older relations and others who are maybe not glamorous, maybe not convenient or even presentable, but still part of family and that's what matters.

If 2. then you should feel free to exclude children, older relatives and anyone else you don't want at the wedding as only people you truly want should be invited.

Maybe if you don't want some relatives there then an explanation that it's not a family wedding would work?

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Sligo1 wrote: »

Similarly you could also say if the family member really wanted to be their and honour the hosts wishes than they would sort their own responsibilities out and do what they can to be there without putting any extra stresses on the hosts.

Also, IMO the whole kids and minders versus bride paying for dresses scenario you've used is completely different and a ridiculous example.... Sorry but just my opinion...

Not really - the general point is, if couples want to do things their way and want guests to be ok with that, then they have to be ok with guests not coming. So if you don't want kids, or you want to have it at an expensive resort hotel, or you want people to travel a long ways, and that is what you really want, then you have to be ok with people saying "Sorry I can't make it". I respect that people want to have the kind of day they want to have, whether that is without children or on a tropical beach somewhere. But the flip side to that is, the couple has to respect the fact that their choices may make it difficult for people to attend, and that gets trickier when immediate family are involved.

If the sister in law is just throwing a strop because she wants to show off her kids, well perhaps good riddance on the day. But if a no kids policy (or whatever else) creates hardship for a guest that the couple really wants to attend, then I don't understand why coming to some kind of compromise seems so far-fetched.

Sligo1

Broken Strings wrote: »

If the hotel didn't offer the service I'd probably make a few calls to guests to get general numbers of those RSVP'ing with kids and then look online just to see the going rate and numbers for local childminding services who would be willing to come to the hotel. No pressure on the parents to use them, but I would look into being able to provide at least one option for them.

Well that's fair enough and good of you. But OP has stated she didn't want children so I still just really can't see why she should take on the responsibility of finding possible minders for other people's children. I mean, surely organising a wedding is enough. Surely the parents who don't have an entire wedding to organise could make the call. At least this way the parents can make an informed decision about who they want to mind their kids and the OP isn't wasting more time trying to find options that may not even be availed of.

Flippyfloppy

In my opinion children have no business at events where alcohol is being served. End of. Then again I choose not to bring my kids to pubs, weddings nor did I spend my time in pubs while growing up. Maybe that's where the difference between the two camps lies?

Sligo1

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

Not really - the general point is, if couples want to do things their way and want guests to be ok with that, then they have to be ok with guests not coming. So if you don't want kids, or you want to have it at an expensive resort hotel, or you want people to travel a long ways, and that is what you really want, then you have to be ok with people saying "Sorry I can't make it". I respect that people want to have the kind of day they want to have, whether that is without children or on a tropical beach somewhere. But the flip side to that is, the couple has to respect the fact that their choices may make it difficult for people to attend, and that gets trickier when immediate family are involved.

If the sister in law is just throwing a strop because she wants to show off her kids, well perhaps good riddance on the day. But if a no kids policy (or whatever else) creates hardship for a guest that the couple really wants to attend, then I don't understand why coming to some kind of compromise seems so far-fetched.

But you could use any example in that case. Like, well the B&G should pay for everyone who needs to stay over night at the venue.... It just makes no sense...

And just to add, OP hasn't actually stated that she would mind if the relative didnt attend of she couldn't find childcare...

Hold the Cheez Whiz

Sligo1 wrote: »

But you could use any example in that case. Like, well the B&G should pay for everyone who needs to stay over night at the venue.... It just makes no sense...

And just to add, OP hasn't actually stated that she would mind if the relative didnt attend of she couldn't find childcare...

No, not really - I think people expect to have to book a hotel/train ticket/rental car for a wedding. But it is a general rule of thumb that the more people have to travel and the more it costs, the fewer people will attend. Which is perfectly fine. My broader point is that if you fully support the idea that people should have the day they want (which the no-kids crowd does), then you also have to fully support the idea that those decisions may affect attendance, even for people whom they really want to be there. That's all. If you don't care if some people don't come, then there really isn't an issue.

Malari

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

In my opinion children have no business at events where alcohol is being served. End of. Then again I choose not to bring my kids to pubs, weddings nor did I spend my time in pubs while growing up. Maybe that's where the difference between the two camps lies?

That includes most restaurants. Bit much, no?

Broken Strings

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

In my opinion children have no business at events where alcohol is being served. End of. Then again I choose not to bring my kids to pubs, weddings nor did I spend my time in pubs while growing up. Maybe that's where the difference between the two camps lies?

In that case, kids would be excluded from a lot of events. 21st's, Anniversary parties, Weddings etc.

It seems a bit like the opposite end of the extreme. I don't think alcohol at weddings is always a major issue (and I say this as a teetotaler), a lot of people aren't too over the top as long as they've had their meal and a bit of soakage at the afters.

A lot of people are falling around drunk during the St. Patricks day parade, yet there are a lot of kids at that to be fair.

Most people probably won't be too over the top at a wedding in comparison.

goalscoringhero

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

But if a no kids policy (or whatever else) creates hardship for a guest that the couple really wants to attend, then I don't understand why coming to some kind of compromise seems so far-fetched.

This appears to me as the voice of reason.

Our wedding takes place at a venue that explicitly states no kids allowed, due to insurance reasons.
Having had a recent addition ourselves, and a few additions at siblings, of course we did not want to exclude them. In fact, we are delighted that the nieces and nephews are present with us on the day.
That also meant we did not want to exclude any of the other kids of friends and family (There are a lot of under 2-year olds at close friends, too).

We did however not include their children names on the invite, and left it up to the interpretation of the invitees to bring theirs if they fancied it. We made the assumption that most parents would not want to bring their 2-year-olds to such an occasion, but that some would not be able to make arrangements and would have to bring theirs.

This turned out to be the case, except for one couple who are travelling from overseas. We don't mind - but have made minimal provisions for the toddler so far. Assuming the parents will take care of most.

I for one won't mind if one of the little ones starts crying during the ceremony - that's what babies / toddlers do. The joy of having them around by far outweighs the cost of explicitly excluding them, and pissing off the parents in the process.

Sligo1

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

No, not really - I think people expect to have to book a hotel/train ticket/rental car for a wedding. But it is a general rule of thumb that the more people have to travel and the more it costs, the fewer people will attend. Which is perfectly fine. My broader point is that if you fully support the idea that people should have the day they want (which the no-kids crowd does), then you also have to fully support the idea that those decisions may affect attendance, even for people whom they really want to be there. That's all. If you don't care if some people don't come, then there really isn't an issue.

Yes this I do agree with. Honestly if anyone couldn't have made it to our wedding because they didn't want to leave there kids behind or couldn't find childcare I honestly wouldn't have minded and would've completely understood as I have 2 babies myself. I think the majority of people even who don't have children would understand this... But there is a big difference to not being able to find childcare and just expecting that your kids be invited and getting the hump because they are not.

Electric Sheep

BarryD wrote: »

Therein lies a related problem. Politely declining isn't always the answer, that gets other people upset that your not going to be there etc. It can be taken as a sort of insult too.

In real life, I have not known anyone who took it as an insult that someone declined a wedding invitation. Most people understand that their wedding, while very important to them, is not exactly top priority for others.

The Cool

I think the bottom line is, if you're going to pay however many thousand euros for your event, you are entitled to decide the guestlist.

BarryD

Glinda wrote: »

OP, it really boils down to one question - and people are almost always strongly of one view or the other, so you should find it easy to decide whether:

1. The wedding is a family event
or
2. The wedding is between the bride and groom only

Sounds like good sense to me. You've put it in black & white but my guess is that some / many? couples (in Ireland anyway) tend towards something grey - in the middle of those scenarios. They want a bit of the first whilst retaining the second and that can confuse the situation.

BabysCoffee

Spicy123 wrote: »

My fiance and I have no children and from day one made clear nobody under the age of 18 would be invited to our wedding. My fiance has a neice and nephew who will be 4 and 1yr 9mths by the time we are getting married. My fiances sister (the childrens mother) assumed her kids would be invited regardless and we have had to tell her they are not. Shes not impressed and is kicking up a huge fuss and telling us they are the only grandchildren of the family etc. We really do love those kids but all we wanted was an adult only wedding. Is this a rare thing for people to want? Is it the norm to have children at your wedding if related to them? Are we being unreasonable?

No you are not being unreasonable. It is your right to invite whoever you want to your wedding.

It is your guests right to decline, if for example they are unable to arrange a babysitter for their little ones.

Electric Sheep

goalscoringhero wrote: »

This appears to me as the voice of reason.

Our wedding takes place at a venue that explicitly states no kids allowed, due to insurance reasons.
Having had a recent addition ourselves, and a few additions at siblings, of course we did not want to exclude them. In fact, we are delighted that the nieces and nephews are present with us on the day.
That also meant we did not want to exclude any of the other kids of friends and family (There are a lot of under 2-year olds at close friends, too).

We did however not include their children names on the invite, and left it up to the interpretation of the invitees to bring theirs if they fancied it. We made the assumption that most parents would not want to bring their 2-year-olds to such an occasion, but that some would not be able to make arrangements and would have to bring theirs.

This turned out to be the case, except for one couple who are travelling from overseas. We don't mind - but have made minimal provisions for the toddler so far. Assuming the parents will take care of most.

I for one won't mind if one of the little ones starts crying during the ceremony - that's what babies / toddlers do. The joy of having them around by far outweighs the cost of explicitly excluding them, and pissing off the parents in the process.

How is that going to work if the venue explicitly states No Kids? Are they coming to the ceremony only?

Gatica

I was puzzled by this too.... Did you change venues to accommodate the children then?

Gatica

Glinda wrote: »

OP, it really boils down to one question - and people are almost always strongly of one view or the other, so you should find it easy to decide whether:

1. The wedding is a family event
or
2. The wedding is between the bride and groom only

If 1. then children, especially closely related ones, are clearly part of the family and that's that. If their parents don't bring them then that's not your issue but they deserve an invite same as all other family members, not because of your relationship with their parents but because of your relationship with them directly. Similarly older relations and others who are maybe not glamorous, maybe not convenient or even presentable, but still part of family and that's what matters.

If 2. then you should feel free to exclude children, older relatives and anyone else you don't want at the wedding as only people you truly want should be invited.

Maybe if you don't want some relatives there then an explanation that it's not a family wedding would work?

I don't think it's exclusively the 2nd for most couples who don't want children at their wedding. The way you phrased it comes across a bit snide, saying that maybe they should be telling people that it's "not a family wedding" or that they don't want "older relatives" there.

Broken Strings wrote: »

In that case, kids would be excluded from a lot of events. 21st's, Anniversary parties, Weddings etc.

I have never ever seen children at 21st parties, even when they were family events. Parents and aunts/uncles made an appearance at the start of the night, and left before all the young'uns got a bit more drunk and do a wee bit of mad dancing themselves.

lazygal

Gatica wrote: »

I don't think it's exclusively the 2nd for most couples who don't want children at their wedding. The way you phrased it comes across a bit snide, saying that maybe they should be telling people that it's "not a family wedding" or that they don't want "older relatives" there.



I have never ever seen children at 21st parties, even when they were family events. Parents and aunts/uncles made an appearance at the start of the night, and left before all the young'uns got a bit more drunk and do a wee bit of mad dancing themselves.

Yes, it is a snide comment. Referring to 'glamourous' relatives as though the less attractive ones would be left off the list. We didn't ask all our 'relatives' because a) we're both of typical large Irish families and have dozens of cousins we hardly know and b) have some aunts/uncles we're not keen on for various reasons. Nothing to do with their age and/or glamour factor.
I have also never seen children at occasions like 21st birthdays or similar events even when family is in attendance.

goalscoringhero

Electric Sheep wrote: »

How is that going to work if the venue explicitly states No Kids? Are they coming to the ceremony only?

While the venue states explicitly 'no kids allowed', this is hardly enforceable.
Checking back with them they clarified the 'no kids allowed' clause is due to insurance reasons - there is no venue kids police on the day (thankfully).
We rent the facilities, and the venue does not decide who goes.
I believe that is common sense.

We don't bother not being covered by the insurance of the venue.
If people want to bring their kids, obviously they are responsible for supervising them. That is why most people decide not to bring them.
But for the very few guests who do decide to bring their kids, it is up to them to ensure their little ones are safe, just like at any other venue.
I believe this is common sense, too.

For those unfortunate and very rare cases where accidents do happen, most people have travel insurance for that, or personal accidents cover.
If they don't, I would think that is a failure on the parents' part and quite irresponsible.

Broken Strings

Gatica wrote: »

I don't think it's exclusively the 2nd for most couples who don't want children at their wedding. The way you phrased it comes across a bit snide, saying that maybe they should be telling people that it's "not a family wedding" or that they don't want "older relatives" there.



I have never ever seen children at 21st parties, even when they were family events. Parents and aunts/uncles made an appearance at the start of the night, and left before all the young'uns got a bit more drunk and do a wee bit of mad dancing themselves.

Different strokes for different folks.

I've never been at a 21st Birthday that didn't have children at it during some stage of the evening. Any I've been to have been big family events where there's a DJ and dancing, cake, family members and that includes kids. Some were in venues and some were in marquees at the back of the house. They might be gone by 9.30 or 10pm, but they do attend.

Gatica

goalscoringhero wrote: »

Our wedding takes place at a venue that explicitly states no kids allowed, due to insurance reasons.

Are the parents that are invited with the kids aware of this? It may be prudent on the parents' part to ensure their kids if there's no insurance there. However, I think most people would assume that a venue would cater for that, rather than take out insurance for that sort of thing.

goalscoringhero

Gatica wrote: »

Are the parents that are invited with the kids aware of this? It may be prudent on the parents' part to ensure their kids if there's no insurance there. However, I think most people would assume that a venue would cater for that, rather than take out insurance for that sort of thing.

Without dragging this further off-topic, yes they are.

And no, I would not think that most people would assume that a venue would cater for the insurance of their kids.

It's probably down to cultural differences, but it is easy to circumvent being reliant on any other party making insurance provisions by taking out personal accidents insurance and third-party insurance, which wouldn't be a bad thing to do in the first place.

Sligo1

goalscoringhero wrote: »

Without dragging this further off-topic, yes they are.

And no, I would not think that most people would assume that a venue would cater for the insurance of their kids.

It's probably down to cultural differences, but it is easy to circumvent being reliant on any other party making insurance provisions by taking out personal accidents insurance and third-party insurance, which wouldn't be a bad thing to do in the first place.

What if a staff member asked the parents to leave as they had previously told the hosts there was explicitly no kids allowed? Ye wouldn't really has a leg to stand on. Esp if the parents aren't aware of the no kids policy... You might have some very p"ssed off parents? Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if some staff asked kids to leave as there are no insurance provisions in place for children. If anything happened they could possibly go out if business.

Gatica

I'm not saying it's not easy to take out one's own insurance, but I really do not think it wouldn't even occur to most people/parents. Sorry, yes, off topic.

For OP, I guess that could be a good "excuse" for saying there's no children allowed at the wedding, although a B&G's family/guests should respect them enough to do as requested, rather than having them need to come up with excuses.

goalscoringhero

Sligo1 wrote: »

What if a staff member asked the parents to leave as they had previously told the hosts there was explicitly no kids allowed? Ye wouldn't really has a leg to stand on.

That is why we clarified beforehand. Like I wrote before, after clarification the venue is not interested putting effort into enforcing the 'no kids' rule.
There is no staff present, as we have the venue to ourselves, and only caterering people will be there besides guests.

Sligo1 wrote: »

Esp if the parents aren't aware of the no kids policy... You might have some very p"ssed off parents? Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if some staff asked kids to leave as there are no insurance provisions in place for children.

Like I wrote before, the venue is not interested implementing a 'no kids' police.

Sligo1 wrote: »

If anything happened they could possibly go out if business.

I don't understand how, but probably irrelevant to the OP.

Gatica

goalscoringhero wrote: »

I don't understand how, but probably irrelevant to the OP.

Because a guest could sue the venue for expenses and damages.

Sligo1

Gatica wrote: »

Because a guest could sue the venue for expenses and damages.

Precisely.

Electric Sheep

goalscoringhero wrote: »

Without dragging this further off-topic, yes they are.

And no, I would not think that most people would assume that a venue would cater for the insurance of their kids.

It's probably down to cultural differences, but it is easy to circumvent being reliant on any other party making insurance provisions by taking out personal accidents insurance and third-party insurance, which wouldn't be a bad thing to do in the first place.

Wording that invitation must have been interesting.

goalscoringhero

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Wording that invitation must have been interesting.

The essential bits are:
"We invite X & Y to our wedding, taking place there and then [...]"

Like I said, we did not explicitly invite children of X and Y.
We did, however, also not explicitly exclude them.

Most people are not stupid, and are able to use context to help them guide their interpretation of such an invite.
People are also quite capable of acknowledging the consequence of bringing their kids - most notably, the supervision aspect.

Since all of our guests are close friends and family, we know them well and trust in their judgement in this matter, and in our case, there is no further micro-management necessary.

It appears however that the OP did talk about people who are beyond the spectrum, in that they are
- either offended by children not mentioned explicitly on the invite, or
- explicitly excluding children

Like someone has mentioned further above, I think the majority of people are in between those two positions.

Electric Sheep

Broken Strings wrote: »

Different strokes for different folks.

I've never been at a 21st Birthday that didn't have children at it during some stage of the evening. Any I've been to have been big family events where there's a DJ and dancing, cake, family members and that includes kids. Some were in venues and some were in marquees at the back of the house. They might be gone by 9.30 or 10pm, but they do attend.

I have never seen kids at a 21st. Not even once. As you said, different strokes.