Wedding parties with kids or without?

[Colourworld]

Have been invited to the wedding. The kids have not so we are thinkin gof the baby sitter. The organisers say only the kids of close relatives could come and join the wedding. In the summer we were invited to the wedding and although we could not come the kids were welcome. So what do you think of this? Is there a place for the kids at the big parties such as wedding? It used to be.

[SantasENormaSnob]

Guess it's up to the bride and groom.

I have declined 2 invitations that stipulated no kids as we couldn't get childcare.

[HecTheHallsWithBoughsOfHolly]

Well, it's up to the couple getting married.

Personally I think a wedding is just a big party.

A big, expensive party.

And I don't honestly see why children can't be a part of that.

but I am aware of the whole princess, best day of your life, managed with military precision thing. For some reason children don't fit in with that.

Do these weddings ever live up to the dream, I wonder? And were they worth it when 5 yrs down the line you're still paying it off and living in rented accomodation.

And divorced.

[blackeyedsusan]

I suppose it is up to the bride and groom really, it's their day, and they know how much is in the budget.

[pagwatch]

It is up to the couple. If you don't like the invitation not including your children then just politely decline.
Very easy.

[MrsCratchit]

It's very much up to the couple getting hitched! And indeed the dynamics of their family/friends. We invited children to ours as despite being a big wedding not that many people actually had children; those who did had lovely, well behaved ones; and, our venue was child friendly. I have been to adult only weddings or weddings like you describe and the have been well suited t. What the bride and groom wante- it's their day!

[Hulababy]

I like to see children at weddings personally. For me weddings are about families, and the joining of families - so for me, children are a big part of families and oughtto be there.

However, some rides and grooms think differently. It is up to them. So long as the bride and groom accept that some people may not be able to attend because of their choice to not have children present, then I see no problem. If they make a fuss if some people find themselves not able to attend then they are being unreasonable.

[MrsCratchit]

Typos-eek, sorry!

[5DollarShake]

Bit of a jump to go from 'no kids at wedding', therefore Bridezilla, OTT big white wedding, divorced...

We only had one breastfeeding baby at our wedding, and now that I have 2 children of my own, I still feel exactly the same about it.

In the last 4 months we've been to two weddings - in both cases we took DD because she is b/fed and left DS, now 22 months behind, even though he was invited to one of them, because it's soooo much easier not having to run around after him.

[frgr]

It's up to them, really. Lots of variables like suitability of the venue (catering, safety, how easy it is to get accommodation if needed) down to money (small budget, less heads), or if relatives kids have been little angels in the past, or if they remember last year when Aunt Jinny's kid screamed all the way through that funeral

So I'd say it depends on the wedding party.

We've been invited to weddings like this before. We couldn't go to one of them as no babysitter, but no harm, we just sent them our best wishes and figured that there are so many conflicting issues when planning a wedding, who am i to judge? but we've also been to 2 that were no kids - one where someone turned up with a child anyway ( slightly rude) and it was a small intimate wedding, so it stuck out, no apology from the parents that I could tell (i was bridesmaid) like an ill babysitter or childminder let them down... which i thought was totally wrong.... and then another one where our neighbours just babysat for the night. it was fine.

So.... to answer the OP... weddings where children are banned are usually done for a good reason IMHO, although it depends on the couple as to what it actually is. You've got to be pretty brave to face friends and relatives, the path of least resistance is to just invite them, so i think guests should respect the couples wishes.

besides, it's a wonderful chance to bond with DH at these events anyway - many parents find it hard to justify nights out together, we do with our finances, weddings are a good night for just letting ourselves be husband and wife again rather that mum and dad

[libelulle]

My god Giddypickle you must have argumentative friends! :)

[ragged]

I loved having children at my wedding (we only had one of our own at the time). It made the event into a family celebration, that's what I wanted. Along with all the long-time-no-see relatives and friends.

To each their own, I also rather enjoyed attending a child free wedding 3 years ago. :)

[Myleetlepony]

Yep, I'll hold my hand up - two nephews and one neice there for the ceremony and afternoon reception (champagne and canapes doncha know...), plus one very new breastfed baby. All pester power resisted, including pester power from MIL wanting neice to be my bridesmaid. I didn't want a bridesmaid. Then they all had to be packed off to babysitters for the evening do, which was a lovely evening meal for adults in an intimate restaurant. This resulted in an amazing amount of pestering and emotional blackmail from in-laws, resulting in BIL and SIL saying that they wouldn't come in the evening if their kids (age 4 and 7) couldn't be there. Which was fine, their choice, and meant that I was able to invite two more good friends in their place.
Entirely up to the bride and groom to choose what sort of company and atmosphere they want on the day.

[hopalongsausage]

I agree - everyone completely to their own. We got married last year and said that children weren't included on the invitation, but 'babes in arms' (I know, its sounds bleerugh) were welcome - not that any of my friends with small babies did (apart from us as DD was 5 months old). My nephews (then 8 and 5) came to the ceremony and were welcome to the dinner, but my brother decided he wanted a relaxed slap up meal and they went back to their mum's (divorced parents). We worked out that if all our relatives and friends' children came, we would have had over 50 children running about, and we only had a short sit down dinner afterwards, so they would have been bored. Not one person got arsey with me.

However, other brother is getting married next year - no-one is invited to the ceremony, and then a couple of weeks later they are hiring out a gastropub for a BBQ (in June) plus bonkers dancing afterwards. All children are banned. Ho hum, what to do....

[CrazyChristmasLady]

Its up to the bride and groom. I don't think there is anything bridezilla about saying close family children only. You could be overrun if you let all guests bring their children.

We only had close family children at ours because we were trying to keep it as cheap as possible and it would have meant extra catering plus we had a strict numbers limit and if extended family (and I am talking second cousins etc) had brung their children, that would have meant less places for other adults that we wanted to invite.

Sometimes it is about practical things like costings and numbers, it isn't all about being a bridezilla.

At the end of the day, weddings are about what the couple who are getting married want. If people can't find childcare etc, then they are welcome to decline, but if people would prefer not to have every guests children at their weddings then that is up to them.

The weddings I object to is where people have them miles away and family and friends are expected to pay 100's of pounds just to attend, that is completely unreasonable.

[welshbyrd]

I had kids at my wedding, had a child menu, even hired a bouncy castle for them outside, had no problems at all,

[hopalongsausage]

Quite, Dandy - I think myself and my DH are perfectly reasonable and nice

[PlanetEarth]

I wouldn't have minded children at our wedding, though we didn't know many (any?) people with young children at the time. However, we did have limited numbers (40) at the registry office and I could certainly see us not wanting to invite 10 random children we didn't care about, instead of 10 adults that we wanted to be there.

[LisaD1]

Totally up to the bride and groom. We had children at our wedding but then our church guests were family and very close friends only with a more relaxed evening do. It was a brilliant day and exactly what WE wanted.

We have also been to some fantastic child free weddings and had a great time, sometimes it's nice to be out as a couple.

If I was that bothered about the children not being invited I would just politely decline the invite.

[onceamai]

Up to the hosts to decide who to invite and up to the invited guest to decife whether the accept the invitation. Think a lot depends on everyone's life stage to be honest and how many close family members have children.

[Spidermama]

This subject always divides opinion fiercely.
Parties with children around are quite different from parties without. It's really got to be up to the couple involved and I can't understand people who have the nerve to get stroppy because their kids aren't invited.

That said, I would always prefer to have children around at a wedding because for me it's a big family occasion and it would seem kind of empty without them.

[Myleetlepony]

It really is personal choice, whether or not the event is open to children will affect the "flavour" of the day. Personally, I put up with children racing about on the dance floor and generally having a great time at a family party, but I didn't want that at my wedding. It was fine, the only people who got really precious where BIL and SIL, and I thought that was very unreasonable of them as their children had actually been invited to the ceremony and the afternoon bash. I just asked them to take them to sitters for the eveningn meal, which didn't even start until 8 pm, so kids of 4 and 7 would have been knackered before it started.
As it happened, I was very thankful that I'd set the "no children" rule. Our wedding was at a lovely place, Eastwell Manor in Kent. Normally the wedding would have been outside, and if we'd wanted children there, they could have played out in the grounds all afternoon. As it happened, it pissed with rain, everything had to be moved indoors. Now that would have been a nightmare if there had been 20 or 30 little people hurtling about.

[Myleetlepony]

p.s. "Do these weddings ever live up to the dream, I wonder? And were they worth it when 5 yrs down the line you're still paying it off and living in rented accomodation."
Absolutely, it was brilliant fun, very relaxed (wedding planner!) and exactly what we wanted. We paid cash because we saved up in advance. We didn't even have to live in rented accommodation or sell the cat to pay for it.