to think this is weird wedding wording?

(69 Posts)
moogy1a Wed 06-Mar-13 14:56:57

A new variation on the children at weddings scenario.
Just received an invitaion which says " due to venue capacity we are only able to invite a small number of children*these have been randomy selected*and it is not meant to cause much offence.
"randomly selected"?!! Why not selcted in terms of closeness to family/ parents who can't get childcare for the day/ anything other than random?
Did b&g pick names out of the hat?

Iseeall Wed 06-Mar-13 15:01:33

Very odd. Have your dc be randomly selected?

PuffPants Wed 06-Mar-13 15:02:50

That is very weird. It is also a lie. They have invited the children of their closest friends.

moogy1a Wed 06-Mar-13 15:02:54

Yes thay have. They were obviously one of the first out of the tombola

Geordieminx Wed 06-Mar-13 15:02:55

Crazy.... Do they think its the Olympics? Did they hold an independently verified ballot? Are the t&c's available on their website? wink

PuffPants Wed 06-Mar-13 15:04:19

Are you close friends? If not, perhaps I'm wrong. Still very strange. Surely family first then people who are traveling and won't have childcare.

Caitycat Wed 06-Mar-13 15:04:22

I agree it's odd, after all the randomly selected people may have childcare available and prefer to come alone whilst others may be unable to attend without their children. I would have thought if they really don't mind which children come it might be better to say something on the lines of "we only gave very limited space for children but would love as many friends as possible to attend so if you need to bring children please let us know and we will accommodate as many requests as we can".

hortensemancini Wed 06-Mar-13 15:04:25

Ha! I like the way it's not mean to cause much offence. Just a moderate amount of irritation.

Nope, they have invited the DC of their closest friends except for one, badly behaved, sticky set. Hence the 'random' ruse.

moogy1a Wed 06-Mar-13 15:06:11

we are very close family, so I also doubt the randomness of it.

fluffyraggies Wed 06-Mar-13 15:07:02

hortens i thought that - the much offense bit. Just a little bit of offense then ... grin

PuffPants Wed 06-Mar-13 15:07:34

Ah well, I'm right then. Of course it's not random they're just worried about looking bad. Instead they look a bit daft grin

CloudsAndTrees Wed 06-Mar-13 15:08:31

There is no way the children were randomly selected.

aldiwhore Wed 06-Mar-13 15:08:43

and it is not meant to cause much offence. <<< just giggling at this bit. In other words, we mean to cause some offence!

fluffyraggies Wed 06-Mar-13 15:11:48

Our latest wedding invite was a 'no kids at the church or the do afterwards, thank you very much' one.

Fair enough, fair enough.
But after that it said:

'because after all, we ALL want to let our hair down'.

Written like that with capitals on the ALL. I found it odd. Neither the B or G have children - so i didn't understand what they were hinting at.
confused

PuffPants Wed 06-Mar-13 15:17:01

fluffyraggies, they were saying that it was to be a party for adults not kids. I went to a wedding once where nobody went near the dance-floor because a child was break-dancing on it ALL night long. His parents thought he was terribly entertaining but everyone else thought he was a precocious brat who should have been in bed! It definitely put people off "letting their hair down".

hortensemancini Wed 06-Mar-13 15:20:04

I think to be completely transparent about the random child selection, they should have allowed everyone to bring their children, lined them up outside the church, then played some 'tension music' while Ant and Dec read out the names of the lucky, randomly selected winners.

Then sent the unlucky ones home, obviously. In a minibus.

KatieMiddleton Wed 06-Mar-13 15:28:31

The much offence bit is funnier. We did mean to offend you but only moderately

atthewelles Wed 06-Mar-13 15:29:39

I would imagine that all of the 'randomly selected' children happen to be the well behaved, well brought up ones and all the 'unlucky' children happen to be the spoilt brats whose parents can be relied on to do absolutely nothing while they run amok during the ceremony and annoy everyone at the reception. smile

INeverSaidThat Wed 06-Mar-13 15:34:53

I can see where they are coming from. It's a little odd but it means they didn't have to work out some complex algorithm as to which children they 'should' invite depending on

Whether they are a close relative
Whether they are nice kids
Whether it is easy for the parents to get child care
If not inviting them will upset the kids parents/other relatives
If the kids parents previously invited your kids to their wedding
Etc etc

Someone should write a computer program for it. hmm

ErrorError Wed 06-Mar-13 16:29:56

Randomly selecting children!? What happens if a couple have 2 DCs and one child gets selected but the other doesn't, (going by 'out of a hat' method.) Bit sketchy that. I agree with atthewelles, 'random' kids will conveniently be older/well-behaved!

thezebrawearspurple Wed 06-Mar-13 17:18:54

It's their attempt at saying that nice, well behaved children that they like are invited and that sadly brats can't come ruin the day while their adoring parents smile on/ignore.

atthewelles Wed 06-Mar-13 17:22:53

Exactly. I don't think their wording will fool anyone. They would have been better off just inviting no children at all (although it might not do the parents of the brats any harm to realise that no, not everyone thinks your badly behaved, uncontrolled children are absolutely adorable).

Startail Wed 06-Mar-13 17:30:13

Why on earth can't people stop having stupid expensive hotel weddings and just have a buffet an a knees up in the village hall and invite everyone.

expatinscotland Wed 06-Mar-13 17:32:48

Too right, Startail.

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