Advanced search

To think we should rename child free weddings..

(128 Posts)
purplesprings Tue 28-Jul-15 09:39:50

.. to take some of the angst out of invitations? I propose:

Marriage Party = adult only celebration of a couple's marriage. [only exceptions being dc of immediate family]

Wedding = celebration of two families coming together to form new family.

For the B&G there would be a clear definition of their wishes and no need to explain further. Guests would then know what the rules are and can decide whether to attend and in the case of a wedding whether or not to take their docs.

Or more simply, everyone could just agree to put the names of all invitees on the invitation. No name = not invited.

So: Jane and John (no mention of DCs) = childfree wedding.
Jane, John, Fred and Emily = children invited.

Saying that people who go for the childfree option can no longer call it a wedding seems quite bizarre to me.

Lottapianos Tue 28-Jul-15 09:45:01

'Guests would then know what the rules are '

I think the rules are already pretty clear. Only the people who are named on the invitation are invited. If that doesn't include your children, they're not invited. End of. This may mean that you can't attend, and everybody should be cool with that, but its perfectly reasonable for people to decide not to have children at a celebration, any celebration. For some people, marriage means they are now legally a couple, and they fancy having a party to celebrate - nothing at all to do with joining two families together.

Lottapianos Tue 28-Jul-15 09:45:46

X post with WhoKnows smile

MaxPepsi Tue 28-Jul-15 09:46:36

Or, parents just accept that other people don't want their kids to attend.

I had a wedding. I did not want my friends children there. So shoot me!

However, having said that. Bride and Grooms, also need to accept that not inviting children may mean no one comes to their wedding!

KinkyAfro Tue 28-Jul-15 09:51:07

I'm getting married this year and I'm having a child free wedding, everyone knows it's child free and there has been no complaints, no questions, no sob stories. I have lots of people coming and most have told me they are happy to be child free for just one day smile. They don't have to worry (in their words) about their kids eating, being entertained, throwing strops etc.

PressEscape Tue 28-Jul-15 09:54:37

Child-free weddings are better. Wish I hadn't invited children to mine.

OddBoots Tue 28-Jul-15 09:55:16

The bride and groom just invite (by name or as +1 and/or + children) and the people on the invitation RSVP about if they are going or not. It couldn't be much simpler.

The only confusing factors are when other people think they have more right than the bride or groom to decide who should be invited.

PressEscape Tue 28-Jul-15 09:55:35

Ridiculous to suggest that a wedding should include children by definition.

Skeppers Tue 28-Jul-15 09:56:24

I too had a child free wedding (purely due to restrictions on numbers- it was a small do- and the unsuitability of the reception venue we wanted- a wine bar where children under 16 weren't allowed) and as pp has said, all of my friends with children said they were happy to have a day/night 'off'! We had no problems whatsoever. grin

Boosiehs Tue 28-Jul-15 09:58:29

I think that is a stupid idea. Since when does the OP get to decide that a child-free wedding is not a real wedding.

I didn't have children (other than immediate family). It was still a wedding.

TheRealAmyLee Tue 28-Jul-15 09:58:39

If my dc are not named on an invite or it doesnt say & family I assume and plan for child free wedding.

wannaBe Tue 28-Jul-15 10:00:03

I had a child free wedding. The vast majority of the guests were delighted to have a day without the kids where they could relax, have a few drinks and go home when they wanted. Only one obnoxious friend of mil's replied that she wouldn't be coming because we hadn't invited her daughter. IMO she was rude and her absence was no great loss.

A wedding isn't less of a wedding just because you don't invite children. Had we had children in the family it would have been a different matter but we didn't, besides which many venues have a limited capacity so children have an impact on that as well as on the cost.

Spartans Tue 28-Jul-15 10:00:37

There is no angst.

Invitations that say 'Jane and John' mean your kids are not invited

Ones that say 'Jane, John and kids' mean they are.

An also people need to not get shitty if their kids aren't invoted but the brides sisters kids are.

If people don't want to I invite kids it's up to them, if you don't like it....don't go.

If you are the bride or groom and people decline because it's child free, accept that's their decision

StregaNona Tue 28-Jul-15 10:02:36

Not one wedding I have been invited to since I had kids named them on the invitation. Turns out that at least three couples were upset I didn't bring them. So I definitely would welcome a clear rule that you name every guest you want! It is quite frustrating having gone to time, effort and expense to get care for your children to then be berated for not bringing them. Urm, they weren't invited????

echt Tue 28-Jul-15 10:05:13

No need for codes.

Invitations do what it says on the tin:

Janet and John

Janet, John and children

Janet +1.

juneau Tue 28-Jul-15 10:06:24

Or, parents just accept that other people don't want their kids to attend.


It amazes me how precious people on MN are about this issue. Your little darlings aren't necessarily anyone else's idea of 'fun' wedding guests. Sorry, but you need to get over it.

When we got married we had 100 guests. Inviting everyone's darling offspring would have meant half the guests being DC. And while I appreciate that its not always easy for people to leave their DC behind, I didn't want 50 DC at my wedding. It was an adult celebration, but a bloody DC's party with kids running around, screaming, crying and being bolshy because they're up past their bedtime, and I totally understand why any other couple make the same decision. And, quite frankly, I have a MUCH better time at an adult function without my DC in tow, whining that they're bored, that the food is yucky and that there is no bouncy castle.

juneau Tue 28-Jul-15 10:07:05

*not a bloody DC's party

DidoTheDodo Tue 28-Jul-15 10:08:22


A wedding is a wedding and a marriage a marriage, whether or not children are involved. Bride and groom get to choose the guest list.

Also, I dispute your definition of a wedding being the joining of two families. not necessarily so. It's the joining of two people. Families may, or may not be involved in that too.

LibrariesGaveUsPower Tue 28-Jul-15 10:09:55

I think the whole 'names on invitations' thing can get misunderstood too. No need to rename the wedding, but I do like a little note on the additional information (you know, parking and hotels and the like that people tend to stick in) making the rules clear. I've had invites before that only had my name on, but where the kids were invited. Including one where my daughter was a bridesmaid!

I really don't mind child free weddings. They can be nice. Just as long as everyone understands the rules and the bride and groom don't get pissy if you decline for lack of childcare/lack of desire to leave a small child.

StrawberrytallCake Tue 28-Jul-15 10:10:11

Complications occur sometimes, one of DH's friends invited us both when I was pregnant with dc1. We were quite young and didn't realise that our almost newborn wasn't invited but luckily I mentioned at a wedding just before theirs that dd would be wearing the same outfit at their wedding.

Unfortunately we couldn't get a babysitter and the bride went full on bridezilla texting my DH offensive messages about not coming and how could we not get a babysitter??? We could just find one online. Yeah, for my 3 month old pfb...probably not, I'd love to know if they see things in a different light now they have children.

I love a child free wedding and a wedding with children but think making it crystal clear to invitees that children aren't invited is really important. When children are young it is easy to become wrapped up in them and not even realise they aren't invited as names aren't on the invitation, surely it is more courteous to explain that you have decided not to invite children rather than just hoping for the best - for all parties involved.

broomy123 Tue 28-Jul-15 10:12:30

I don't understand why people get their knickers in a twist over this! Just ask if you're unsure?! I think in general only immediate family kids are invited? I just don't think it's anyone's place to say who should be invited accept the bride and groom. Everyone I know hates taking their kids to weddings and would rather have a day to enjoy themselves! smile

Bubblesinthesummer Tue 28-Jul-15 10:13:05

So now it seems according to the OP that you can only have a wedding if children are invited otherwise it isn't a 'wedding'

It is an obsured idea that people assume that everyone wants their children there.

It is their choice if they want a child free wedding and the guests choice as to whether or not to attend.

broomy123 Tue 28-Jul-15 10:14:42

I should add and babes in arms. I assume they are generally allowed!

purplesprings Tue 28-Jul-15 10:15:04

My point was that lots of people don't understand the convention that if your name isn't on the invitation then you aren't invited as is obvious from all the threads on here. I declined an invitation because my dc's name wasn't on it and I didn't have anyone who could babysit. Bride rang up to find out why I'd said no and was horrified that I'd assumed that dc wasn't invited - she thought that she only needed to put the adults on the invite.

If you are having (had) a child free wedding was that explicit on the invitation including exceptions? If it was did that stop enquiries/requests for exceptions?

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: