To not understand the child free wedding scenario?

[witherhills]

why are children so bad? God forbid they should make a bit of noise
Wouldn't have dreamt of not inviting dc to mine, wouldn't even have entered my head

Been to a few weddings where we have left DS at home, but that's our choice and fortunate to have very keen babysitting mother

No, tbf we've known him for donkeys years, he is a family friend. I was using him as a handy example :)

And I'm not saying that people should be forced to invite x, y and z, just that I don't understand the differentiation between loved ones that are over 18 and loved ones that are under 18.

Although we did have children at the ceremony our wedding venue didn't have a license to allow children, we went with that venue because it only cost £60 to hire and we were skint (and we liked the venue too of course). So it's not always about choice. I would have loved children there.

I have also been to weddings where my children were not invited, completely up to the bride and groom and if you're trying to keep numbers down why would they invite my children over one of their adult friends?

I think it's ab out a change in the currency of a wedding. It used to be a family occasion, the couple's parents were in charge of the day, had the sort of wedding to which they could invite families, even if that meant catering was sausage rolls in your garden or the church hall. That was the norm. Children in that context are all part of the family event, their share of sausage rolls is affordable.

Now couples marry later, have already left home, the bride as well as the groom has a (comparitively) well paid job and expectations about the glamour of the event have increased. Partly due to TV and magazines, partly because that's the way of the world.

So now the couple make the chopices, see it as 'their' day, from their pov as aspiring young people with a high appreciation of material values.

Children in that context are expensive (catered menu), don't 'fit' the themed 'look' of the event, and the couple themselves have not started a family so don't feel the family vibe.

Personally I think it is a shame, but that's people's choice. I wouldn't have a child free wedding, nor would I feel obliged to go to enormous expense and disruptive effort to attend a child-free wedding unless I really wanted to.

Oh and the sitting quietly thing, no that doesn't necessarily follow. A friend had a very elderly relative at her wedding who didn't sit quietly at all. She caused far more disruption than any child I've seen. Where do you draw the line?

No-one has the right to ban children from a church ceremony, anyway.
Wedding services are public services like any other and any member of the general congregation can just turn up and attend, including children.

That makes sense to me, ruby.

well said Ruby

No one has the right to ban children from a church service. This is probably why DHs boss and his wife brought their 6 month old who proceeded to wail and scream her way through our vows and whose mother didn't have the presence of mind to walk outside with her. It was a beautiful day she could have walked in the grounds for 5 mins. But no. The irony being that after the mass they dropped the child off at the grandparents so that they could get drunk.

I also am a bit reading the odd post which has said 'It's all about me being a princess'. A wedding day is about two people in love committing to each other, and two families coming together.

I think that although every bride wants to look good, the actual meaning of the day has become somewhat lost over the years. It's become a lot more shallow, I think.

However, I understand the child free scenario - it mainly comes down to money, I would think.

oh Blimey, opened a can of worms here!
For those who are bored with the topic, apologies. there are lots of wedding threads, but that's kind of my point. I don't understand the fuss.

I completely take on board the comments about cost and being able to invite who the hell you want
Foofyschmoofer, I think your comments were a little bit below the belt.
This was never about my child I never said that i just want them to be invited. It is not at all about my precious child

Generally I think the whole furore about weddings is completely ott.
The bridesmaids doing nothing, the bridezillas, the stag do's, the not being able to afford to go on hen do's

And that extends to the nonsense about whether or not to invite children.

B & G should definitely be able to invite who they want, but the problems it causes have a huge knock on affect. E.g if your own brother didn't want children at his wedding, but you simply had no childminding options, how devastated would you be that you couldn't see your brother getting married.
It's that kind of thing that I don't understand, when you are making a choice between family members

Personally I have never seen a child ruin a wedding, but I see lots of examples upthread. But this has a connection to the bridezilla princess.

I recently saw a 3 year old bridesmaid stand very lightly on the bride's dress as she was coming up the aisle.
She was so mad
She didn't trip, or even stumble, but it spoilt her day
I wouldn't give a flying fuck about that type of thing

My neice refused to leave her dummy behind, my own son screamed the place down as soon as he saw all the people, but I couldn't have cared less.
It was the one day when I was with the people I enjoyed being with most in the world

With regard to the cost.
I just see the invitees as families not couples.
So I would say "ok lets invite the smiths" (5 people) not "lets invite pat and john smith"
And work out the budget that way

I agree. I had kids there, wouldn't have wanted a horrible stale atmosphere with no kids running round. Just my opinion though. I have been to evening dos with no kids but not the full day as i couldn't have got childcare anyway. I think it is to do with wanting it all perfect. Some people think it is their day their choice. That is true but for me I wanted the guests to be considered too.

I dont like other peoples children, simple as that. Im not always sure why I have a few in my own house. I certainly dont want to listen to entitled frothing parents of pfb and there no doubt charmless offspring when I could be quaffing fake champagne and eating canapes having escaped from my own for the day.

MrsStephenFry - marry me?

Some of you must know some right boring-as-fuck adults if you think children are required to liven up a wedding!

It's their day. THEIR DAY. How can you possibly argue with that?

"...your responsibility is to plan an event your guests will enjoy" If my partner and I are paying for an event, why the buggery should we be expected to make it to suit them? If it was a week long, I can understand that it would be difficult to cater for childed friends, but for ONE day?

Again, THEIR DAY. Let them dress up as space aliens and do the conga down the aisle if they want. It's the last occasion in the world that ought to be made to suit other people.

I seem to be one of the few people who can accept that not everyone is as thrilled to see my little dribbly screamer as I am.

"A wedding day is about two people in love committing to each other, and two families coming together."

Presumptuous much? Surely the people getting married should be the ones to decide what their wedding is "about".

The other side of the Princess for a day bride coin is the thought, planning and preparation that they put into the detail of the day. It's a bit rich to be giving them a hard time when presumably posters have enjoyed their lovely champagne, delicious canapes, beautiful food, fabulous entertainment, perfect flowers, etc etc etc.

"Why discriminate against a whole group of people because of their age?"

Errr if you read my post I didn't I invited relatives moving increasingly further out in how they were related until I ran out of numbers. It is just that there were no children more closely related.

"If people are concerned about numbers then invite less people full stop...cut out the colleagues maybe and the distant friends etc..."

I didn't invite any colleagues, not enough places. Neither did I invite distant friends that were not relate. I invited parents,grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles and first cousins

" something tells me the divorce is probably no higher for those who had childfree weddings than those who didn't."

I got divoreced because my XH turned out to be an abusive, raping twat and nothing to do with who was at the wedding.

Still nobody has really answered my question, who should I have excluded to make room for the more distantly related children? I'm finding that very difficult as I would not have wanted to split a group up.

I'm not one of those women who dreamt all my life of how I wanted my wedding to be, but something that stuck in my mind when planning the weddng and when I thought about how weddings should be was the book/tv programme Darling Buds of May. Getting people together, lots of laughs, a few tears, dancing, bonhomie, sunshine, beautiful flowers, beautiful countryside, good food and drink and definitely lots of children around, even causing a bit of mayhem. I thought of it as a kind of fertility ritual/blessing as well so again it would seem weird to me not to have them there, but everyone is different. Have also been to weddings/civil partnerships where the feeling was more of an adult only party and that made sense too.

I dont get at all (and nobody has had the courtesy to explain why as yet) why people feel it is anything to do with them to 'disagree with' or 'not like' the fact grown ups are doing things the way they want to?
I could never be a vegetarian, dont fancy being a naturist, have zero interest in training to run a marathon etc, the difference is I dont feel the need to question people who do as to why? And brand them because they choose to do things differently to me? It seems so arrogant to keep banging on about someone elses choices that just happen to differ to your own.

I could never be a vegetarian, dont fancy being a naturist, have zero interest in training to run a marathon etc, the difference is I dont feel the need to question people who do as to why? And brand them because they choose to do things differently to me? It seems so arrogant to keep banging on about someone elses choices that just happen to differ to your own.

Lots of people do question all of those things though, so I guess weddings are just another thing that people disagree about.

I can't for the life of me understand why people want to take their little darling to weddings.

I have a life outside of my children and I enjoy speaking to other adults without being interrupted my one of my children asking me to take them to the toilet/cut up their dinner/explain why the princess has a curtain on her head etc etc etc.

The difference is (apart from this thread, obviously) I keep that opinion to myself. I don't use that personal opinion as an opportunity to bitch about the way people do things, to be aghast that they don't, gasp, think the same way that I do.

But, y'know, some people sweat the small stuff and others don't.

I'm sorry if I got that wrong.

It just seems that whenever anybody posts on AIBU that they just don't get the concept of a childfree wedding they aren't actually remotely interested in the other side of it.
It turns into a standard of " it's about the marriage not the wedding" " the bride must be a bridezilla" " they must hate children" " it's the cold reserved British" " next doors cousins baby could have thrown up down my cleavage and I wouldn't have cared" " it must be such a dull affair with no children".

All of which can be found on this thread.
I had one child at my wedding. Therefore it wasn't strictly childfree.

"Why discriminate against a whole group of people because of their age?"

Well following that line - I discriminated against the milkman because I didn't invite him personally (and probably have exchanged more conversation with him in passing than distant relations' children tbh).

I also probably discriminated against my estranged father because he's well... estranged so I didn't invite him.

I also discriminated against next door's cat cos they didn't get an invite either.

It's a wedding... basically it's a glorifed party for people - do you normally make a point of DEMANDING party invitations from people? Nope. So why is it STILL ok to do so with weddings?!

As for those who happily gate crash anyway with kids when they're not invited - you're arseholes pure and simple. I've already explained just how my wedding day had me in tears because of someone doing that to me (no doubt she had a cracking time and that's all that matters isn't it - not the couple getting married) and I will go to my grave hating her for how she made me feel on that day - stood there feeling utterly insignificant and backed into a corner - having to spend the one day we wanted to relax and ignore all the shit making our lives hideously painful dodging the questions that upset us so much most of the time. Despicable behaviour - do you just take an utter joy in completely ignoring people's wishes yet happily chugging down their hospitality?

Yeah - some people want kids around, some people don't. Like I've said with this wedding we're going to - if all goes well and this one goes to term - if they want us to go with the baby I'll go - if not, we'll probably have a room in the hotel anyway, hubby will go to the wedding solo (since he's best man) and I'll do the night before stuff like their hog roast and stuff and spend the evening in peace with an industrial sized box of chocolates and trashy telly... because I respect people's wishes and feelings. I ain't knocking a weekend in a nice hotel anyway!