kiwimumof2boys no, I really did mean 400 weddings in the last 4 years, and it works out at about 800 weddings in the last 10 years. We work in the wedding industry.
The simple fact of it is that unless a B&G are prepared to take the tack of making their wedding child friendly (e.g. activities for them, goody bags for them, a children's entertainer or a magician, giant garden games, etc) then weddings are just not enjoyable for children and the majority of children would rather be at home. Most people would leave their children at home for other boring events, I'm not sure why people are so precious about weddings.
Being realistic, we're not really debating whether close family children are allowed here - it's VERY rare in our experience that the B&G don't invite sons, daughters, neices and nephews. It's most often the extended family children or children of friends that aren't on the invite.
The simple fact is that it's pure choice, weddings are full of politics. Whoever made the point that B&G paying for their own weddings has definitely skewed the way the decision process works is very right. We do still see mums/dads paying for weddings and then having the overall say in the long run, but when they are paying of themselves, the B&G are well within their rights to do as they like, invite who they like, and make it as much about them as they like.
I can't see why anyone would think it's ok to dictate what a couple should do on a day where they are spending more money than they've ever spent, and ever will spend, in order to celebrate their wedding. I am a great fan of the saying 'If you don't like it, don't come'.