to think people are selfish to not go to a wedding if it's adults only?

[Birdo83]

Just read another thread where several members said they would refuse to go to a wedding if their children weren't invited. Not for child care reasons but just cause they thought it wasn't right.

Space at weddings are limited what with both peoples friends and family. Are people really expecting some of the bride or grooms friends or family not to attend THEIR wedding so people's kids can take up all the seats? Our wedding was adults only because of course I wanted to prioritise my loved ones over other peoples children who, on the whole, don't mean so much to me. I'd have to have turned several of my closest friends if I'd let everyone bring all their children which I'd hate to do.

It's also worrying how many people can't seem to enjoy themselves without their kids. Ditto people who refuse to go to parties that our adults only. Very odd.

We had our first two DC ages before most of our friends did. Most of them have just had their first and our eldest is nearly 14. We couldn't have maintained the friendships without making the effort to do things with them and nearly all have been child free events.
I have to say I don't think DH and I would still be together if we had never had time away from our DC although we didn't have a long relationship post DC which probably has something to do with that.
We had a fantastic night out with friends last night and it was lovely to go to bed a bit drunk and know we weren't going to be woken at 5 with demands for "toast, cbeebies and a banana"

That doesn't mean we weren't a bit upset when DH's Sister decided to get married abroad in a very child unfriendly place. The invitation said 'we know our wedding is far away, but those who love us will share our day'
Our two eldest were upset too and we decided that we wouldn't go. We didn't make a fuss, just said it wasn't practical to leave four DC for five nights.
I don't think we were selfish.

We are lucky enough to be able to afford for only one of us to work. However, many families have 2 working parents who also commute long distances and are very sad about the amount of time their kids spend in childcare. I work (my husband is a SAHD) and I would be very reluctant to give up most of a weekend without seeing my kids. I am amazed that you think that is selfish, I would think that it is normal to put one's small children first.

Given that something like a third of marriages will end in divorce then you arent necessarily being invited to a 'once in a lifetime' event.

And by the next one the children may be be able to look after themselves, so it's win win really.

By the way, we had a very informal, low key wedding with big informal evening party with a live band and a buffet and a lot of flexibility about numbers, precisely so that we could welcome dozens of friends (and their kids) without worrying about a per-head cost. We had a selection of foodially for the children, too.

I know Jaded no pressure then!

food specially for

notso I wouldn't go to that wedding if it was at the end of my road and they sent a limo to collect me!

I have 3 DCs, no GPs and if it were a family wedding my DB who lives locally would also be attending. That means I would have to find 3 separate friends who were free for the night, who would be willing (& whom I would feel comfortable approaching to ask) to accommodate my DCs for a sleepover.

The chances of them all having a close friend who is free for both the day OF and the day AFTER the wedding (depending on timing and how far I'd have to travel) are pretty slim.

The aggravation of having to sort out 3 sleepovers and hope that nobody became ill or had a wobble and wanted collecting at midnight means that I would probably decline the invitation.

I'd happily come just for the evening do if we were all invited or maybe come just for the daytime bit on my own if it wasn't too far away and I could just get the DCs looked after for a couple of hours.

I wouldn't expect a sit down meal for my DCs at any but close family weddings, but I do think it's odd that any celebration about people joining together and starting their family life together excludes DCs.

I don't remember as a child ever going to a friend of my parents wedding. They went themselves.

There seems to be a marked division in this thread between people who think that the obligation is on the guests to do their best for the bride and groom - get childcare, travel a long distance and share their special day - and those who think the obligation is on the bride and groom to make the occasion as welcoming as possible for the guests: make sure most won't have too far to travel, invite their kids so they won't have childcare problems, make sure the wedding is on at a convenient time.

I fall into the second category - I think if you do things for your guests, they will be grateful and probably have a good time, and as a result the bride and groom will too.

New beginnings I am not "expecting" the bride and groom to do anything

I don't expect anyone to invite my children - they can do as they wish.

But I'm more likely to make a big sacrifice to try and attend - and it is expensive, always, because I live outside the UK - if I feel the B&G actually want me to be there.

Having trawled through a few hundred posts I note that "it's not about childcare, people are missing the point of the OP" keeps cropping up.

It IS about childcare. If we all had someone trustworthy on hand who would happily look after all the DCs for as long as we are away at the wedding then more people would accept the invitation without seeing any potential problem.

Yes, there are a few posters who have explained that they would rather spend time with their DCs than without, but most of those who would decline on principle are declining on the principle that the B&G haven't considered or don't care about the possible financial and emotional implications of leaving the children behind.

I agree with hack too. (And I'm thoroughly in the 'they are guests not extras' camp).

And, I think the OP sounds like very hard work as a friend. I've never once in my entire life thought that my friends were somehow obliged to prove how much they valued me, and I wouldn't be friends with someone who expected that from me for very long.

Personally I'd turn down a child free wedding invitation for a whole range of reasons, including the fact that I'd rather spend the time with DH and the kids. I don't care if some people think that's weird or boring.

Not to mention that you can be invited to quite a few weddings every year!

We went to a lot of trouble to organise our wedding so that most people would not have far to come and so that people would be comfortable. I did not have any childhood fantasies about having a grand wedding to be honest. Nonetheless, we thought very carefully about organising a venue for the wedding and the reception which would be convenient for people to reach, about when would people be hungry (we cut the cake in the church after the wedding so that people were eating cake and strawberries and other goodies during the photos), and would they be cold (we served mulled wine at that point and chose the hot buffet for later) and so on. It was effectively a party at which a good time was reportedly had. And it was fun.

I don't agree with the division outlined. I actually do think you need to have a wedding in a place that is reasonably easy to get to, and on a day and at a time that is easy enough to get to it.

But weddings cost money. And people obviously want to invite those who are closest to them. The reality for many people is if they invite all the kids of people coming, a wedding party can easily go from 100 people, to 200 plus people.

So many people understandably have to limit guests. So they don't invite kids that mean nothing to them, unless obviously they are babies who parents aren't going to want to leave.

Going to a close friends wedding is important. And snubbing her because she didn't want to pay an extra £150 for your 3 kids to attend, is really unfair.

And unless you have a cold buffet, those are the kind of costs that are incurred for all but small children. Even a basic catered cold buffet is about £8 per head. And many primary school aged children can eat a lot over the course of an evening.

Lynda - Nobody is disputing parents not attending if they don't have trusted childcare. This is about people saying even if they have trusted childcare, they wouldn't go to a wedding if they couldn't take their kids.

No Lynda - this thread isn't about that.

Going to a wedding costs the guests a fortune too though grennie. People are absolutely entitled to not go for whatever reason they please. It's a wedding invitation not a test of how much you mean to someone.

"This is about people saying even if they have trusted childcare, they wouldn't go to a wedding if they couldn't take their kids."

They are saying that on a forum about a hypothetical wedding and a hypothetical situation where childcare isn't an issue. I think that in reality, if childcare isn't a problem, very few people wouldn't attend the wedding.

However, unless you have able and available local family, it is rarely easy to find childcare for a whole day and night.

Anyone saying they can't attend a wedding because they can't bear to be apart from their children for a whole day are most likely lying.
It's just an excuse OP. The real reason is probably more to do with the costs involved or some other reason they don't feel comfortable sharing.
I would think it extremely rude if someone kept badgering me for a reason.

I'll repeat what I said up thread.

It could be the fact that some children are naughty, destroy things and bully or are spiteful to other children. That one set of parents (or a few), who fail or just can't be bothered to control their children, could be the reason why all children (apart from close family) are not invited.

The easiest thing to do from the B&G's point of view is to keep it child free.

Why would anyone want that at their party/wedding/BBQ etc.