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.

But presumably if one of them had said "sorry, the grandparents have booked a holiday that week, we will do our best but we might not be a able to make it". You would have been disappointed but understanding

Of course! Where did I say I wouldn't? None of them however threw their toys out the pram because I hadn't invited their DC. Which is the point of the thread.

But hobbet that would fall under extenuating circumstances whic have already been covered. As has lack of child care. Of which people would of course understand no question.

We are talking about people who could easily attend bit dont out of principle

Declining a no DCs wedding invitation on principle is no more selfish than choosing to have a child free wedding because you want a grown up party.

Is there a list somewhere with acceptable reasons for declining invites?

I don't believe that there are a significant number of people who have have reliable childcare and whose children are used to or haapy to stay overnight with someone who would decline an invitation to a god friend's wedding just on rinciple.
you might think that childcare is simple. But that's often not the case.

I didn't want to go to what I think is a family event without my family

If you were invited to e.g. a child free 40th birthday party that involved travelling and staying away from home, would you also decline?

"None of them however threw their toys out the pram because I hadn't invited their DC." I don't think anybody does in real life. They politely decline. (Unless there is some other kind of subtext going on which tends to be the case on child free wedding threads).

I just don't understand why a B&G would be considered 'selfish' for not inviting children.

It's just their choice for their day.

I can't think of anyone who I am so close to that I wouldn't miss their wedding for the world who wouldn't invite DS too So I can't imagine it being relevant but I'm game to do the what if....

I'm a single parent who does have the chance of occasional babysitting by my mum so I could probably arrange childcare. I have on one occasion been to a wedding without DS inspite of him being invited (bride was most miffed I didn't bring him but I decided he'd enjoy a couple of nights with Nanny more). BUT I wasn't relaxed without him (he was much younger then and I hadn't left him for so long before), it cost a lot of money to travel to the event and present and food etc and I did regret spending that kind of (scarce) money on a weekend I had a mildly pleasant time at without DS.

You think people should spend potentially a lot of money on someone (which they might not have) to keep a Bride and/or groom happy with your presence?

I don't think its possible to have an answer because it depends on how old your kids are, what needs they have, how much you see of them in the week, how much it costs to attend the wedding, how close you are to the bride and groom.

Do you really think there is one answer?

You know what I hate? People who say children make a wedding. No they don't. The bride and groom do.

Nice and btw, thanks.

But hobbet that would fall under extenuating circumstances whic have already been covered. As has lack of child care. Of which people would of course understand no question.

DH has attended wedding by himself prior to this and had a blast.

We have declined since he started working away this option because we are prioritizing family time - while him being away quiet so much is usual it not that usual least not among our circle of acquaintances and friends and long hours have similar effects little time together.

If in that family time we choose to watch box sets together - well so what.

No they really don't. Those kids who talk during the vows or run round talking to strangers at all the tables. They are only cute to the parents. Everyone else is just being polite

I know someone who, on principle, declines any invitation to a wedding that does not include her children. Because she feels it is rude to exclude them and means her children aren't 'accepted' and because her children are part of her and therefore being rude to them is being rude to her. I know her husband gets a bit pissed off about it.

I think that is unreasonable. Which I think is what the OP asked from the get-go? ;)

To those who say they would decline because weddings are family occasions - who says so? I have no family besides my parents. I am currently single and the way things are going my parents will probably be dead by the time I get married. So my wedding, should it ever happen, won't be about family.

I will invite friends. Some of my friends have children. But my friendship is with the parents. I may see their children occasionally but I am not friends with their children. Kate and Jon are still, as far as I am concerned (and, thankfully, they are concerned) Kate and Jon and not Another Mummy and Another Daddy. I would probably invite them and not them and their kids. If, for whatever reason they declined, that's their choice.

The thing is, I sort of agree with you, OP.

In the narrow terms in which you phrased it, turning down a wedding invitation as a form of protest against the very concept that it's a child-free wedding and you disapprove in principle is a bit precious/silly (not sure it's "selfish", though).

However, turning down a wedding invitation because it doesn't include your children and you don't want to spend the weekend apart from them (even though you could get childcare if you wanted) is fine. Not everyone sees huge amounts of their children in the week. Not all families get lots of time together at weekends. And children are only young, and keen to spend time with their parents, for a fairly short time. Also, very few people have infinite free childcare available. Free childcare generally involves calling in favours and there's a limit to how much of it is on tap. Using it for a wedding means it's probably not available for another occasion.

For us, we'd attend a local/local-ish child-free wedding that didn't involve an overnight stay. Something further afield we'd probably turn down if it didn't include children.

We actually went to a wedding (with the children) this past weekend. In order for us to go, the children had to miss, between them, one birthday party, one bowling trip, one rugby tournament, one play performance (so that child couldn't be in the play at all), one play rehearsal (different child, different play), a swimming lesson and an art group. This was a reasonable trade-off, because they got to go to the wedding. If it had been a child-free wedding and DH and I had gone alone the children would still have had to miss all that stuff but they wouldn't have got anything out of the deal. In practice, these days, if it had been child-free then we just wouldn't have gone but, on the other hand, when the DCs were younger and didn't have their own lives we probably would but, on an imaginary third hand, when DH was working away a lot and only got one weekend with the DCs every month or two we probably wouldn't.

i.e. there are a whole host of factors at work for every family that lead them to make the best and most appropriate decision for their particular circumstances at that particular time. And setting yourself up as an arbiter of what decisions are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" is a bit wanky.

I still agree that if couples are genuinely turning down invitations to weddings that they would love to and could easily attend with no childcare problems at all while the children blissfully did something else (and the family has lots of free time together the rest of the time) that that's a bit silly. But I'm profoundly unconvinced that that happens very often -- even when I've seen occasional posts like those you've alluded to on MN the parents generally don't feel that they get loads of family time together normally, and that's why they are loath to give it up.

If dp and myself ever get nuptulous....it will be child free.

Perhaps make an exception for dd

I am happy to consider us selfish....

And anyone who prefers to watch a box set wouldn't be on our guest list anyway

If the wedding was local I would go and I have done. If however if it was further away and required an overnight stay I would probably decline as I would rather spend the money on a family weekend.

(The other thing is that we don't have oodles of cash. For us anything involving forking out actual cash to stay somewhere overnight, rather than crashing with friends/family, is coming out of the family holiday budget, so it really needs to be in some sense a family holiday even if only in a mini-break sense. We're not going to fork out our holiday budget on staying in hotels for child-free weddings and then tell the DCs "sorry, no holiday for you this year"; we might fork out our holiday budget on staying places together for child-included weddings and tell the DCs "no big holiday this year, but we did/do get to go on weekends away to X, Y, Z, etc.")

Do these people who can't go out without their DC's ever go to the cinema (to see anything above PG), to the pub, to see art not suitable for children, jeez, do they go to work? (Can of worms opened).

No, I don't do any of these things and neither do a lot of my friends who have children who can't be left.

Childcare aside I think if people don't want to go to a wedding for whatever reason then that's fine. Some weddings end up being really awkward and expensive to get to and it's just not worth it sometimes.

Actually 1scoop I think you've hit the nuptial nail on the head there. It's all down to the circles you mix in. In theory I would be pissed off if my friends didn't come to my wedding on principle, in practice this would't happen because (as is my personal choice) I would't have that type of person as a friend.

We are talking about people who could easily attend bit dont out of principle

Perhaps there principle is that family time is very important to them?

Otherwise they just don't want to go or they are cutting off their nose to spit their face - so they are ones losing out anyway.

I have to say the whole childcare thing - IME people with accommodating family or reliable childcare can have no idea what it's like people who don't.

I have GP that tell everyone they love to help us - but actually when it comes down to it never can how every much notice they are given and the other side say they will but always let us down last minute. So family friends may well be assuming we are being difficult when in actually we really are stuck with childcare.

Plus whole teenager thing depends on personality as to whether they can be left. My parents could never leave my brother - even a night alone as place would have been trashed.

elliejjtiny Why can't your children be left?

only1scoop I don't think it's selfish, not unreasonably so anyway, for a B&G to have a child free wedding.
But neither do I think it's selfish for ppl to decline because their DCs are not invited.
Each of those decisions is about putting one's own feelings ahead of another person. I don't think that is unreasonable.
Either way.
Fine to invite who you want.
Fine to accept/ decline what you want.

people with accommodating family or reliable childcare have no idea what it's like for people who don't
Very true.

I wouldn't go without my children, not because I don't respect people's right to celebrate their wedding day as they choose - but surely if I mattered to them then they would include my children, and therefore wouldn't miss me if I wasn't there. All the issues that have already been mentioned come into play - not happy to leave my toddler overnight, nobody to leave them with anyway (asking a friend to look after 3 extra DC's on top of their own is a big ask) - but mainly, the money involved - if it was an occasion we'd enjoy as a family, then we might be able to justify it, but usually attending a wedding costs us more than we'd spend on a family holiday - and has usually been instead of said family break.

I would probably go along for a short time - just one of us rather than as a couple, if we could afford it. But when people have a family it's only right that they put their family first. I'm not going to use money that would benefit my children to attend your wedding - so YABU.

bobot - If it is a local wedding, a wedding does not cost that much to attend.

bobot - "but surely if I mattered to them then they would include my children"

Wow. See, this is the attitude the OP is referring to. You then say the stuff about not leaving toddler overnight etc which is PERFECTLY SENSIBLE reason for declining and invitation. But I really don't get how not inviting your children means you don't matter to the B&G.

Next we'll be having people suggesting that if the B&G don't pay for their petrol to get to the wedding, they can't really be fussed about them going....

Sometimes invitations state "child free" specifically to exclude a few disruptive elements, but unfortunately it has to be a blanket "ban" because otherwise it would be unfair. I think telling some people that it's child-free, but not others, IS rude.

I have no issue with child-free weddings, except when it comes to bf'ing babies. They don't cost, they don't take up a place in costs-per-head, they don't run around, and MOST parents would take them out if they started to wail - so I think people who refuse an invitation because it doesn't include their bf baby are almost never unreasonable, whether it's on a point of principle or practicality.

Luckily I've never had to worry about it; but I did end up having to take my baby and DH on a hen weekend to get around this problem! The MoH was a bit pissed off, but DH and DS1 only came to the park to say hello and then they went off by themselves, while I went with the girls and did the "hen" thing. I couldn't have gone if DS1 hadn't come too, and I made sure that they didn't have much impact on the weekend. I did have to go back to the hotel straight after the meal that evening though, instead of going clubbing, but I don't think I was much missed!

And I haven't missed the point, I very much understand the point of the OP - and I don't get the people who refuse an invitation on principle because their little preciouses aren't invited either. But then I never understand the people who refuse an evening-only invitation either, because they're not invited to the whole day and consider themselves to have been insulted somehow! That's just having massive tickets on yourself, IMO. I see it a lot on here, the "if I'm not good enough to be invited to the whole event then I'm not coming" preciousness. Weird.