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.

I think it depends on who the guests are in relation to the bride and groom, and whether they are just choosing not to come to be bloody minded or because they genuinely cannot get reliable childcare

Be bloody minded? Meaning they don't want to go. Everyone has the right to not want to go, whoever it is that is getting married. And if the reason they don't want to go is because their children are not invited, that's up to them.

Huitre - I'm guessing he accepted and didn;t use childcare as an excuse not to attend then?

Heh. Yes, he accepted and we took the kid with us so no childcare needed...

"people's children*

Not a nice way to describe your friend's children. Children aren't a separate species but for some of the wedding threads, you would think so. Personally I feel weddings are family/generation events it would never occur to me to invite someone but say, don't bring your children. Ive never ever been to an adults only wedding, only heard of them since joining Mumsnet and given the amount of threads there are about it, Im thinking its a common (cultural?) thing. It seems a bit scornful towards parents too in some ways, the assumption that theyre unable to spend a day apart from their children. May or may not be true but thats their business not anybody else's, why should it detract from the kind of people they are? Its not a pointscoring game

Generally though, if parents don't wasnt to attend a whole day & evening event without their children it really is their choice. Just as its bride & groom's choice not to have children in attendance. Some parents will attend child-free, some won't attend. Each side will think the other selfish. It is what it is and I can't understand the big fuss about it, not unless you can order people to attend your wedding. Live and let live.

When my kids were late primary school I was divorced and only really spending alot of time with them every other weekend as I worked. If a child free wedding was on that weekend I didn't go, just as I didn't do lots of stuff on those weekends, my kids came first.
The bride and groom choose who to invite, those invited choose whether or not they wish to attend.
There's nothing wrong with being selfish sometimes. People who really wanted me to go to stuff when the kids were young invited them too as they knew that otherwise i wouldn't go. The weddings of people who aren't interested in my kids aren't a high priority to me.

"...likewise I can't imagine anyone never speaking to a friend again because their children weren't invited."

This happened to a friend of mine who wanted a child-free ceremony. Not wedding entirely, children were invited to the meal and to the party part, but she just wanted an uninterrupted ceremony. One of her friends refused because she had a few-months old baby, whom she was bf'ing, and who she said she couldn't leave. The friend was local; her mum lived very close by as well, she would have been apart from her baby for an absolute maximum of 2 hours - but she refused to do it. And then sent a very condescending letter to my friend about how "she would understand when she had her own children". They fell out for years over it (and my friend never understood because she was quite happy to go out for a couple of hours without her baby!)

Well tbh if a young bfed baby won't take a bottle then you can't always clear off for a few hours can you? Although the friend could have just missed the ceremony & arrived for the meal I guess. If that was acceptable to the bride. I can imagine some having a hissy fit over that though.

Had the ceremony been in a church the bride wouldn't have been able to ban anyone though - baby or otherwise. I had a bunch of elderly ladies turn up and sit at the back of mine - think I last saw them when I was 10 - they weren't invited, I think they just came along to nose at whoever gets married as a way to pass the time on a Saturday - they took up 2 pews. I rather liked that. They popped over to say hello afterwards while the photos were being taken. My friend had her exes mother turn up to the church to watch the ceremony.

How can it be selfish not to go to a wedding, if the arrangements don't suit you?

It is an invitation, not a summons. You don't want to go, politely refuse the invitation. No one is being selfish, everyone is doing what is most appropriate for them.

Sorry saintlyjimjams, I don't think you read my post properly. The baby would have been left for an absolute maximum of 2 hours. Not a few. 2. Maximum. Needn't have even been that long, could have been only 1.

We've been invited to a wedding later this year which is 'adults only'. It's also abroad (in Europe) and includes Friday night welcome reception and Sunday lunch.

I'd have to leave my EBF baby with grandparents for most of 3 days. So no, I won't be going, sadly, and I think that's the opposite of selfish.

I have dc.

If we were invited to a wedding without the children we would almost definitely refuse.

The chances are that both my parents and dh's parents wouldn't be invited so we would have child care. But unless the b&g were very close friends I probably wouldn't go.

The reasons are:

1. childcare. My parents would probably be willing to have the children and I could probably leave them overnight without worry.
   My in-laws would probably be willing to have the children but I would be unhappy leaving both children there because mil got rid of the cot after her first grandchild outgrew it. As a result none of my children has had somewhere suitable to sleep. When mil has used the travel cot she spent the next day complaining that her back hurt because thetravel cot is so low down and awkward to lift from. I would worry that she would put the toddler in a bed, or in bed with her. Having the toddler in a bed would be a worry because

2. mil has never bothered to get stairgates . Not even those temporary fabric ones. If dd2 were in a bed she would be likely to get out at some point in the night. (dd2 often doesn't sleep through and even when she does she wakes between 5 and 6. Mil rarely wakes before 9 and considers 9 early) there is a very strong possibility that dd2 will attempt to get downstairs and fall down stairs.

3. At a previous family gathering pils had taken a 1 year old dd1 to sit with them. They fed her something entirely unsuitable for the few teeth dd1 possessed and she choked. Fortunately they were sitting with a member of the emergency services who was fully trained in first aid, and with a paediatric nurse, also fully trained in first aid. Unfortunately mil did not possess the presenc of mind to alert these people to what had happened. Instead she grabbed dd1, carried her through the crowded room all the way from one end of the room to the other and gave her to me. By which time she was purple and her eyes were protruding. If I'd been on the loo and not there I dread to think what may have happened...

4. mil has taken dd1 out in a car without a seatbelt. Not without a child seat. Without a seatbelt of any description.

5. we have very little expendable cash at the end of the month. The money spent on gifts, clothes, travel, hotel, drinks etc. soon add up and could be far better spent on school uniform or replacing a broken appliance or a family day out.

6. dh works long hours. His days off are midweek when dd1 is at school. Time spent with her consists of do your homework, read your book, eat your tea, go to bed. Quality time with her is precious so to take time off to spend it away from the children wouldn't make anyone very happy.

Well unless s

And 7) we can't afford a babysitter. We certainly can't afford to attend a wedding and pay a babysitter. And I couldn't ask a friend to have two children for very long hours, possibly overnight, just so I can attend some shindig hosted by someone who demands that I be there but demands that my children not be there.

Unless the mother lived right next door to the place the bride was getting married then getting ready, dropping baby, getting back, service / it could quite easily have been 3 plus. And while I'd happily leave a bfed only/no bottle 5 month old for a few hours I wouldn't an 8 week old. Would hate to think of my mother stuck with a screaming baby for a few hours. Was her mother even free?

Friend should just have declined rather than have a hissy fit but if excluding the baby has half the family running around across town, leaving baby for the first time just to attend the ceremony I can see why they would miss out the actual wedding. I wouldn't call that selfish either.

Blimey whatapotato - surely they've invited you assuming you'll refuse?

Saintly, I'm not going to go into specific geographical details, but I can assure you that it was no more than 5 mins drive. And the baby in question was, as I said, a few months old, not weeks. The 2 hours was including the drive.

However, you have your own angle, so there's really no point me continuing to discuss this as you keep changing details to suit your own agenda. let's just leave it.

Thumbwitch / it depends on the specific details - which you haven't given. You haven't said how old the baby is ('a few months' means anything from 8 weeks to 5 months in my book). You haven't said whether the baby was exclusively breastfed or whether they take a bottle, you have said baby would need to be left for 2 hours - but shown no sign of how to calculate that, you haven't said whether the mother was free or not.

Personally, in my case if my mother was free she would probably sit outside in the car with the baby (assuming I only had one child) but if I had more children, or she wasn't available then it would be instantly harder to organise. And my mother is VERY accommodating. Many are not.

Was there any reason why the friend couldn't bring the baby & stand at the back ready to leave at the first whimper or stand outside the ceremony & listen through the door? As I said if it was in a church she could have.

I have no agenda - have said friend shouldn't have had a hissy fit, should have just politely declined if she couldn't manage the logistics, but I'm not going to automatically assume someone is being selfish for refusing to leave their very young baby when I know absolutely nothing about their circumstances. It isn't always easy to just leave a very young baby. Granny nearby or not.

whatafunnypotato that takes things to a whole new level but I am assuming there is a direct link with how much it matters to the bride and groom to have guests there and their unwillingness to allow their children whilst planning something so far flung.

I guess that i am not used to all my family being invited to weddings which would understandably leave fewer childminding choices.

kewcumber anyone who quizzes quests or sends out a begging letter for cash or gifts inside their invitation is the beginning or another thread entirely.

As some above have pointed out and please feel free to call me old fashioned and stuffy there are only two ways of replying to a wedding invitation as far as I am concerned:

1. Mr and Mrs Somersetlady thank Mr and Mrs most likely Parentsofthebride for the kind invitation to the marriage of their daughter, Bridezilla to Mr Bridegroom at keepthekidsaway Church , on Saturday 17th July at 3 o'clock and afterwards at The Venue, and regret that they are unable to accept.

Or

1. Mr and Mrs Somersetlady thank Mr and Mrs most likely Parentsofthebride for the kind invitation to the marriage of their daughter, Bridezilla to Mr Bridegroom at keepthekidsaway Church , on Saturday 17th July at 3 o'clock and afterwards at The Venue, and are delighted to accept.

I might then add that I look forward to being part of their special day or wish them well for their special day. No excuse needed if we are unable to attend whatever the reason.

Thankfully we don't seem to get many invites from distance relatives we never see (as some have mentioned above) whose weddings I would have very little interest in going to anyway.

it would have been very awkward if i had been asked by one bride what was keeping us from attending her wedding - i knew her DP had cheated on her and refused to sit in the church and watch the creep tell her all kinds of lies

Somerset.... lovely templates there for rsvp.

Perfect.... all one needs to say and yanbu either way you say it....gratuitously.

Keepkidsaway Church

I think it's just me, but I would fine it really strange and very rude not to give a reason at some point (so not necessarily with the invitation but maybe when you are chatting with them at some point, or even via fb if you communicate that way) as to why I wasn't attending a wedding - evenif the excuse wasn't quite true, I would never just RSVP to say I wasn't going and never explain why. I know you are not obliged to, but it just seems like basic manners to me.

No it's not just you. A formal reply doesn't have to include the reason, but unless it's a very distant relation then ime you're usually expected to give the reason.

Or a reason anyway.

You know, Saintly, there is a REASON for leaving out EVERY SINGLE DETAIL - just in case someone recognises themselves, FFS. I have no idea if the people involved are on this site, but it's best to take precautions, eh?

If in discussion a reason is needed perhaps one that puts no pressure on the bride or groom to alter their plans or impart guilt would be preferable to i cant get anyone to mind the DCs it therefore follows prescious bride that if you invited them i would be able to come

How about a simple we have already accepted a family celebration/ wedding or are away on that day.

yonineed it's basic manners for me not to try and manipulate an invitation to extend it to others in anyway be it DCs a spouse other friends neighbours the dog etc. Thats what makes mumsnet so great we are all different and it's so interesting to hear others points of view.

Chill Thumbwitch. You seem to think I have an agenda. I don't. I had children at my wedding, I have attended weddings without my children, and weekend weddings without my children or husband when he was the only one that could provide childcare.

But if you want me to say someone is being selfish for not attending a wedding on sketchy details involving a very young baby then no I won't. I have no idea how easy it would have been (or why they couldn't wait outside). I did say they should just have declined politely, but I can't say any more than that really because I have no idea.