AIBU to think that if you want Rupert and Emily to stop running you need to grab hold of them

[Morgause]

We have had a lovely day at a National Trust house. Lovely to see families out enjoying the sunshine and having picnics in the grounds. And lovely to see that most DC were behaving beautifully while still having fun.

Rupert and Emily were exceptions. We went inside the house and turned a corner to see Rupert charging through a room narrowly missing several people. The guide in the room told him he mustn't run. His dad said he had to do as he was told. Rupert shouts, "No!" and runs off pursued by Emily. Mum tells dad to stop them. Dad says she should stop them. They run back. Mum says in the most ineffectual voice I've ever heard, "Rupert and Emily you mustn't run, you could hurt yourselves." "Or someone else," remarked the guide.

Rupert and Emily run round mum in circles. Mum shouts at them to hold her hand, they won't. Dad says he'll take them out. Sadly, he doesn't.

Rupert and Emily run into the next room and crawl under the red rope sectioning off the "do not enter" area. The guide tells them to come out. They won't. Mum and dad arrive and tell them to come out. They won't. Dad steps over rope and grabs them. Sadly he lets them go again and they run off.

We decided to explore a different area of the house.

They were aged about 4 and 6. God help their teachers.

I hardly think its unusual or tantamount to stalking to recoginse a username people do it constantly... in this case it chimed for me for a couple of reasons (my mother's favourite topic of conversation is what terrible parents various people she knows slightly/ saw somewhere are (usually when the children are boys in her case, and behaving pretty normally) and how by contrast she was perfect - this and the King Arthur co-incidence made the OP and her user name jump out at me.

I probably am projecting a bit, and for that aspect I do apologise, but not for recognising a name or thinking some people absolutely revel in this kind of judgyness, esp if their own children are grown and they can sit at a comfortable temporal distance tutting and congratulating themselves on having done so much better (and only those who are there at the time know whether they've subconciously re-written their recollection a bit)...

"I went to Eden Camp last week and there were parents letting children run up and down the huts shouting, even the Holocaust one."

Now that is really disrespectful and would really upset me. Many of us lost family in the war and/or the Holocaust.

Not to worry, drinking shortly Morgause will be no more.

I don't think anyone is saying they would let a child run riot in a NT house. Even the parents of these children were acknowledging it was not correct behaviour by administering ticking offs, even if you found them to be ineffectual.

A national Trust house guided tour with roped sections sounds dull as dishwater for young kids. Bad choice of a day out.

I do agree with this^^ , I have done this with mine before but I do promise them (on the condition their good) a treat afterwards , it gives them something to focus and or perhaps do it after a good run around , if someone else in the party isn't too fussed they can sit with them,

Although I was surprised at 4 and 6 year olds I was expecting them to be younger, my eldest 4 would just be yammering on' 'is it finished yet?' not sure whats worse

If you post in a certain way, people do remember and notice. It's not stalking anymore than having a bad day with your kids acting up makes it bad parenting. I don't need to search to remember that some posters are drawn like a moth to a flame to certain topics.

I still think it's a bit odd - I'm hardly drawn to the subject this is only the second time.

But tomorrow I'll be someone else similarly not drawn to any particular type of post.

As a curator who pulls in room-guide duty at a stately home (non-NT and non-EH), I regularly want to smack the parents who aren't controlling their little charges (and yes, we do indeed run activities, guides and treasure hunts for children as standard, with no charge).

Highlights include the boy whose parents turned a blind eye whilst he pulled all the books off a case, and another one who got under the rope and made a dash for a very rare and quite fragile silk saddle, which would certainly not have stood up to the administrations of a three year old. I nearly had a cardiac.

If the child is misbehaving, either keep a tight hold or remove them until they're calmer! It's not rocket science. I've never judged anyone who's had their child on reins. I have judged lazy parents.

Thank you to those who said they wouldn't judge me for having a Tasmanian Devil-child. I take great comfort in knowing that there are unlikely to be any other mnetters in our US city to witness the occasions that we take our eyes off the ball with DS (and there some as he has a little sister* who sometimes needs attending to) so I will not find myself described in a judgey catsbumface thread.

I think MrsKoala, MrsTerryPratchett and I should get together for a cry on each other's shoulders

*I must confess that if DD had been my first or my only child I'd probably be really smug and judgmental of less fortunate parents too. She's a little angel who trots along beside me with no need for reigns, holds my hand without protest, stands quietly by my side in queues and sits nicely in her highchair in restaurants - all things that DS was/is utterly incapable of. Strangers frequently comment on the difference between them. I'm glad I had them in the order I did; DD's placid nature feel like redemption rather than DS's wildness feeling like comeuppance!

DS is three. I regularly have to throw him over my shoulder in a fireman's hold (I'm a bit up the duff and he's hard to carry otherwise) in shops to stop him trashing the place/running off/hitting his four year old sister/hiding in wardrobes. In Ikea the other day he was sitting on the floor playing with the light up arrow. Yes, he was a bit in the way of the ginormous pushchair containing one teeny weeny newborn. No, I didn't immediately go pick him up, but called him over a couple of times, then went and got him when he didn't respond. So I was a bit peeved by the tutting from the people with the newborn in the tank. I mean newborns? Seriously? Could they BE any easier?

Clearly that isn't true, and newborns are just as tricky as any other age of child apart from my newborns who are a piece of piss but I don't judge them, and I'd rather they didn't judge me until they've had a child who can run faster than them, in a completely different direction to their other child who can run like a deer.

My reading of this is that all kids are badly behaved sometimes/at particular phases in their lives/in particular places and that's life. What's not really on is parents who ignore that when it's causing problems for others, or the NT's treasures.

FyreFly, places that have delicate and valuable exhibits protected only by a rope give me cardiac arrests too! We avoid them unless DS is asleep in the pushchair. I've also been known to carry him - a giant lanky three year old - in a sling around art galleries to keep him out of trouble. On my front too, as carrying him on my back counts as a forbidden "large backpack". I think I'm more of a danger to the exhibits as I can't actually see where I'm going over top of his head....

I used to love the Horniman museum in London because everything was either touchable or behind glass, so I could relax ever so slightly!

FyreFly Are guides and wardens in NT and EH laces allowed to admonish children who are misbehaving? You obviously wish to, as I would just as another visitor. I hope you would not be sacked if you were to tell a child what to do or not to do. Sometimes, it needs a stranger to tell a child what he/she ought to be doing. I do. It makes me feel better even if the child ignores me and I don't care what the parent thinks. At least someone will have tried.

Morgause YANBU. And you're not being horrid, or smug or anything else. I appreciate that some of the posters on this thread have very good reasons why their dcs may not be perfect in public, but it doesn't sound as though you're describing either a) parents at the end of their tether who are clearly struggling or b) children with 'ishoos'.

In fact, they sound pretty grim and I'll join you in hoiking up my judgey pants on this one. I have 3 dcs, aged 3, 6, and 8, and I would (and do - in answer to some of the previous posters) expect them to walk around a NT home and behave decently.

I, too, have both 'the look', the 'warning tone' and the 'stop right now' voice down pat. They work rather brilliantly in the office, too

Thanks, Filly

MrsJoe - My mum and dad went to the Henry Moore at Kew and they had steam coming out of their ears about the kids climbing the sculptures. HOWEVER, i have to admit to confusion about certain sculpture - particularly HMs. I work in the Arts and Heritage industry - or i did in my old life when i was allowed out alone - and loads of HMs are fine to climb on. I understand where there are signs asking to not climb on them, but these seem to be randomly applied and other HMs do not display such signs. They are designed and built to withstand a lot of abuse from the elements - so i can understand why some parents are confused. Because i know i am. DS has played peekaboo/hide and seek thru loads of sculpture parks which is actually encouraged for the dc to 'interact with the art work'.

As an aside it's not just the kids who don't know what's there to be touched and what's not. The amount of times when i worked at the Wallace Collection where you would find people sitting on C18th chair or plonking their scratchy bag onto the boulle marquetry (and look quite miffed when you asked them please not to) was bizarre. And don't get me started on different cultures attitudes to kids touching/messing around. When i worked at the Tate it was very common for Italian and Spanish visiting school teens to be laughed at and encouraged by their 'supervising' teachers to to prod, poke and lark about art works. A group hilariously playing catch with a tennis ball in the galleries was a moment to make my blood run cold. I was of course looked at like the uptight English lady with a stick up her arse!

No one said there's anything wrong with recognising a name Tea. It's throwing old threads back in their face that's nasty and to be honest, sounds as if you're running out of arguments so start raking up old scores. When someone starts a new thread that is the subject you should be discussing, not trawling back through their posting history to build a case against them. If you don't like judginess on MN fine. But picking on one specific poster is petty. Also, and this is a genuine question - but given that the title of this thread made it quite clear that it was a criticism of parents letting their kids run around, why did you open it if you dislike that sort of thing?

YANBU. I didn't see any criticism in your post of children behaving badly or parents doing their best to control them but it just not working. What I saw was criticism of parents who were just standing around making the occasional vague half hearted attempt to stop their children from running riot, mainly oblvious to the fact that they were getting on everyone's nerves, and people who behave like that will certainly be judged negatively by most people.

And I agree, referring back to old threads in order to criticise the OP is a bit pathetic.

I think Rupert and Emily were at the matinee today. Kept running up to the front of the balcony at Annie to get a better view and blocking other people's view. Eventually a mum crouched down and explained to their mum that they needed to sit down and dopey mum called them back. Five minutes later they ran down again blocking dd and several other children's views and ignorant stupid oblivious mother did nothing. No Excuse. She was rude and selfcentred and lazy.
YANBU OP.
And I'm sorry you have to namechange because of some annoying poster who doesn't understand the nature of forums like this one.

Lark I don't think that's a fair assumption from the thread title and if we only commented on threads we agreed with saying oh yes your so riiiiight MN would be a pretty boring place don't you think!

Exactly - the "nature of forums like this one" especially AIBU , which is where this post is... is very much not to only read or post on threads you expect to agree with - otherwise every thread would be a string of "oh I know, YANBU hun" Given the OP told someone early on in this thread to get over themselves, I doubt she is a delicate flower.

Nobody has to name change just because they've realised people might occassionally remember seing them on pther posts, and some of the "well known" posters are known for being likely to express certain opinions - I don't see why we have to pretend otherwis.

Well drinkingtea you were the one who said that you knew that referring to previous threads was 'bad form' so why did you do it??

Or did you assume that your 'tee hee ooh I know I shouldn't be doing this' crap would excuse your future unpleasantness?

Sitting I used the expression "bad form" precisely because it conveys my understanding of doing this as something generally tutted at, but not against the talk guidelines - therefore thete is no rule against it, whether some people want to disapprove or not. People do, in practice, point out patterns in posting fairly regularly.

Well I wasn't talking about rules, drinkingtea I was talking about personal integrity. But maybe that's not part of your moral compass.

Erm overreaction, much?

Moral compass? Come on, we are talking about a couple of kids mucking about on the internet.