Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think we should rename child free weddings..

127 replies

purplesprings · 28/07/2015 09:39

.. to take some of the angst out of invitations? I propose:

Marriage Party = adult only celebration of a couple's marriage. [only exceptions being dc of immediate family]

Wedding = celebration of two families coming together to form new family.

For the B&G there would be a clear definition of their wishes and no need to explain further. Guests would then know what the rules are and can decide whether to attend and in the case of a wedding whether or not to take their docs.

OP posts:
x2boys · 28/07/2015 10:16

the last two wedding i have been invited too have been childfree as both were weddings of cousins of mine it meant i couldnt attend, ds 2 has asd and learning difficulties which means i cant find child care easily and usually means relying on my parents who were of course also invited, i didnt take offence though its the bride and grooms wedding at the end of the day they say whose invited!

CMOTDibbler · 28/07/2015 10:17

I honestly don't care whether people invite children to their wedding or not.

As long as:
a) the situation is absolutely clear as to who is invited
b) They accept that some people can't attend without their children without comment further than 'Sorry you can't be there'
c) No one says patronising things about everyone being glad to have a childfree day

ApocalypseThen · 28/07/2015 10:18

Ridiculous to suggest that a wedding should include children by definition.

Indeed. I'm always surprised at the number of posters who believe it ain't no wedding till their high spirited darlings are present.

LibrariesGaveUsPower · 28/07/2015 10:18

Exactly Purple! This 'names on the invitation ' rule is assumed to be universal on MN but in my experience is far from it. And some brides get weirdly annoyed if you check it's child free_ as if you are angling for a kid invite not just checking (see 70 trillion MN threads )

TwinkieTwinkle · 28/07/2015 10:19

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No.

juneau · 28/07/2015 10:27

If you are having (had) a child free wedding was that explicit on the invitation including exceptions? If it was did that stop enquiries/requests for exceptions?

Yes. It was very tactfully worded and very clear!

MuffMuffTweetAndDave · 28/07/2015 10:28

Agree with CMOT.

But I understand some of OPs point in that, despite what some people have suggested in this thread, there clearly isn't a generally accepted convention that only the people whose names are on the invitation are the ones invited. It would make life easier if there was, but there's not. Some brides and grooms evidently do feel that the extension of the invitation to people's children is implied. There are several examples already given in this thread, I know of two more IRL myself. We can all feel however we want to feel about that, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact. Additionally, not understanding that the mother of an EBF and/or very small baby can't leave them for very long still seems to be quite common. Hence invitations to said mothers followed by confusion and/or conflict is probably inevitable at least sometimes. It would be helpful if we had better social conventions to deal with these issues!

WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 28/07/2015 10:29

We had a childfree wedding, invitations were in the format "Jane and John". We had two couples say it might cause problems, but they did both come. One couple said they were delighted to have a childfree day. No issues at all really.

If I get an apparently child free invitation I verify it by saying "we'd love to come, will confirm when we have found childcare". No one has ever, at that point, said "no need, they're invited".

Hulababy · 28/07/2015 10:31

I have no real issue with child free weddings BUT I do have an issue with the bride and groom then being upset and cross if some guests then can't or won't come as a result.

If you choose a child free wedding then you must be prepared to accept that not all your guests will come.

I personally prefer weddings with adults and children.

juneau · 28/07/2015 10:32

I should add and babes in arms. I assume they are generally allowed!

We had two babies - both around three months old and both BF-ing. They were, naturally, welcome. I just didn't want DC who would be running around.

Original poster
purplesprings · 28/07/2015 10:33

The name of the event is not important, getting a better level of understanding of the type of wedding is the key bit.

Child free weddings are a relatively recent trend and there are still loads of people who do automatically think wedding = families and that children are an integral part of that.

It's all part of the transition as people get married later and don't have as much to do with children. The confusion and angst comes from people having differing ideas of what constitutes a wedding.

30 years ago most weddings were very similar (church, reception, family, children, friends) and guests generally knew what to expect. It may well be in 10 years time that childfree weddings (venue, theme, guests predominantly friends) become the norm and by then guests will understand what to expect. It's this in between stage that causes confusion and adds to the threads on MN

OP posts:
Caryam · 28/07/2015 10:34

Lots of weddings are not the joining of two families.

I think DCs at weddings are nice. But totally understand if people's friends and relatives have lots of kids making it a childfree wedding. There comes a point where the nuber of children tips it over into being more like a children's party rather than a wedding.

Twinkie1 · 28/07/2015 10:36

A wedding is about the 2 people promising them selves to each other. Why would that change if there were kids there or not.

People need to get over themselves. If someone wants you to celebrate something with them without loads of kids around, as the one doing the inviting, it's there prerogative.

If you don't like it, don't go.

Ruledbycatsandkids6 · 28/07/2015 10:37

If your name is on the invite you are invited. If it's not you are not.

God these people who think their precious little darlings are just as cute and previous to every other adult on the planet make me cringe.

If you can't leave your kids then don't! Decline gracefully. If you are breast feeding (as I did) then that's your choice and you miss things. That's the deal. Again your choice.

No one has to accommodate you unless they wish and the world owes you nothing.

Having children and breastfeeding does not put you on some celestial plane where we all bow down and worship the children as the second coming. I certainly never expected my children to be invited to every occasion.

Child free weddings are just as fine as those with lots of kids.

Wedding invites are like any other invite. Accept or decline. It's terribly rude to angle for invites. Just don't.

MrsGentlyBenevolent · 28/07/2015 10:42

Just everything Ruled said. Don't think it can be put better than that.

Husbanddoestheironing · 28/07/2015 10:42

Exactly hulababy I don't understand why this is such a big discussion point. Invite the children or don't, bride and groom's choice. If not invited then parents of children can then decide whether they can or want to attend without them. Bride and groom have no god-given right to get into a snot about them not coming though. That's just ridiculous. Since when has polite and timely decline of an invite to anything been an acceptable trigger for a full-blown hissy-fit for anyone over about 6 years old (and even then I'd be having words about how to behave)

LibrariesGaveUsPower · 28/07/2015 10:44

Ruled - the 'name on invitation ' rule simply isn't universal. my DD wasn't named on the invite where she was a bloody flower girl. I am pretty sure she was invited! With that level of inconsistencies why shouldn't people check? That isn't the same as angling for an invite?

Original poster
purplesprings · 28/07/2015 10:45

If you had a child free wedding would you really expect a guest to admit that they were missing their children or would like to have brought them? Surely it's just polite to say you are having a lovely time without them in the same way that you would praise the other elements of the wedding? Who would want to spoil the couple's big day?

OP posts:
SockQueen · 28/07/2015 10:46

When I got married, none of my friends or family had young kids. Our youngest guest was my 16 year old cousin. In the subsequent 4 years that has changed significantly, so there'd now be about 10 tinies, but at the time, there were none.

Were we meant to round up a handful of random toddlers so we could have a "proper wedding?" Or was my "marriage party" inferior because of the reproductive choices of my nearest and dearest?

LavenderLeigh · 28/07/2015 10:51

Totally agree that if invite says Jane and john then only they are invited. Not their babe in arms, 12 year old or their dog. It's not difficult to work out.

Nor is there anything wrong with a child free wedding. Individual preference and make up of family and friends. I married at 20, have a small family with no children at that time and none of my pals had kids. It wasn't inferior to a wedding with children in any way

MuffMuffTweetAndDave · 28/07/2015 10:54

Having children and breastfeeding does not put you on some celestial plane where we all bow down and worship the children as the second coming. I certainly never expected my children to be invited to every occasion.

The problem isn't with breastfeeding mothers not coming, it's with affronted bride and grooms thinking an invited guest is being unreasonable in not leaving an ebf six week old for a whole day. It's fine to say no children at all, even babes in arms. It's just that, as CMOT wisely pointed out upthread, you have to then accept the consequences of that, which in this instance is going to be the mother not coming. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, because people who've not been in that position don't always get it. Hence, confusion and conflict.

And really, those of you who are proclaiming that people whose names aren't on the invitations aren't invited, have you just not read the posts from people who've experienced children being invited without their names being on the invitations? RTFT.

LibrariesGaveUsPower · 28/07/2015 11:00

Oh, also, I went to a no kids wedding with babes in arms as an exception. This wasn't spelled out on the invite. The guest who had gone to massive inconvenience to leave her six month old (lots of pumping in loos etc ) was very pissed off. Turns out that the bride just assumed that she preferred to leave the baby when she rsvpd to say "yes subject to confirming child care".

UptheChimney · 28/07/2015 11:02

YABU.

I hope those judgey pants aren't giving you a sore bottom, they're hitched up so high.

morelikeguidelines · 28/07/2015 11:05

I think it would be good to be clearer. Once we went to a wedding that I assumed was child free as I don't think dd's name was specifically included.

We got there without her and found that a place and been laid for her and lots of stuff laid on for kids. I was quite sad we hadn't brought her.

IssyStark · 28/07/2015 11:18

Unfortunately as others have said, many brides and grooms do not assume that only the names ont he ivitation are invited.

DH's cousin was getting married. Invite arrived with PiL's names on it and they accepted. When they go to the reception, they discovered that there were named places for DH, SiL and me even 'though our names weren't on the invite and we were all adults!