To think we should rename child free weddings..

[purplesprings]

.. 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.

How, exactly, is calling it a "marriage party" making anything clear?

It's very simple - if your name isn't on the invitation, assume you aren't invited. If you are mistaken, someone will let you know. It's easier to say "of course you can bring your special little snowflake" rather than "Actually, no, please don't bring them."

Guests need to stop bleating on about their little darlings being left out.
Bride and groom need to accept with good grace that some people won't be able to make it.

Great post Ruledby. If you're breastfeeding and you can't attend, fine - no-one should give you a hard time about that. However, expecting a bride and groom to make exceptions for your little darling is not on. And I don't think there should be automatic exceptions for 'babes in arms' - its not just the running around that would bother me with children, but the potential for screaming (which of course babies do) mixed with inconsiderate parents who may not take them out of the room.

It sounds like brides and grooms need to get better at being much clearer though about who exactly is invited! Saves embarassement and confusion all round

Soup - it isn't universally true that someone will let you know. As per my baby story up thread.

Just be clear on the invite no kids and people can plan accordingly.

YABU. My wedding was still a wedding even though it was childfree.

Not everyone thinks that children are a good addition to weddings.

I honestly have never experienced the angst that children + wedding invite seems to inspire on MN. I've been to a couple of child free weddings and a couple of limited child weddings and lots of weddings with children. If the invite is unclear surely you ask.
Our DS is quite capable of behaving at a wedding without driving us or anybody else mad. If he's invited great, if not we'll make other arrangements which is fine too. Why is this a drama.
We had children at our wedding (our choice) and none of them misbehaved unlike many of the adults (I'm looking at you FIL, leave the stone statues boobs alone!!??) but I also understand that my kids may not be somebody else's cup of tea and that's fine too.

I've been invited to a marriage party before. It was the UK do after they'd got married abroad.

There were loads of kids there, many more so than most 'weddings' I've been to.
Not sure how this wording idea makes it clear to anyone, unless you are proposing a public education film campaign to run alongside it?

I think the issue arises when the invite is entirely clear but just inaccurate wonkylegs. As in, children not mentioned, no reason to think they're included, then arrive to a place set for them! And people do get arsey about guests asking for clarification, too. Whether they should or they shouldn't. This thread illustrates that.

Lastly, I despair for the comprehension skills of some of the people posting on this thread. Surely one of the 'if a name isn't on the invitation that person isn't invited' brigade has read the thread? Are people just filtering out responses that don't tally with their own experiences?

I can't understand why people are so desperate to bring their kids to weddings anyway. It's essentially dinner followed by a piss up with a load of other adults once the ceremony's over, isn't it?
How many people, when invited out to dinner or an evening at the pub; clamour for the right to take their kids along?? Very, very few.

And the loons that do would be told to catch themselves on tout suite.

I agree with the idea that you invite who you want and accept that some people can't come with grace. I just can't get with the idea that anyone who plans a wedding without children is doing it wrong or causing massive offense or not having a real wedding.

I had kids at my wedding, I had none at that time myself. My brother had no kids at his, even his own toddler. We're equally married. We had different weddings, horses for courses style.

Guests would then know what the rules are and can decide whether to attend

It's a happy thought, OP, but unlikely to work while there's always someone who thinks they should be the exception. If you say "child free" someone insists that shouldn't mean BF babies, mentioning an age limit brings out "ooooo, they're only just over it" and so on

My own view is that you accept an invitation in all its parts or politely decline (with no blame coming your way) but that's just me

Yeah apolcalypse I don't think that was a very helpful way for OP to express her ideas. I get the impression what she's fundementally advocating for is clearer social conventions re kids at weddings, which clearly would be beneficial. But it's not more or less of a wedding depending how many infants are in attendance. That's ludicrous.

As others have pointed out, the number of DC at a wedding tends to vary hugely depending on the age of the couple and guests. DH and I were married young, so although kids were welcome, there were only a few because we just didn't know that many people who had them. We did have teenage cousins in attendance too but I didn't really count them as children, they ate adult meals and didn't behave like older children. My friend recently got married at 31, she wanted a childfree wedding but made exceptions for a couple of babes in arms, and some children of the family who live on a different continent. The parents weren't able to get them looked after for the several day trip, so they had to come if the parents were, and B&G decided they were willing to make that compromise. The upshot was, they had more kids at their childfree wedding than we did at our children welcome affair. So which is the real wedding and which is the wedding party in that scenario?

I've been at weddings where DCs were not invited. I didn't make a fuss and refuse to attend because my kids "weren't welcome" as other relatives did. I just respected the couple's wishes and made childcare arrangements.

I have a friend who didn't invite whole couples - only the person she or the groom knew as she said she wasn't paying for a meal for people she didn't even know!!

I honestly think it depends on the family dynamic at the time of the wedding. If there are loads of young DC and babies in the family and friends circle it might be nice to invite the DC and make them part of the wedding.

When we got married last year, the only DC in the family were DH's cousins aged 9 and 13, and they came to the ceremony and after party (but under 18s had to leave before 8pm, mum knew and was fine)

I did ask my dad to come over without his kids aged 9, 7 and 4 (even though they are my half siblings). I love them but I don't get on well with my dad. He lives abroad and I thought it would be easier if they just came over without the kids. They are very rowdy and when they get bored they are badly behaved as my step mum doesn't believe in disciplining them.

They came to my sister's wedding back in May and it was exactly as expected: they couldn't sit still though the church service and were running up and down the aisles, they all turned up late to the reception because they went to a coffee shop after the church service to get the children cake (even though there was food at the reception) They then didn't touch any of their sit down meals and instead ran around the room shrieking during the speeches. Then my step mum and dad disappeared to their room for a 'rest' and left the kids to run riot with no one watching them (they also cannot speak English so when some guests had enough and tried to tell them off they were ignored. Then they knocked over my sister's wedding cake...only the larger bottom tier survived. She was devastated and my dad just shrugged and offered to pay for it (no apology) and still no sign on that payment.

They didn't attend the breakfast in the hotel the morning after, they all just snuck away.

It was bloody awful.

Actually, it seems to me that the OP is advocating a very judgemental division.

People who have chikdfree eddings are not "joining families" (ie are selfish thoughtless just having a party people). Whereas people who include children are the "true" family-oriented onlyright worthy people to have a wedding.

The OP is really nastily judgemental about what s/be thinks is a "proper" marriage.

Don't know where that leaves people marrying in later life, f'rinstance

We have had an invitation that just had mine and DH's name on but it was assumed by the B&G that we would bring the children. We however assumed that it was child free and merrily palmed off our brood on loving grandparents for the day
Never Assume!
Having said that as much as we usually enjoy a family day out we tend to move hell & high water to accept a child free invitation, especially to a wedding

Apologies for my title suggestions. It just seemed clearer to me that you wouldn't expect to take children to an adult party. Weddings have traditionally been big family get togethers which it seems that we are moving away from.

What would be great (and probably unachieveable) is finding a way of making communication clearer so that the B&G get what they want but also that guests don't have to clarify the situation and run the risk of the B&G thinking they are angling for extra invitations.

As PPs have said both sides can easily take offence and make assumptions causing grief all round.

If they wanted they whole family; why not have Mr and Mrs Idontseeanydragons and family on the invitation? Why put people in the position of having to assume anything?

Flogging there was far too much assuming going on from all sides! Miscommunication is a big issue with invites and causes too much hassle.

Upthechimney I don't think either is better or more valid. I was mistakenly trying to find a way of defining the two types. Perhaps it should have been modern wedding (no kids) and family party (kids welcome). The terminology wasn't the point it was the need for making things clearer which is obviously needed not least by myself.

I'm surely if you're being invited to a whole wedding day you are close enough to the bride and groom or both to have an honest conversation along the lines of "I wasn't sure wether children are included or not, no worries if not just so as I know to arrange childcare,"?

Tbh I wouldn't assume that babes in arms were the exception to child-free, but equally I would be more inclined to think that someone with a babe in arms would be less likely to be able to come, so wouldn't feel offended if they decided they weren't able to.

The point is, there are not "two types." There are as many different permutations as there are weddings. Your desire to divide them in the way you do suggests that you think one type is more valid than another.

We just picked an age cut off point, and said "no under X age". I think it was no under 12's, as child wise there were quite a few 2-7 year olds, then nothing up until mid teens. That would have very much included any babes in arms, but I don't think there were any amongst the guests anyway.

Since it only affected a handful of people, we did then contact them separately to say that we weren't having children, and we completely understood if this caused problems - just to let us know.

I believe there is actually etiquette for this whole thing anyway, it's just that no-one knows etiquette anymore. It's supposed to be named invitees only, and if you want that to include the family then it's "Mr and Mrs Bloggs + family". If just "Mr and Mrs Bloggs" then the kids aren't invited.

I don't want a Marriage Party, I want a wedding (but no kids I don't know or can't afford or find room for basically - at the expense of inviting adult friends).

To clarify: its your phrasing " celebration of two families coming together" as a wedding. Why suggests that a child- free wedding isn't also a celebration of two families coming together. Or whatever.

Going by a lot of the posts about weddings on here, a lot of weddings are anything but two families joining together in a celebratory fashion. But maybe that's the AIBU-effect.

Up I really don't. The thread was inspired by people who are trying to have childfree weddings but hit obstacles because there is no universally understood and accepted convention for making their wishes clear. So much unnecessary wedding stress comes from sorting out the issues that come out of that.

That's not to say that inviting children is the answer as all to often that means that the B&G can't achieve the day they want. whether that means they can't have the venue or the numbers they'd like to invite or because their day might be spoilt by parents who allow their children to be disruptive.