To think it isn't bad form to have a child free wedding?

[WanderingNotLost]

DP and I have started tentatively making wedding plans- we're paying for the whole thing ourselves and so will be on a pretty tight budget, and at present the guest list runs to 127 people (the biggest chunk of that being my massive Irish family). Believe it or not that is the essentials.

As a way of saving some money I suggested we make it a child-free wedding. DP thus far is not a fan of this idea, as a) he thinks it's bad form to say 'you can't bring your kids to our wedding' and b) if the people with kids can't bring their kids they just won't come.
I've pointed out that plenty of people have child-free weddings, quite often it's nice for the grown-ups to have a night off and let their hair down and get nicely sloshed and if we do have kids there, we run the risk of everyone who is there with kids leaving early to put said offspring to bed.

Looking for a consensus here- who is being U??

Have a child free wedding if you want but you're not doing the parents a favour. If you invite children, the parents can still choose not to bring them and "let their hair down". By banning them you're just removing this choice.

I don't think it's bad form though, it's personal preference if you want kids there or not.

We have been invited to two child free weddings this year and because of this we can't go to either due to lack of babysitters which is a shame as they are very close friends so would have loved to see them get married. I'm not annoyed though it's their decision to have a child free wedding which I respect it's just a shame. They don't have children themselves so don't always realise babysitters aren't always easy to aquire!

Thanks for the responses- do you think though that you would leave earlier if you have children with you?

You are.

You can have your massive family there but he wants kids to be there and that's getting vetoed by you. A marriage is a partnership, he wants kids let there be kids. If you have no. Kids yourself right now maybe you will one day and you might see these types of family occasions in a different light.

Leaving early depends on different factors, the age of the children, whether it's a school night or not, or if the child or adult has to be up early for whatever reason the next day so you can't really judge if people will leave early or not because of the kids.

Mine are very young so yes I'd leave early, but if they were teens I'd happily stay on till late if there was no reason to be up early.

I had a child free wedding it's your choice. I'd do it all again exactly the same. It was just more of an adult party really. Everyone's different I think the issue isn't if child free weddings are ok- of course they are- the issue is you and your DF coming to an agreement about what kind of wedding you have.

If helps, of his portion of guests there are 4 kids- all friend's children, not relatives. On my side there are about 12- all cousins' children. All the children are under 7ish years old, not teenagers.
I'm just imagining this mass exodus at half 9 if people have to leave to put their kids to bed, which would be such a shame!

If it's just 4 children he is worried about, why doesn't he sound out his friends and see how easy it is for them to get babysitters?

Surely it would be more of a shame if they couldn't come at all?

Why would it be a shame though? Honestly people leave weddings early for any number of reasons and with that many guests those with kids leaving early surely won't be a big deal on the night? If that's your only reason for not having kids there it's not so bad is it?

I would leave earlier OP because of the expense of babysitters. I wouldn't mind they couldn;t come....but your Irish family might!

Well, that and we're paying for the whole thing ourselves, so it's that many extra meals to buy, and finding somewhere reasonably priced with that capacity is proving to be quite a challenge! We've only been to a couple of weddings (of the God knows how many we've attended in the last few years) where there have been children, and I don't remember anyone not going to a child-free wedding for that reason. Ours is likely to be in London, probably in a pub but not at a hotel or anything, so people won't have the option of popping up and putting their kids to sleep and coming back as I've seen before.
Really want to get as many opinions as poss on this and more than prepared to be told I'm being U- which seems to be the outlook so far!

If you have a high number of guests and a limited budget what's wrong with the partying ending before 9pm. 2pm wedding, reception starts at 4pm, meal served at 5ish (could be buffet/hog roast) speeches over by 7ish, cpl of hours for partying, bride and groom"go away".

Wow, OP.

Does he know what he's letting himself in for?

Sixteen out of 127 guests isn't a mass exodus! If the majority if the guests are yours, can you not concede on this?

Of the ones with kids, what kind of distances are they expected to travel from their homes to the venue? Are these people going to have to book a room in a nearby hotel? If so then you are being unreasonable. I wouldnt leave my kids overnight with anyone unless I absolutely had to and a wedding isn't an absolutely had to kind of occasion.

But YANBU for not inviting kids.

16 is just the children. Sixteen plus two parents is closer to 50. I'm not being adamant about it at all, I've just explained my points of view on it and thought I'd get a few other opinions besides his

I'd happily shave a massive chunk off my family list but here's the thing- in the last few years we've had precious little to celebrate- my father died of cancer a year and a half ago- so our wedding will be something they'll really make an effort for. There are certainly a few I want there more than others, but I would feel absolutely awful, not to mention rude picking and choosing among my cousins, only two of whom are only children, so I'd also be choosing between siblings.

Ok, I'm not Irish but have been to several Irish big weddings in the style of your planned one. They've always been very inclusive family occasions, and somehow that's never stopped the adults making a big night of it. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Have everyone there as your future DH wants and look for other ways to economise. I agree that 16 out of 127 probably isn't a worthwhile financial saving either for the potential grief it could cause.

We'll be getting married in the City/East London or Essex where the vast majority live, so there'll only be a few overnight-ers

Which pub are you going to fit 127 people into? I would give people the option are there people flying over from Ireland? Seems a bit U to make them leave their kids at home in a different country.

Cross post. Only a few over nighters, I'd be prepared to lose them.

It isn't bad form at all. You just have to be prepared that guests with quite young children might not be able to attend as childcare could be an issue especially if it involves an overnight stay. As long as you understand that and don't exclude Breast feeding babies then it's your wedding and your choice.
Ive been invited to weddings without my children- some ive gone without dh if he doesn't know them that well and he keeps kids, some ive not been able to go and one pils babysat

And I suppose yes what is forefront in my mind with this thing is the thought of 40% odd of the party leaving at bedtime.

Ps I had kids at my wedding - it was fun!

Definitely would not include babes in arms. Way too many pregnant friends for that!

Nobody flying, we're 2nd generation so everyone is here already.

Nudey- exactly! Hence trying to find a way to bring the number down...