AIBU to think this wedding condition is a bit off?

[Ginge85]

Maybe I am BU- I've never planned a wedding myself so I'm not sure what the done thing is these days in regards to this. Just after some opinions!
DP and have been invited to a wedding of a close friend of DP, they have a small child of their own. Their wedding is several hours away from our home (and theirs) and is on a weekday in the middle of the summer school holidays.
Their invite states that no children other than their own are invited. AIBU to think that's a lot to ask considering the time of their wedding? Surely it's hard for lots of people to get overnight sitters on a weekday in the summer hols?
Or is this the norm? Ofc it's their wedding, their rules- but should they be expecting a lot of people to not go? It's looking like dp will have to go on his own!

"why they've chosen there."

Central/Easier for a lot of the guests coming from elsewhere? I get that weddings abroad or some random castle in the middle of the welsh countryside is going too far but a nice venue is important.

scottish yes you held it in the city you lived in. Therefore it made sense that you had it there as you live there, so tbwas close to home. This wedding is not close to b&gs home or any of there families (as far as I'm aware). I don't mean they should accommodate all of their guests with this as they're obviously spread out to a large extent. I was using this as one example on how to compromise the majority of people they want to attend

My grammar is terrible. My apologies I am tired

It's a funny thing. I want all my family (and their kids), along with all my friends that I've known for 15+ years (along with a a few offspring) to attend my wedding.

I would be really embarrassed and upset if a dear friend couldn't attend because I'd chosen a Tuesday wedding to save money and they couldn't afford the resulting babysitting cost/time off work to fit my choices.

So now you are also objecting to their choice of venue?
and the date.......
and the fact your baby isn't central to their day......

Just accept that it is an invitation and not a summons. It is part and parcel of being parents that sometimes you can't do things that you would have done before having dc (or you choose not to because altogether, it gets too difficult).

The couple getting married aren't being unreasonable at all to make their day what they would like it to be. All the decisions they make about venue and timing and day of the week and to invite or not invite children of friends etc will mean it's better for some people and more difficult for others. That's fine. It's not what you would do / did, and that is also fine. If it is all too difficult for you, then send your apologies and wish them well. End of.

^ Typical MN response I was referring to.

Meanwhile, in real life, where we actually like our friends and family and want them to be there on such a special day

If it is all too difficult for you, then send your apologies and wish them well. End of

Yup, me too. Life's too short to agonise the small stuff. (And it is small stuff) I suppose being older helps, when you've had to make those decisions a dozen times - decided to go to loads of trouble to get there - then found that it was more trouble than it was worth. Best to start as you mean to go on. You won't miss much, and you'll be richer and calmer.

No backforgood you're missing my point. I'm not objecting to their venue. Or the date. It's all of the factors together coupled with the fact that it's no children allowed. I was talking about perhaps compromising on one of the difficult issues if they are expecting guests they want to attend. I've stated I'm not annoyed personally that DS isn't invited- we weren't going to bring him initially anyway had we had the childcare. I was asking in general as B had told me she's having issues with her family about her wedding. And I thought it personally odd to be arguing with family over their wedding given all of these factors that they've chosen. As I've said it's not the end of the world if I stay at home with DS. I was after some opinions as admittedly I'm not too clued up on what's the norm. But IMO this is a lot to ask of guests given all of the things together

SheRaaargh.
Just because people have a different opinion from your own, doesn't make them wrong.
Several posters have already tried to make this point to you. Which bit of that are you struggling with ?

Meanwhile, in real life, where we actually like our friends and family and want them to be there on such a special day
It is precisely because many B&Gs want to be able to invite all their family and friends, that they have the no children rule. Most budgets are infinite. Most venues aren't infinite. Lets say the B&G can invite 70 people. If they invite dc of friends (who obviously aren't their friends), then that means actual friends can't be invited due to the finite numbers.
Neither 'every family member invited' nor 'child free' are right of wrong - that is down to opinion as to what each of us prefer. However, what is right is that the hosts decide what they want to do on their day. Yes, that might mean that the venue is more important to them than guests attending (see Maui ). Yes, that might mean some friends with young dc feel they can't come. But that is their choice. Each of us can choose what we want to do at our own weddings - when we are invited to someone else's, we can choose to accept or decline.

I am in my 50s. I never went to any of the weddings my parents went to when I was a kid. No idea if I was invited or not, or if my parents just took the opportunity to have an enjoyable day away from their children.

Are those who hate childfree or limited children at weddings, talking about having nearly all family at their wedding? If so I can kind of see their point. But we would have nearly all friends. And no their kids are not part of my family.

Meanwhile, in real life, where we actually like our friends and family and want them to be there on such a special day

I actually like my friends and family and wanted them to be there on such a special day

I actually like my friends and family do didn't want them to have to travel, pay for hotels and taxis etc to stay overnight in some out of town wedding where no one lives

I wanted my friends to be able to get the tube or a cab to the venue, and home to their own bed.

I wanted to be able to celebrate with the people I love

I could have found a 200 seater wedding venue outside London and made everyone travel and pay for hotels

Or had a smaller venue where friends and family could come and share a meal and a few drinks, have a little bit of a dance, then get home to their own bed

I actually like my friends and family and don't think it's right to ask them all to travel outside the city where we all live

I'd love to know where these 200 seater wedding venues are in central London that we should have found so we could have 100 kids as well as our 100 friends

100 kids at a wedding would be a nightmare anyway.

bananafish see I completely get you. You accommodated and compromised so that you weren't forking out for a huge venue for everyone's kids, but had them in mind in terms of travel etc and wanting them to enjoy themselves whilst sharing your day with you. It's all about compromise IMO, keeping costs low whilst baring in mind that you actually want your guests to be able to realistically attend your wedding

how do brides and grooms avoid things like travel and accommodation costs for guests?

Friends of ours, whose wedding I didnt attend but then BF (now DH) did, was 2 hours away from our home town. And their home town. And the home town of 90% of the guests, as we all live in the same place. It was also very out of the way with no direct transport links so if you didnt drive and/or stay over, it was out of the question.

They chose that venue because it was the brides dream venue (yes, it was a castle!) and were very upset when they got lots of declines. DH only went because he could share a lift with other friends who were driving thanks to the woman being pg. To this day the bride still thinks that anyone who didnt go just didnt care enough about them and their day, rather than accepting that they were just asking too much of their guests.

If the couple and their guests are all spread out then thats different obviously, but destination weddings within the UK is becoming a real thing. Live in Scotland but want to get married in Cornwall? Fine! Anyone who doesnt come just cant be bothered! The fact that it costs more to get from Aberdeen to Truro than it does to get from London to Paris is beside the point!

Ha, I'm not struggling with anything, just voicing my own opinion. If I limited it to no kids, half my family and friends would likely not be able to attend (or at least only one half of a couple would be there, given all their usual babysitters would also be at the wedding).

Of course it's down to choice, like I said. I just want my close family and friends at my wedding, and if I said no kids, a lot wouldn't be able to come

Child free weddings are fine if it's not going to be an issue, but if it's going to mean the people you love can't attend your wedding, then I think it's a bit daft!

Also, 100 kids? What?

Banana but the point is, as the OP said, you compromised.

You could have had a big do with Uncle Tom Cobley and All there, but that would have meant a nightmare for your guests. Easier for them to get an evening babysitter and be back that night. Or you could have found a big venue with lots of rooms to book and invited all of the families, but have to accept that many wouldnt come due to logistics. The OPs issue is that there seems to be no compromise in her friends wedding. Everything is stacked against people attending unless they are retired with grown up children and a healthy bank balance!

OK to answer the actual question in the OP. No it's not a bit off, or even unusual. It's fairly commonplace to organise a child-free wedding.

It's a hard decision for the B&G to make - but it 'is' their decision to make. I think most couples would welcome a few children to whom they are actually related - nephews, nieces, young siblings. But then that invitation has to be extended to friends' children because if you don't invite 'their' children they are a bit pissed off because there 'are' children there, but 'theirs' weren't invited, and before you know it the kids start outnumbering the adults.
So the line has to be drawn. All of the kids or none of the kids.

It's so unfair to the B&G. They want actual family related kids there, but not their unrelated friends' kids there. What are they to do?
They have to be very specific on the invites and then don their flame-proof wedding gear.

Fucking weddings. Don't you just hate them?
If my beloved niece ruins my wedding vows by having a full-blown tantrum I might have to suck it up because she's blood and she's cute and I love her. If it's some random friends kid I would be monumentally pissed off. I don't know what else to say. Except that, to give the B&G a break, invited friends should not even 'contemplate' mucking up their good friends wedding by dragging along their offspring.

Weddings are not an appropriate venue for unrelated infants.

I don't personally mind whether functions are child free or not as long as the hosts graciously accept a decline on the basis of childcare.

We were invited to a function (not a wedding) that was very specifically non child. In fact the host had a little rant to me about another guest questioning it.

Normally babysitters aren't a problem for us but as it happened the 4 sets of people we could have potentially asked to have our kids for the length of time required all happened to be away that weekend.

So we politely declined and thought no more about it.

DH was then asked to work that weekend and said "yes".

The host was then really annoyed with us, she said "you know we'd have been happy for YOUR children to come if it meant you not attending"

How? How were we meant to know?

It all blew over (because they are nice sensible people normally) but it felt very awkward.

So if you say no kids, please mean it.

Yep. Fucking weddings. They seem to cause so much confusion and conflict.

Family kids, and kids of best friends should be there (who are usually part of the wedding party).

Susan can fuck off.

SheRaaarghPrincessOfPower

What has Susan ever done to you!?

vermillion I completely see your point. I get it. A line has to be drawn on the kid front and I get that.
My point is that it's midweek, a time when it's hard to get babysitters, and it's also not local to the guests, or the B&Gs wedding- making it hard for lots of guests to attend. I'm not spitting my dummy out that I can't go- DP is going no matter what, it's his best friend. I was just curious really as I know there are issues with B&Gs own family and I can't help but wonder if they'd unintentionally made it difficult for most to attend, or if it was just us!

Susan? Proper entitled cow, that one

*local to the guests or b&g's home. Not wedding

*Banana but the point is, as the OP said, you compromised.

You could have had a big do with Uncle Tom Cobley and All there, but that would have meant a nightmare for your guests. Easier for them to get an evening babysitter and be back that night. Or you could have found a big venue with lots of rooms to book and invited all of the families, but have to accept that many wouldnt come due to logistics. The OPs issue is that there seems to be no compromise in her friends wedding. Everything is stacked against people attending unless they are retired with grown up children and a healthy bank balance!*

Agree! And thank you for acknowledging. But posters like Sheeragh have said it's a dick move to have child free weddings

Others have said it's unkind not to have children there

Full stop. I tried very hard not to be a dick and yet posters have made sweeping statements that people who have child free weddings are behaving like dicks

I don't think people who have child free weddings are dicks . I don't think my DPs best friend and fiancée are dicks either. I just feel they've cut their costs down at the expense of their guests. You didn't do that though you considered them and had them in mind. There seems to be lots of sweeping statements on MN!