Wedding invite - no children

[FunkySnidge]

Aibu?
Wedding invite but children are not invited unless they have a role in the wedding or are babies. This means that our kids are the only kids from our side of the family who will not be invited. In fact as it's not a big family they are the only relatives not invited.
We now don't really want to go. Our kids really value family events and they can't be fobbed off, they prefer this kind of family thing to a substitute treat.
If we go we will have the faff of organising house pet child sitter, and then the expense of travel and accommodation... During a school holiday. Tbh I would prefer to just go on hol with my kids and let someone else who is closer to the wedding couple enjoy the day.
It's not my family it's dh so I'm giving him space to say what he wants and haven't said my view yet. He has indicated he thinks it's unfair to go without our kids as they will literally be the only family members from our side excluded and he doesn't agree.
Should we get over it and go or do we have a point and should just decline graciously and send a lovely pressie.

Nope. Just in your head.

I don't think it is. Couples seem to want to control, down to every minute detail, what happens at their wedding. They want the perfect ceremony, the perfect photos, the perfect choreographed first dance, the perfect everything. You cannot control children. 30 or 40 years ago it was unheard of virtually to exclude children from weddings. Now it's the opposite. Why is that do you think?

30 or 40 years ago it was unheard of virtually to exclude children from weddings. Now it's the opposite. Why is that do you think?

In the same time frame, we see a sociological shift wherein traditional family structures have become less important to people and their friends have assumed greater status and magnitude in their lives.

A phenomenon that Friends the TV show famously tapped into in the 90s.

Dont go, nowadays weddings are less about family and more about show, most of the time they dont want to pay for the children to attend.
Yes, I know it's the bride and grooms day, but its also about 2 families coming together.

I also get the impression talking to my parents generation that people accepted that weddings are a bit crap, the kids are annoying, there is that awkward relative that has to be there, you get hungry and bored, the food is dry and bland and the speeches bloody tedious. However you got on with it because like death and taxes weddings are a part of life.

Now people are more likely expect a perfectly controlled day as far as possible.

Sidestepping slightly - it very often depends on the knowledge of the behaviour of the child.
I excluded children on the basis of knowing that SOME of them were uncontrolled by their parents and would be very disruptive.
This was borne out by their behaviour at a subsequent family funeral, where they were disruptive and their sodding mother wouldn't take them out until actually told to.

Some guests (do you have guests at a funeral?) said how lovely it was to see little children there, circle of life and all that, but the widowed person was absolutely fuming at the lack of respect shown by the mother of the unruly children.

Who is "right" there - the widowed person, who is most closely linked with the situation, or random "guests"?

It's not that dissimilar for weddings, not really. B&G are paying huge amounts (usually, bloody wedding industry!) and don't really want to have it disrupted by unruly children. If more children were kept in check better by their parents (and I know it's not a new thing but it seems to be more common these days to let them have free rein) then there would probably be fewer child-free weddings.

None of this is relevant to the OP though.

The b&g don't have to invite anyone...
Not a soul.

Because it's their day- it's about them two.
They want things to be or go a certain way... So what??? It's their day? Noone else's.

Of course the B&G don't have to invite anyone but they do have to realise that their choices might cause offence and might damage relationships going forward. They can control who they invite but they can't control the feelings of those concerned.

@Aridane Nooooo! That's so cringe. I'd love to read that thread if you know which it was.

Ahhh. The old "people who don't want children present at their weddings are vain, shallow and superficial and only pursuing an aesthetic" argument is coming out again. I'm guessing that all of you relaxed, non-precious folk got married without any care as to location or outfit, then? Or is it OK to have an aesthetic in mind, as long as the aesthetic is child-friendly?

Couples seem to want to control, down to every minute detail, what happens at their wedding. They want the perfect ceremony, the perfect photos, the perfect choreographed first dance, the perfect everything. You cannot control children. 30 or 40 years ago it was unheard of virtually to exclude children from weddings. Now it's the opposite. Why is that do you think?

you do realise you answered your own questions there??

I had a very frank conversation with my Mum in the run up to my wedding. She told me it was our wedding and our day, we should do it OUR way. Her wedding was dictated to her by both my Dads family and her own. She still had a great day and loved every min of it but it didn’t feel like hers. My parents paid for my wedding and put no stipulation on they what so ever. I was very luck.

I think lots of mothers will have had this conversation over time and that’s why modern B&G’s take full control and have their day the way they want it.

P.S @DecomposingComposers Congratulations on your oh so fabulous wedding that no.1 would have ever found fault with. You should write a book

and there is the offence word again. You should really look that one up!

I think it's very offensive OP. It's not that, as some pp are saying, it's a child free wedding it's that they have chosen criteria that only excludes your children
I would decline and bollocks to sending a gift

P.S @DecomposingComposers Congratulations on your oh so fabulous wedding that no.1 would have ever found fault with. You should write a book

Some people just have to get nasty and personal

it's that they have chosen criteria that only excludes your children

That's not true though, it only excludes the Ops children when she creates a certain group of people in that group, in reality children on the other side of the family have also been excluded. The OP hasn't come back in a while but I get the impression that the OPs DH is a cousin and the other people in the family who's children are going are possibly siblings

I've been waiting for dh to say something before coming back.
I did say in an earlier post that the other 'children' (older and younger) on our side of the family who will be attending are just as distant as we are. That is why it is potentially upsetting, because my children's cousins will be there but they will not.

@WhoTellsYourStory I'm guessing that all of you relaxed, non-precious folk got married without any care as to location or outfit, then? Or is it OK to have an aesthetic in mind, as long as the aesthetic is child-friendly? hmm

Yep, I did. Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, for me getting married wasn't about 'an aesthetic' (bleurgh), a 'theme', or about 'the perfect day'.

@Batcrazymum3

My parents paid for my wedding and put no stipulation on they what so ever. I was very luck.

You misspelled 'selfish'.

P.S @DecomposingComposers Congratulations on your oh so fabulous wedding that no.1 would have ever found fault with. You should write a book

How unpleasant. I think @DecomposingComposers was saying quite the opposite. Her wedding wasn't 'perfect' because she seems to understand that having 'the perfect day' is a load of nonsense cooked up by the multi-million pound wedding industry.

@LaurieMarlow

I didn't realise that committee-written 1990s American sitcoms were taken as sociological textbooks now. I guess you're right though; it's true that in the 70s we all lived in huge blended families with a sasquatch in the spare room, in the 80s we all spent all of our time in a bar making wisecracks, and now we all run a joke shop with our wacky, petite BFF.

@Rubicon80 I'm guessing that you did the registry office thing, then, in which case fair enough. Even the most basic wedding has an aesthetic (a dress and a location that's not visually unappealing) otherwise.

@WhoTellsYourStory yes, it was a registry office, and I was about 8 weeks post-partum, so I just wore something I could breastfeed in.

I'm at one end of the spectrum. And I'm not a fan of weddings in general so had no interest in having one of my own.

But I've attended a LOT of them, and there is something about a big, messy, gathering of family and friends, where the priority is on getting everyone together and having a good time, without picking and choosing individuals one by one, but just because it's a big, happy, family occasion, which even I, as a confirmed grinch, can appreciate.

I've also attended small, intimate, loving weddings, often 2nd marriages, which were also lovely and touching occasions.

I've also been to (thankfully far fewer) weddings where the emphasis was all on the aesthetics, the colour scheme, the bridesmaid dresses, the neon signs on the wall, the photogenic destination, the perfect photos, the 'moving' video tributes, and not coincidentally, those were also the child-free ones. Those have no joy to them for most of the people there. There's no happiness in being an unpaid extra in someone else's £40k photoshoot.

Those have no joy to them for most of the people there. There's no happiness in being an unpaid extra in someone else's £40k photoshoot.

I went to one of those. I agree it was an awful experience. There were quite a few kids there interestingly.

By the by, being extra sarky and dismissive of other people's points does not mean you win the argument.

Of course the B&G don't have to invite anyone but they do have to realise that their choices might cause offence and might damage relationships going forward.

The thing I find interesting about this point is that the B&G have clearly signaled that the value the person in question by inviting them. They have not invited the child, which several people on this thread seem to take as a very personal slight, with lots of commentary about realizing the relationship is 'not as close as they thought'

I find it interesting that posters seem to conflate themselves so entirely with their children. I don't really understand it.

I don't personally have a problem with the idea that a relation/friend wants me at their wedding, but doesn't have the same relationship/connection with my child, therefore is not inviting them.

By the by, being extra sarky and dismissive of other people's points does not mean you win the argument.

No. It mildly amuses me though.

I just thought it was so ridiculous to cite 'Friends' as proof of a grand sociological shift that it deserved to have its ridiculousness highlighted.

You've posted many times on this thread, you're evidently totally convinced that you're right (about your 'friends are a new invention and no one has families any more in the 21st century!' contention).
Nothing that I or anyone else has said is going to make any difference to you, clearly. So I didn't think for a moment that it would cause you to rethink that, because nothing else has done in the previous 646 posts.

'Friends are the new family!' is a Buzzfeed headline, not a serious point. You only have to read this forum to see that the overwhelming majority of issues that people are dealing with are to do with their families. Just as they would have been 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Conversely, back in the 60s/70s, my parents had a far stronger and bigger friendship group than I do now - lifelong friends that they made in childhood or at university and they still hang out with all the time now they've retired. Those friends were all at their wedding - ALONG WITH their extended families on both sides.

It's not in any way true that family is no longer composed of blood relatives or that strong friendship groups are a new invention. It's just that in the past social conventions were stronger and people were more inclined to follow those conventions - especially if their parents were paying for the wedding.

The poster above whose parents had paid for her entire wedding but she gave them no say whatsoever in the event was delighted with herself - I find that astonishingly narcissistic and disrespectful. If someone pays for an event then in fact they are the hosts - that's what it means - but apparently now some people think it's OK to demand that your parents pay for the entire bash (as is traditional) but that it's still 'YOUR' day. Just incredibly bloody rude in my opinion.

I just thought it was so ridiculous to cite 'Friends' as proof of a grand sociological shift that it deserved to have its ridiculousness highlighted.

I didn't cite it as 'proof' but as an illustration/reference point.

I understand that the distinction is totally lost on you, so I'm not sure of any merits in engaging with you further.

Lol. That's exactly why I posted the 'sarky, dismissive response' above.

Then I gave you the benefit of the doubt by posting (not for the first time) a long, detailed response with lots of examples from my own experience, plus references to the broader picture (for example, across the Mumsnet forums), which (not for the first time) you've just ignored completely.

Presumably because you can't answer any of those points, because they contradict the assertion you keep making, without any evidence.

Other than a sitcom from 25 years ago, from a different country.

That's EXACTLY why I wasn't going to bother. Oh well... back to work.

I could track down lots of references for you but frankly I couldn’t be arsed/actually have to do some work.

I’m not quite sure why you’re so resistant to the idea that we’ve seen a shift away from family and towards friends (you know, apart from having to be right on this thread ) but knock yourself out.

Best of luck with it all.