to be thrilled that my friend has very politely requested that folk don't bring kids to his wedding.

[WouldYouCouldYouWithAGoat]

i love dd but quite excited at possiblity of a weekend sans children.

Ah but boffin this is a jewish thread

Church is a public event, not a private event which people are paying for.

And if it's Jesus's wedding we're attending then he can decide the guest list.

But they are banned from the church too arent they. If people say no children, you can't very well rock up at the church with children.

I know that theoretically anyone can go along but in practice your name would be mud.

tumtum but you were right!

Mine are happy to sit and eat three courses - DS would happily visit the kitchen on the offchance that leftoevers may be available! It's silly to issue a "no kids" dictat in case a child disrupts the proceedings. 11 and 9 year olds are perfectly capable of sitting through a wedding. If, however, you want to keep numbers and costs down then fine, but don't use behaviour as an excuse.

A wedding is technically a public event, but I don't consider it to be quite the same as a service in church, open to all.

I'm not sure how I feel about banning children from the event, though if it was a child free wedding I don't think I'd consider taking them to the church, unless I had little other option.

Church services bore me, I can't imagine it's much fun for a child to sit through them.

Thank you, paolosgirl.

It's polite to sit at the back with tinies, and whisk them out if they interrupt the vows or whatever.

It's also polite to have a stash of Haribo and some colouring pencils in your handbag for emergencies.

Other than that, I am usually pleasantly surprised how well kids do behave at events like this. Maybe I know wierd kids.

I'm not sure how a child could disrupt a whole wedding anyway?

Unless their parents aren't sensible enough to take them out of the church if they start crying/running around or whatever?

Yes 9 and 11 year olds, as a rule, are capable of sitting through a 3 course meal and speeches, but not all are, and they won't just be inviting your 9 and 11 year old, there could be 2 year olds, 5 year olds etc.

That leads one into the even bigger minefield of inviting only specific children, which is pretty rude. It should be a blanket rule with possible exceptions for very young babies, and of course children who are in the wedding party.

I've seen a number of parents ignore the crying/screaming/running around at a few services and in restaurants. Unfortunately not everyone is considerate.

I'm not at all sure that child-free weddings are because people don't like children. The one that we've been invited too next year is child-free and that is simply because the venue they've chosen is too small (and expensive I expect). The family love children in general (and my DC in particular naturally ).

But the day after they having a big house party for everyone and I suspect it will be much more fun than the wedding.

Exactly - where are these hordes of screaming miscreants with parents who ignore their poor behaviour? I would imgine that 99% of parents would sit next to the door of the church and quietly leave with the child if it (dared!) to make a noise.

Unfortunately it's nowhere near 99%.

I've seen too many examples of it.

Most reception venues have a garden and many weddings are in the summer - don't you just bung them all outside during the speeches/if they start a ruckus, accompanied by any bored parents/grateful smokers? I for one would be mighty happy to slope off with a glass of vino while the speeches are happening

Anyway that was us, not for everyone, blah blah.

We have only had the very small baby scenario and so we couldn't go - but some other chidren could apparently - just not all of them. I think that is really off.

I could direct you to some if you wish.

And what consititutes "a child" - bearing in mind of course that here in Scotland you are an adult at 16.

What age would you 'allow' them in?

My brother only had 'sanctioned children' at his wedding because of numbers. Mine were sanctioned (of course ), but I hope other people weren't too offended and think he and his wife are in fact child-hating primary school teachers.

I think 12/13 and over would be fine. Though I'd have no problem with people making it 16 and over.

Um, maybe that's it.

My friends all know when their children need removing/quieting etc and just do it. Friendship groups are usually made of like minded people who have smiliar ideas about these things.

In our group if (rarely) a child is acting up and the parent has not sorted it, someone will find the parent and tell them to sort it, or sort it themselves. No problem.

Thunderduck I will leave you to draw your own conculsions

That's just it. I agree about friendship groups, but often there will be people present who aren't part of those groups, who'd snap someone's face off if they tried to reprimand their child and who aren't nearly so considerate.

But then you might be faced with badly behaved teenagers - the list becomes endless.

I second Tum. I guess it depends on your circle of friends.

"Unless their parents aren't sensible enough to take them out of the church if they start crying/running around or whatever?"

That has been my experience, more often than I have encountered sensible parents who do take their children out / stop them running around during the speeches / Stop them getting up and down from the table between each sitting and so on...

... But that's no fun for the children though is it?

That for me is the crux of the matter - I had to take my DD to a wedding last summer (no-one to babysit on this particular occassion), and I felt that to keep my DDs behaving appropriately, I had to bribe, shout, moan, cajoule - you name it to get them to behave (and yes, I did take a big bag of brand new toys for them!) They found the service boring, the photos boring, the meal boring (and they didn't like the food), the speeches boring and there was nowhere for them really to run about, be noisy and just let off steam. For my kids to enjoy themselves, it involves running around, being noisy, doing what 4 and 1 year olds do - but that is not conducive to appropriate behaviour at a wedding, and that is why the two essentially do not mix - Its not being miserable, its just sensible! (Although I do accept that this is different for babies and older children!)

But if they're not your friends and not your family then why have you invited them to the wedding?

Not you specifically, thunderduck, maybe I should have said "one"!

You could be faced with badly behaved teenagers but it's less likely that they'll disrupt a wedding than a bunch of toddlers.

Often people feel obliged invite very distant relatives, friends who may be friends but not part of a larger group, friends of their parents, particuarly if their parents are partly paying for the wedding.