to consider not having my children at the wedding?

[motherpi]

After eleven years together, the Boyf and I have finally decided to get married this autumn. We both want a teeny-tiny affair with immediate family only - ten people max. It will probably be a civil ceremony followed by a decent lunch and then everyone home.

The question is - do I take my one-year old and three-year-old? They will be bored, and I'm not sure I want to spend my wedding day hissing "sit STILL".

So far, the only two people I have asked have had firm (but sadly opposing) views. Am I going to seriously regret it? Or am I just being sensible?

YABU.

Can you not wait until the children are older and not such a pita?

You want to have "immediate family only - ten people max" but your own children don't rate as two of the most important ten people in your life?

YABVU.

why not have a wedding which accepts that you have in fact chosen to have kids first? It doesn't have to be the same as a wedding for a childless couple.

Have a very quick ceremony and do something very child friendly afterwards? Have tea and lots of wedding cake in a child-friendly spot like a local beauty spot? for instance near us there's an old urban 'farm' which has a lovely victorian building used as a cafe, lots of grass outside for them to play on and a playpark, and of course animals for them to be taken off to see. Ask someone to have an eye to them all day so it's not down to you all the time and I think it could be lovely.

To be perfectly honest I think getting married without your kids there would be very sad, personally.

Your wedding, your way as far as I can see.

Can I just say? All those poeple whose kids had a great time at their wedding and didn't bother them once? Somebody else was looking after your kids. And as polite loving wedding guests they'd have done it with smiley faces and good grace. But I've been that 'happy to play with the kids' auntie and quite frankly I was dying to get hammered and dance with the best man's brother but didn't feel able to abandon kids who had latched on to me.

You can't just assume that your kids are so fab that everybody wants to look after them at weddings. Nobody's going to moan to the bride to look after her own kids.

I can't imagine getting married without those closest to me. I was really worried when I got married that DS would have caught the chicken pox that was all around and missed it-it would have spoiled the day for me.
I agree with SRP-have a quick ceremony and go and do something child friendly.

slowreadingprogress said: "why not have a wedding which accepts that you have in fact chosen to have kids first"?

Yes. Why not?
It's quite sad to think of children not going to their parents' wedding. Surely it's more a part of their lives than any of the other guests.
Or, if you really can't bear it....what about marrying when they're a bit older like someone else suggested earlier?

God - i don't really care if people have their own children there or not - its up to them.

But i'm not going to think they're sad/bad parents because they choose not to.

As i've said - i didn't at one part of my wedding.

This doesn't mean in my opinion children shouldn't be there just that i didn't want it. But i do understand that lots of people would want them there.

Horses for courses etc

Good god, but it's tricky.

If I thought that they would enjoy the day, then I wouldn't hesitate. But really, Halia's scenario is the one looking back out from the cystal ball...

But I agree with SpringFleur that - however practical - them not being there just won't feel right.

Nanny it is. I don't want to ask Mum to spend her day stopping food-fights, and I am not keen on the waking-at-3am-screaming attacks of guilt.

Of course - option 3 - I could always photoshop their (beautiful) faces onto the pics at a later date...