Family wedding (no kids) - Should we both attend or just DH while I stay home with our kids?

[Anonymous]

I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Meh. These are her in-laws excluding her kids. I don’t think there is much of a relationship to maintain there. If she wants to go as a break, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Meh. These are her in-laws excluding her kids. I don’t think there is much of a relationship to maintain there. If she wants to go as a break, sure.

Obviously you view this in a very extreme way. First off, it’s not only her in-laws at the wedding.

It’s okay to exclude someone’s children. OP doesn’t OWN her children and is an independent person outside of her children. Just like sometimes a friend or person wants to hang with OP and not her husband, they also sometimes want an adults only event.

If you’re the type who gets super hung up and upset over a childfree wedding, you’ve likely lost yourself to having kids and it’s too much of your identity. Take a step back. They aren’t sharing they never ever want to hang with your kids. It’s just for one night they want an adults only event or for whatever reason couldn’t include your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a ridiculous thread. OP has FOUR kids who aren't little. It's a NEPHEW getting married. In all likelihood it's the bride's family paying for the bulk of the wedding. And posters are laying guilt trips on the nephew for not inviting the whole, gigantic family.

OP chose to have a huge family. Good for her. But they can't ALL be invited to everything.

If OP wants to go, get a sitter and go. If she's doesn't want to do that, then great, the husband goes. Nobody is going to blink an eye. But the idea expressed by many that the couple should be "punished" or "face the consequences" of not inviting kids is so self-centered and ridiculous.

Yes, you have kids. You love them. That's great. Doesn't make any of them the Second Coming in the eyes of others.

I'm a parent of four (now grown) kids and I disagree with the bolded.

One, four kids is not a "huge" or "gigantic" family. One or two kids is small, three-five is kind of average, six-eight or nine is a large family. I feel like you need get into the double digits before you start describing a family as "gigantic."

But two, family size shouldn't dictate whether or not kids are included. If I found out my sibling with two kids had the whole family invited, but mine was not because we have more kids, I'd be very offended. I wouldn't go to the wedding, wouldn't send a gift.

The bride doesn't want 4 kids she's probably never met before taking up half a round table. It's a lot of kids and mouths to feed. She likely hasn't met OP before either. This was a family obligatory invite. Just send the husband and be done with it. Nobody cares if a distant relative will be offended her giant brood can't come.

But it's ok if a family with 2 kids (assuming approx. the same age) she's never met are taking up 1/3 of a round table?
Yeah, the couple can choose to invite or exclude whoever they want because it's their wedding, but to not invite someone because they have more siblings than their cousins do is just rude.
That doesn't appear to be the case in OP's situation though. OP said it's a 21+ wedding.

Where are you getting this from?

Look back at the quotes.
A pp indicated that OP's whole family couldn't be invited because they would take up 1/2 of a round table. That if you have 4 kids you should expect to not be invited, whereas a smaller family would.

I have no problem with kid-free events and weddings. I totally support any bride and groom choosing that.
But the pp seemed to think that (for example):
the nephew has two uncles (brothers) Jack and Steve.

Jack has 2 kids (ages 5 and 7)
Steve has 4 kids (ages 5, 7, 9, and 11)

Both Jack and Steve are equally close to their nephew.
Jack's whole family should be invited, but not Steve's, because Steve has more kids? Screw that.

OP has made it pretty clear that the kids aren't close to the B&G. OP has met the bride once she said? So yeah, if you have a large family and are that far out of the inner circle you should expect any of your kids to be invited, let alone 4. People with larger families get how this works. I have 3. If we show up with our 3, and so do a few other families it would be overrun by kids. I'm not selfish enough to realize this isn't practical or feasible for every host.

If you are not in the “inner circle” why go at all?

That’s the choice most people have to make when going to a wedding. What’s the difference?

[Anonymous]

This place is so funny to me. In another thread, you guys trashed a woman because she didn't want to fly across the world to Australia on three-weeks' notice to go to her brother in law's second wedding. But this OP shouldn't bother going because you just happen to know the husband's nephew wouldn't want her there anyways and the invitation was just a formality.

[Anonymous]

Are there other kids in the family who aren’t coming? I would text the other families if so and see if there is interest in a group babysitter there.

I don’t enjoy having to chase my kids around at weddings so usually hire someone to watch them at the hotel/AirBNB. Even better if there are cousins. I’d get an extra large house with yard if possible and let all the kids have their own cousin party with a paid supervisor (or older teen cousin I pay to supervise).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This place is so funny to me. In another thread, you guys trashed a woman because she didn't want to fly across the world to Australia on three-weeks' notice to go to her brother in law's second wedding. But this OP shouldn't bother going because you just happen to know the husband's nephew wouldn't want her there anyways and the invitation was just a formality.

You must be new here. When it’s comes to these child free weddings almost everyone says to skip it instead of whining to the bride and groom about bringing the kids. And the people who still have the umbilical cords attached can’t handle the idea of not doing everything as a united front and look to be offended if it’s adults only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Meh. These are her in-laws excluding her kids. I don’t think there is much of a relationship to maintain there. If she wants to go as a break, sure.

you are a bigger child than her kids.

[Anonymous]

No offense but nothing you’ve shared makes it sound like anyone (your DH included) is particularly concerned as to whether or not you attend this wedding and I think it’s pretty unlikely that your DH’s nephew and his bride would find it “uncordial” or be offended if you opted to stay home with your four uninvited young children.

It sounds like you yourself actually want to go to the wedding, in which case you should own that and absolutely figure out a way to make it happen with a babysitter or your parents’ assistance but don’t do it out of some misguided sense of obligation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This place is so funny to me. In another thread, you guys trashed a woman because she didn't want to fly across the world to Australia on three-weeks' notice to go to her brother in law's second wedding. But this OP shouldn't bother going because you just happen to know the husband's nephew wouldn't want her there anyways and the invitation was just a formality.

While I don’t think anyone should be obligated to travel across the world for a wedding, much less with three weeks notice, in the case you are referring to this was the husband’s brother versus a nephew, which is a huge difference, and even then most people said only the brother and not the wife should make the effort to go if finances permitted. The wife was criticized because she was arguing that her husband being home for her planned birthday events should take precedence over him attending his brother’s last minute wedding.