How to interpret a "no children" wedding invitation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

OP is obviously backpedaling and trying to throw “new information” on the fire to make herself look better. Too bad we see right through it.

YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY, TOO! I CAN USE ALL CAPS, TOO! WOWIE ZOWIE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

That's how we interpreted weddings invites when ours was little....wasn't worth a long trip to have him babysat by a stranger (none was offered, so we weren't really sure who we could/would get). So we declined. Was sad not to see family we hadn't seen for ages. But we were confident in our decision.

[Anonymous]

Who was listed on invitation? If your kids were not, then they weren't invited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

OP is obviously backpedaling and trying to throw “new information” on the fire to make herself look better. Too bad we see right through it.

YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY, TOO! I CAN USE ALL CAPS, TOO! WOWIE ZOWIE!

I 100% doubt there even is a wedding. It's all too convenient. And Covid tracking? That was a really nice touch. Chef's kiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

That's how we interpreted weddings invites when ours was little....wasn't worth a long trip to have him babysat by a stranger (none was offered, so we weren't really sure who we could/would get). So we declined. Was sad not to see family we hadn't seen for ages. But we were confident in our decision.

If you were “so sad” not to see family, why didn’t you organize, plan, and pay for a family reunion, instead of trying to make someone else’s wedding into your family reunion? Apparently, you weren’t “so sad” not to see family, as you made no effort to see them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

That's how we interpreted weddings invites when ours was little....wasn't worth a long trip to have him babysat by a stranger (none was offered, so we weren't really sure who we could/would get). So we declined. Was sad not to see family we hadn't seen for ages. But we were confident in our decision.

If you were “so sad” not to see family, why didn’t you organize, plan, and pay for a family reunion, instead of trying to make someone else’s wedding into your family reunion? Apparently, you weren’t “so sad” not to see family, as you made no effort to see them.

People won’t come to a family reunion if they just went to a wedding with said family. No matter who is paying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- whoever said that OP slept in late after posting at 3 am -- that's exactly what happened.

Grateful for all the responses -- even the snarky ones. Of course this was going to get some heated replies, just did not understand how heated.

For context, yes, we are a large family and most cousins have been really close. Our lovely niece is the eldest, and closer in age to us than the kids. I clearly understand the need to manage a large guest list. We watched her small backyard ceremony last year over zoom, and this is just the party she could not have during covid. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, covid is still around us.

The invitations were sent online, both because less paper means less covid tracking, and because this is a big party for the wedding that had no guests last year. Kids were in fact named in the invitation, which is why we had assumed we were all going.

My spouse reached out to his sister for clarifications and it turns out that indeed, our kids (her youngest cousins) are invited. We will confirm with the bride, to make sure.

This now turns into our internal decision whether it's safe to go. All in my family are rearing to go. I'm concerned about stirring the covid pot, even though we are all vaccinated. Eastern WA where this is has low (<50%) vaccination rates and high COVID incidence. Wedding does require vaccination. but still. A lot of pressure to go, but I may still have to opt out. This covid resurgence really sucks.

Good communication wins the day, again!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

Ew creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

And not everyone loves loves loves the idea of the kids in the family becoming the center of attention on their own wedding day, like they are on every minute of every other day. That's okay too, even though some of you obviously have a very hard time with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

Ew creepy.

+1. Do you film them? It’s kind of sick that you won’t attend a wedding unless you know kids will be there. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

That's how we interpreted weddings invites when ours was little....wasn't worth a long trip to have him babysat by a stranger (none was offered, so we weren't really sure who we could/would get). So we declined. Was sad not to see family we hadn't seen for ages. But we were confident in our decision.

If you were “so sad” not to see family, why didn’t you organize, plan, and pay for a family reunion, instead of trying to make someone else’s wedding into your family reunion? Apparently, you weren’t “so sad” not to see family, as you made no effort to see them.

People won’t come to a family reunion if they just went to a wedding with said family. No matter who is paying.

Then clearly they’re not that interested in seeing you. Too bad you can’t get a sitter and enjoy their company. Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

The members of the family that are this child-obsessed are usually awkward enough (think cartoonish baby-talking preschool teacher) that they aren't exactly missed anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

The members of the family that are this child-obsessed are usually awkward enough (think cartoonish baby-talking preschool teacher) that they aren't exactly missed anyway.

+1. We all know the type who lose their identity and have nothing to say beyond asking about kids. So dull.