Siblings kids not invited to wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

NP. I think some people’s vision of their wedding is centered around an image or experience with their soon to be spouse. The guests are invited as a courtesy not an integral part of the vision. I personally am a “don’t care where or when it is so long as I can afford it and my sister and parents are present” person but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone who thinks people whose vision of their perfect marriage ceremony is “staring into the eyes of the love of my life on a idyllic beach at sunset” or “elaborate party with at least 1000 people is black tie at the nicest hotel in Singapore” or “[insert highly specific cultural rituals here]”. And those visions may not incorporate or require children or indeed other specific guests so the location, time, and amount guests will travel are not really high considerations in planning. The bride and groom will be focusing on whatever part of the experience is there priority which some upthread have called self indulgent but I think weddings are really supposed to be about the couple getting married so I think it’s fine? I won’t attend if it’s too far or expensive or no kids (childcare is hard to find and expensive!) but I’m not bent out of shape about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Weddings aren't really considered family events any more. Look at where the time, money, and energy is spent-- saying yes to a dress, making "will you be my bridesmaid?" gifts, elaborate bachelor and bachelorette weekends... even the photos reflect that. When you look at wedding photographers on Instagram it's all about "detail" shots of the flowers, shoes, rings, and place settings. The guests are not an important part of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

NP. I think some people’s vision of their wedding is centered around an image or experience with their soon to be spouse. The guests are invited as a courtesy not an integral part of the vision. I personally am a “don’t care where or when it is so long as I can afford it and my sister and parents are present” person but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone who thinks people whose vision of their perfect marriage ceremony is “staring into the eyes of the love of my life on a idyllic beach at sunset” or “elaborate party with at least 1000 people is black tie at the nicest hotel in Singapore” or “[insert highly specific cultural rituals here]”. And those visions may not incorporate or require children or indeed other specific guests so the location, time, and amount guests will travel are not really high considerations in planning. The bride and groom will be focusing on whatever part of the experience is there priority which some upthread have called self indulgent but I think weddings are really supposed to be about the couple getting married so I think it’s fine? I won’t attend if it’s too far or expensive or no kids (childcare is hard to find and expensive!) but I’m not bent out of shape about it.

+1

I know people who had a parent dying of a deadly disease during their wedding, so the bride and groom really only wanted their parents there, and anyone else could show up with a smile, or stay home.

There are reasons, OP. You may not know or like what those reasons are, but as long as it is not YOUR wedding, then stop making trouble. If you are married, you already HAD your day, and this is not the time for your tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Because it's not an either or. The people will come and will leave their kids with a sitter. Why do you think nobody will come if the kids aren't invited?

DP. But “no kids” isn’t the same for all the guests with children in all circumstances. I don’t think many (any?) people on here are saying they always want to bring their children and won’t come if they can’t. It’s a hardship for of town guests with very young children, so in some circumstances yes, “no kids” is tantamount to a non-invitation or it means a spouse has to stay home, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Because it's not an either or. The people will come and will leave their kids with a sitter. Why do you think nobody will come if the kids aren't invited?

DP. But “no kids” isn’t the same for all the guests with children in all circumstances. I don’t think many (any?) people on here are saying they always want to bring their children and won’t come if they can’t. It’s a hardship for of town guests with very young children, so in some circumstances yes, “no kids” is tantamount to a non-invitation or it means a spouse has to stay home, etc.

Ok? Then don’t go. You would know better than anyone here why your friends and family don’t care if you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Because it's not an either or. The people will come and will leave their kids with a sitter. Why do you think nobody will come if the kids aren't invited?

DP. But “no kids” isn’t the same for all the guests with children in all circumstances. I don’t think many (any?) people on here are saying they always want to bring their children and won’t come if they can’t. It’s a hardship for of town guests with very young children, so in some circumstances yes, “no kids” is tantamount to a non-invitation or it means a spouse has to stay home, etc.

Ok? Then don’t go. You would know better than anyone here why your friends and family don’t care if you go.

My family does not do this lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Because it's not an either or. The people will come and will leave their kids with a sitter. Why do you think nobody will come if the kids aren't invited?

DP. But “no kids” isn’t the same for all the guests with children in all circumstances. I don’t think many (any?) people on here are saying they always want to bring their children and won’t come if they can’t. It’s a hardship for of town guests with very young children, so in some circumstances yes, “no kids” is tantamount to a non-invitation or it means a spouse has to stay home, etc.

Ok? Then don’t go. You would know better than anyone here why your friends and family don’t care if you go.

My family does not do this lol

Then what are you worried about?

[Anonymous]

I had a bride make an exception for me when I was nursing a three-month-old. I did approach with a plan though and stuck to it. I left the older one home with their grandmother. I didn't attend the ceremony itself but watched from aways with the baby while my husband sat for the ceremony. It was a non issue at the reception but I did make sure I was near a door for the toasts. I would have stayed home if she preferred as well. But she made me feel wanted and I expressed that appreciation with some extra cash in the card. I'm still friends with this person 10 years later and will always remember how inclusive she was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a bride make an exception for me when I was nursing a three-month-old. I did approach with a plan though and stuck to it. I left the older one home with their grandmother. I didn't attend the ceremony itself but watched from aways with the baby while my husband sat for the ceremony. It was a non issue at the reception but I did make sure I was near a door for the toasts. I would have stayed home if she preferred as well. But she made me feel wanted and I expressed that appreciation with some extra cash in the card. I'm still friends with this person 10 years later and will always remember how inclusive she was.

You sound like a responsible, attentive parent who does not think everything is about you. I think a problem arises when there are parents of small children who are known to not be attentive, and to seek attention, and would not be responsible enough to promptly remove a screaming kid from the quiet church, so that the bride and groom could hear each other on their special day. The selfish parents are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

Simple. Because kids can be loud and annoying and disrupt the service. This is not rocket science. How can you not know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We politely decline most no-kids weddings. I only make an exception if I know there is a real hardship (financial/venue limitations/etc) and then in that case either myself or DH go solo. If it purely because of a pretentious bride or groom, no thank you.

It is not pretentious to not want your wedding ruined crying, tantrum throwing , messy, noisy brats. This is particularly true with parents who think their snowflakes are just too precious for words and everybody just loves them!

+1

Only parents think their actual kids are adorable - not anyone else's kid. Just because I might be good with my kid, doesn't mean I feel like tolerating anyone else's kid.

DP. So why are you even pretending the parents are your friends if you don’t like their kids at all?

I don’t think it’s just the no kids thing, but I think weddings have gotten way too self indulgent in general. Like other PPs I’m confused why you’re hosting an event if you don’t have any interest in making it enjoyable for your guests.

Fwiw I’ve attended the occasional kid-free wedding and I always rush my kids out by their bedtimes before they get whiny, but some of the arguments posted here have been pretty unconvincing.

You can be friends with somebody and not like their kids. You sound entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't make sense to you because you have decided there is a right way and a wrong way to do a wedding. You want to know how anyone can do it wrong and why they bother at all because in your mind it's not a wedding and they should just go the courthouse. The condescension is loud and clear. I have been to lots of weddings and fhave never been to one where all the friends of the bride and groom bring their entire families. It's just not done, and it's known to get a sitter.

I haven’t decided there is a right or wrong way to do a wedding. I haven’t decided that if you are doing it the “wrong” way, then you should go to a courthouse, (although I understand why pp said that because if I didn’t feel so much pressure to invite family and friends, that’s what I would have done).

Have the wedding you want. I don’t care if you have kids there or not or whether you invite your mom or your grandma. If you want to have a huge wedding that is attended by people that you invited off the street or paid actors or a troop of jugglers that meets you at the top of a mountain, that’s fine by me. I was just curious about your motivation for it.

You really do care about the wedding others want. You say all that but then you're like "I just really want to know why...." make up your mind.

I honestly feel like this is what I have been saying over and over again from the beginning.
Why is it more important to have no kids at your wedding than it is to have the people you love there?
I just want to know why.

All anyone has done is swear at me or call me judgmental. I’m not judging. I’m just curious.

NP. I think some people’s vision of their wedding is centered around an image or experience with their soon to be spouse. The guests are invited as a courtesy not an integral part of the vision. I personally am a “don’t care where or when it is so long as I can afford it and my sister and parents are present” person but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with someone who thinks people whose vision of their perfect marriage ceremony is “staring into the eyes of the love of my life on a idyllic beach at sunset” or “elaborate party with at least 1000 people is black tie at the nicest hotel in Singapore” or “[insert highly specific cultural rituals here]”. And those visions may not incorporate or require children or indeed other specific guests so the location, time, and amount guests will travel are not really high considerations in planning. The bride and groom will be focusing on whatever part of the experience is there priority which some upthread have called self indulgent but I think weddings are really supposed to be about the couple getting married so I think it’s fine? I won’t attend if it’s too far or expensive or no kids (childcare is hard to find and expensive!) but I’m not bent out of shape about it.

I really appreciate this explanation. Thank you!

I get what people are saying now when they say “don’t go.” If the wedding is part of an image with their spouse, and the guests are more of a formality, then the couple really doesn’t care if you come or not because it isn’t about the guests.

My own thinking was the opposite. The whole thing was about the guests. People wanted to come and watch us get married, and that meant we had to have a reception and rehearsal dinner. I cared very much if people came. If they couldn’t come, then there was no point in any of it. We wouldn’t have rented out a ballroom. We would have just gotten married in our parish church and went out to dinner afterward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We politely decline most no-kids weddings. I only make an exception if I know there is a real hardship (financial/venue limitations/etc) and then in that case either myself or DH go solo. If it purely because of a pretentious bride or groom, no thank you.

It is not pretentious to not want your wedding ruined crying, tantrum throwing , messy, noisy brats. This is particularly true with parents who think their snowflakes are just too precious for words and everybody just loves them!

+1

Only parents think their actual kids are adorable - not anyone else's kid. Just because I might be good with my kid, doesn't mean I feel like tolerating anyone else's kid.

DP. So why are you even pretending the parents are your friends if you don’t like their kids at all?

I don’t think it’s just the no kids thing, but I think weddings have gotten way too self indulgent in general. Like other PPs I’m confused why you’re hosting an event if you don’t have any interest in making it enjoyable for your guests.

Fwiw I’ve attended the occasional kid-free wedding and I always rush my kids out by their bedtimes before they get whiny, but some of the arguments posted here have been pretty unconvincing.

You can be friends with somebody and not like their kids. You sound entitled.

NP.

Entitled to what- the "priviledge" of paying for a plane ticket to go to a wedding?

[Anonymous]

Stay home.

[Anonymous]

Open bar?