Siblings kids not invited to wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really care too much about the kids at weddings thing. I am pro kids. But I don't care if my kids aren't invited as long as there is a pretty good understanding that I might not be able to go as a result and there shouldn't be any hard feelings in either direction if that happens.

But that said, I come from a large Irish Catholic family and have a lot of friends and as a result I have been to a LOT of weddings. A LOT. Many with kids involved. I have literally never once seen a child ruin a wedding. I haven't once been to a ceremony where a kid was screaming their head off unaccompanied during the vows.

I'm not saying this NEVER happens but honestly it has always struck me as a really silly excuse when you really just want to have a big adult party (which again, is fine) but the weird demonization of kids baffles me. Like ok you don't want to get drunk and dance the macarena and make out with your new husband in front of kids, whatever. But this 'unaccompanied children ruin ceremony' thing sounds a bit like bigfoot to me. Or at least like, sighing a giant squid, maybe it happens, but it is not a common occurrence at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Open bar?

It’s a morning wedding.
That would be awesome though.

[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?

I think that the other poster explained this well.

It isn’t that I think that no one will come. It’s that if you don’t care about your sister coming, then you probably don’t really care about any specific person coming. And, from my perspective, if you don’t care about the people who are coming, then why do it?

I see what pp said though, annd with that lens, I can go back annd understand previous comments. They see the wedding and reception as being about the bride and groom and their vision for that day. Maybe they are recreating something from the time they were dating or something else. The guests are more of an afterthought. It’s not really about them, and they are welcome to attend or not.

This is why some people are saying “don’t go to your sister’s wedding” like it’s not a big deal. For them, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. The point of the wedding is to have this special moment with their spouse. They can see their sister another time. She’s not what this day is about.
And others, like me, are saying, “just tell your sister that you want to bring your baby” like it’s not a big deal. For me, the point of the wedding was to have guests there with us. If my sister needed to bring her kids or her goat or whatever to feel comfortable, then that was fine with me. I have many opportunities to have special moments between myself and my husband. This event was about my guests.

Anyway, I really appreciate pp’s perspective.

[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?

I think that the other poster explained this well.

It isn’t that I think that no one will come. It’s that if you don’t care about your sister coming, then you probably don’t really care about any specific person coming. And, from my perspective, if you don’t care about the people who are coming, then why do it?

I see what pp said though, annd with that lens, I can go back annd understand previous comments. They see the wedding and reception as being about the bride and groom and their vision for that day. Maybe they are recreating something from the time they were dating or something else. The guests are more of an afterthought. It’s not really about them, and they are welcome to attend or not.

This is why some people are saying “don’t go to your sister’s wedding” like it’s not a big deal. For them, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. The point of the wedding is to have this special moment with their spouse. They can see their sister another time. She’s not what this day is about.
And others, like me, are saying, “just tell your sister that you want to bring your baby” like it’s not a big deal. For me, the point of the wedding was to have guests there with us. If my sister needed to bring her kids or her goat or whatever to feel comfortable, then that was fine with me. I have many opportunities to have special moments between myself and my husband. This event was about my guests.

Anyway, I really appreciate pp’s perspective.

I think you're overestimating the extent that people want to bring their kids to a wedding and won't go if they can't bring the kids. If you read the other wedding related thread a whole lot of people aren't bothered by no kids, even when they have kids. It's not a hardship for them to get a sitter. It's not a matter of "not caring" rather its an expected norm that a wedding and reception are for adults with maybe a very small handful of kids. There is no expectation to bring the whole family because there are plenty of other opportunities for that kind of get together, like a BBQ any other weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really care too much about the kids at weddings thing. I am pro kids. But I don't care if my kids aren't invited as long as there is a pretty good understanding that I might not be able to go as a result and there shouldn't be any hard feelings in either direction if that happens.

But that said, I come from a large Irish Catholic family and have a lot of friends and as a result I have been to a LOT of weddings. A LOT. Many with kids involved. I have literally never once seen a child ruin a wedding. I haven't once been to a ceremony where a kid was screaming their head off unaccompanied during the vows.

I'm not saying this NEVER happens but honestly it has always struck me as a really silly excuse when you really just want to have a big adult party (which again, is fine) but the weird demonization of kids baffles me. Like ok you don't want to get drunk and dance the macarena and make out with your new husband in front of kids, whatever. But this 'unaccompanied children ruin ceremony' thing sounds a bit like bigfoot to me. Or at least like, sighing a giant squid, maybe it happens, but it is not a common occurrence at all.

You may have been to weddings in an area where people are less selfish/self centered.

[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?

I think that the other poster explained this well.

It isn’t that I think that no one will come. It’s that if you don’t care about your sister coming, then you probably don’t really care about any specific person coming. And, from my perspective, if you don’t care about the people who are coming, then why do it?

I see what pp said though, annd with that lens, I can go back annd understand previous comments. They see the wedding and reception as being about the bride and groom and their vision for that day. Maybe they are recreating something from the time they were dating or something else. The guests are more of an afterthought. It’s not really about them, and they are welcome to attend or not.

This is why some people are saying “don’t go to your sister’s wedding” like it’s not a big deal. For them, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. The point of the wedding is to have this special moment with their spouse. They can see their sister another time. She’s not what this day is about.
And others, like me, are saying, “just tell your sister that you want to bring your baby” like it’s not a big deal. For me, the point of the wedding was to have guests there with us. If my sister needed to bring her kids or her goat or whatever to feel comfortable, then that was fine with me. I have many opportunities to have special moments between myself and my husband. This event was about my guests.

Anyway, I really appreciate pp’s perspective.

I think you're overestimating the extent that people want to bring their kids to a wedding and won't go if they can't bring the kids. If you read the other wedding related thread a whole lot of people aren't bothered by no kids, even when they have kids. It's not a hardship for them to get a sitter. It's not a matter of "not caring" rather its an expected norm that a wedding and reception are for adults with maybe a very small handful of kids. There is no expectation to bring the whole family because there are plenty of other opportunities for that kind of get together, like a BBQ any other weekend.

+1

Or an actual "reunion" you pay for yourself.

[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?

I think that the other poster explained this well.

It isn’t that I think that no one will come. It’s that if you don’t care about your sister coming, then you probably don’t really care about any specific person coming. And, from my perspective, if you don’t care about the people who are coming, then why do it?

I see what pp said though, annd with that lens, I can go back annd understand previous comments. They see the wedding and reception as being about the bride and groom and their vision for that day. Maybe they are recreating something from the time they were dating or something else. The guests are more of an afterthought. It’s not really about them, and they are welcome to attend or not.

This is why some people are saying “don’t go to your sister’s wedding” like it’s not a big deal. For them, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. The point of the wedding is to have this special moment with their spouse. They can see their sister another time. She’s not what this day is about.
And others, like me, are saying, “just tell your sister that you want to bring your baby” like it’s not a big deal. For me, the point of the wedding was to have guests there with us. If my sister needed to bring her kids or her goat or whatever to feel comfortable, then that was fine with me. I have many opportunities to have special moments between myself and my husband. This event was about my guests.

Anyway, I really appreciate pp’s perspective.

Or there might be exigent circumstances of the bride and groom, that only the bride and groom know about, that selfish parents are too self involved to care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really care too much about the kids at weddings thing. I am pro kids. But I don't care if my kids aren't invited as long as there is a pretty good understanding that I might not be able to go as a result and there shouldn't be any hard feelings in either direction if that happens.

But that said, I come from a large Irish Catholic family and have a lot of friends and as a result I have been to a LOT of weddings. A LOT. Many with kids involved. I have literally never once seen a child ruin a wedding. I haven't once been to a ceremony where a kid was screaming their head off unaccompanied during the vows.

I'm not saying this NEVER happens but honestly it has always struck me as a really silly excuse when you really just want to have a big adult party (which again, is fine) but the weird demonization of kids baffles me. Like ok you don't want to get drunk and dance the macarena and make out with your new husband in front of kids, whatever. But this 'unaccompanied children ruin ceremony' thing sounds a bit like bigfoot to me. Or at least like, sighing a giant squid, maybe it happens, but it is not a common occurrence at all.

Disagree - I think that people who don't invite kids are really saying "we don't trust you to do the right thing, should your little kids come to the ceremony/reception, and have a meltdown (which they may be known to do)"

[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.

+1

[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?

I think that the other poster explained this well.

It isn’t that I think that no one will come. It’s that if you don’t care about your sister coming, then you probably don’t really care about any specific person coming. And, from my perspective, if you don’t care about the people who are coming, then why do it?

I see what pp said though, annd with that lens, I can go back annd understand previous comments. They see the wedding and reception as being about the bride and groom and their vision for that day. Maybe they are recreating something from the time they were dating or something else. The guests are more of an afterthought. It’s not really about them, and they are welcome to attend or not.

This is why some people are saying “don’t go to your sister’s wedding” like it’s not a big deal. For them, it really wouldn’t be a big deal. The point of the wedding is to have this special moment with their spouse. They can see their sister another time. She’s not what this day is about.
And others, like me, are saying, “just tell your sister that you want to bring your baby” like it’s not a big deal. For me, the point of the wedding was to have guests there with us. If my sister needed to bring her kids or her goat or whatever to feel comfortable, then that was fine with me. I have many opportunities to have special moments between myself and my husband. This event was about my guests.

Anyway, I really appreciate pp’s perspective.

Or there might be exigent circumstances of the bride and groom, that only the bride and groom know about, that selfish parents are too self involved to care about.

Or maybe there is a specific issue with OP and her sister regarding OPs kids. Could be that sister knows OP is a selfish neglectful parent who will let her kids run amok, scream, cry and won't lift a finger to deal with them vs some larger statement on the breakdown of families and self indulgent wedding planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really care too much about the kids at weddings thing. I am pro kids. But I don't care if my kids aren't invited as long as there is a pretty good understanding that I might not be able to go as a result and there shouldn't be any hard feelings in either direction if that happens.

But that said, I come from a large Irish Catholic family and have a lot of friends and as a result I have been to a LOT of weddings. A LOT. Many with kids involved. I have literally never once seen a child ruin a wedding. I haven't once been to a ceremony where a kid was screaming their head off unaccompanied during the vows.

I'm not saying this NEVER happens but honestly it has always struck me as a really silly excuse when you really just want to have a big adult party (which again, is fine) but the weird demonization of kids baffles me. Like ok you don't want to get drunk and dance the macarena and make out with your new husband in front of kids, whatever. But this 'unaccompanied children ruin ceremony' thing sounds a bit like bigfoot to me. Or at least like, sighing a giant squid, maybe it happens, but it is not a common occurrence at all.

+1.
This feels more like a hypothetical than a real thing.

Now, I’ve seen adults ruin it. I’ve seen family members of the bridal party, overly self important photographers, and crappy bands ruin it. Never seen a child or an infant ruin a wedding though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really care too much about the kids at weddings thing. I am pro kids. But I don't care if my kids aren't invited as long as there is a pretty good understanding that I might not be able to go as a result and there shouldn't be any hard feelings in either direction if that happens.

But that said, I come from a large Irish Catholic family and have a lot of friends and as a result I have been to a LOT of weddings. A LOT. Many with kids involved. I have literally never once seen a child ruin a wedding. I haven't once been to a ceremony where a kid was screaming their head off unaccompanied during the vows.

I'm not saying this NEVER happens but honestly it has always struck me as a really silly excuse when you really just want to have a big adult party (which again, is fine) but the weird demonization of kids baffles me. Like ok you don't want to get drunk and dance the macarena and make out with your new husband in front of kids, whatever. But this 'unaccompanied children ruin ceremony' thing sounds a bit like bigfoot to me. Or at least like, sighing a giant squid, maybe it happens, but it is not a common occurrence at all.

+1 in and Indian-American and big weddings with kids invited is the norm. I have never seen kids ruin a wedding either. We had plenty at ours.

People for whom it's easy to leave baby/kids behind will do so and enjoy relaxing and drinking and dancing. Other bring kids and are usually good about watching them / knowing the kids' limits / actually parenting at weddings.

[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.

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.

I am with you PP, my thinking was the same. We did kids, plus ones, tried to make the location convenient, affordable room block, everything was about the guests. I think the PP above is right that others may have a different vision and priorities. It's a free country - obviously they can have the wedding they want AND I can't judge, find it self centered,a dn decline to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s your sibling. Either you have the kind of relationship where you can ask about this or you don’t.

If it’s a no, don’t feel bad about not going.

This right here.

[Anonymous]

I saw kids ruin a first dance at a wedding. Everyone else is supposed to leave, let the couple have their moment. But, no, the kids were break dancing, running and sliding, and all over the place. And just ruined the moment and their parents thought it was just so gosh darn cute. Like they couldn't just tell the kids to wait a few minutes. I felt badly for the bride who tried to stay out of the way yet still have her dance. She wasn't going to get a father/daughter dance b/c her dad was dying of ALS at the time.