Siblings kids not invited to wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

Ok. Clearly it never occurred to you that OP and her sister may not be on good terms. And also I’ve attended many weddings at great cost or inconvenience and wore a smiled and congratulated my friends and family because the day was about them, not me, and I was happy to share it with them. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Why?

I mean, if you know that the couple doesn’t care if you are there, why make such a monumental effort? Was it just a really great party? Are you that big of a fool?

I have gone to weddings at great cost and inconvenience because I knew that my presence was desired and appreciated, and that was made obvious. I wouldn’t have gone to so much effort if the effort wasn’t at least somewhat bidirectional.

So, weddings now have the focus on the guests? Since when?

It doesn’t have to. I’m just wondering why you would go to great cost and inconvenience in order to attend a wedding of someone who doesn’t care if you, personally, attend.

God, the self importance is nauseating. Do you hear yourself? My friends picked places or destinations that were meaningful to them. I care about my friends, the places seemed interesting to me so I went to support them. Everyone had a good time. I didn't go to all the weddings, some were too far, in the middle of the week, whatever, I sent my regrets. When I had my wedding the same friends came to support me if it meant travel for them (my hometown). Because that's what we do. I don't ask them in advance what the menu is, whether there will be a cash bar, to decide if the person is demonstrating my importance by catering to my personal wishes. I mean, I don't like chocolate cake and some served it anyway. The nerve! I guess I know where I stand with them in your tiny world, right?

+1

This sums it up. A wedding is not for the guests to dictate what makes them happy, because it is literally impossible to please everyone. Hopefully you know that by the time you get married!

I think it is also hard for some to let go of possible dysfunctional family dynamics "but, but, but.. I ALWAYS get to boss you around and tell you what to do!!" That is not how life works. When the siblings grow up, everyone is an adult - each and every one - even the one you used to boss around and treat like crap - you can't do that on their wedding day - too bad.

If you are paying for the wedding, you get a say in what is what. Otherwise, sit down and shut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

You've never been to a wedding that where it seemed like they tried to make the location convenient? Or had a hotel block that was close and affordable? Or on a weekend instead of a Wednesday?

[Anonymous]

When people are important enough to you to have them at your wedding, you help them find a way to be there. One of my bffs had a newborn and we hired a trusted sitter for her, and the sitter followed the wedding party everywhere so the mom could feed or hold the baby whenever she needed to.

[Anonymous]

I'll never forget a wedding where the bride and groom went to all efforts, before and during, to make every guest feel welcome and at home. It was lovely.

It's still fine to have destination weddings, or kid-free weddings, or whatever, so long as nobody is put out if people decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people are important enough to you to have them at your wedding, you help them find a way to be there. One of my bffs had a newborn and we hired a trusted sitter for her, and the sitter followed the wedding party everywhere so the mom could feed or hold the baby whenever she needed to.

Exigent circumstances don't always allow for that, but if you have helpful inlaws, by all means, bring them along, too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

You've never been to a wedding that where it seemed like they tried to make the location convenient? Or had a hotel block that was close and affordable? Or on a weekend instead of a Wednesday?

We did both, but (in all practicality) the location can only be convenient to half of the guests, unless you marry your cousin.

You can save a hotel block (that is perfectly clean, safe, affordable, convenient and has all they need), but there is always going to be that complainer for whom the hotel is not good enough. A bride and groom can only do so much, and with some people (usually an antagonistic family member), you can do everything right, and it won't be good enough. If the bride and groom showed up at the hotel every night and turned down each and every bed themselves, it still would not be enough.

Some people like to complain, so plan the day that you remember and enjoy, and look back at fondly. This includes the people who made the effort to be there, without complaint. Those are the gems in your life, not the complainers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

You've never been to a wedding that where it seemed like they tried to make the location convenient? Or had a hotel block that was close and affordable? Or on a weekend instead of a Wednesday?

Most first weddings I’ve been to have been in the bride’s hometown or in a location that has meaning for the people getting married, which isn’t always a destination type of place, like a U.S. town or city where the couple met or attended college. The location has always been based on what the bride or the brides and grooms wanted, though, unless their parents were paying for everything.

Most second weddings I’ve been to have been in the city where the bride and groom were living or have been actual destination weddings, which is not what the OP describes here.

I’ve never been to a wedding on anything other than a weekend except for when the bride or groom worked weekends. People get married on a day that works for them, and not everyone works M-F.

As for a convenient and affordable block of rooms, sure. That’s just common sense and it’s also easier for the people hosting the wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

You've never been to a wedding that where it seemed like they tried to make the location convenient? Or had a hotel block that was close and affordable? Or on a weekend instead of a Wednesday?

A hotel block? WTH? I'm not traveling that's terribly inconvenient. Your friends were rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget a wedding where the bride and groom went to all efforts, before and during, to make every guest feel welcome and at home. It was lovely.

It's still fine to have destination weddings, or kid-free weddings, or whatever, so long as nobody is put out if people decline.

It seems like the bride and groom in this case aren’t going to feel out out if the OP declines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget a wedding where the bride and groom went to all efforts, before and during, to make every guest feel welcome and at home. It was lovely.

It's still fine to have destination weddings, or kid-free weddings, or whatever, so long as nobody is put out if people decline.

It seems like the bride and groom in this case aren’t going to feel out out if the OP declines.

+1

Yeah, OP seems a little dense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget a wedding where the bride and groom went to all efforts, before and during, to make every guest feel welcome and at home. It was lovely.

It's still fine to have destination weddings, or kid-free weddings, or whatever, so long as nobody is put out if people decline.

It seems like the bride and groom in this case aren’t going to feel out out if the OP declines.

Yes. I do think that there is not a problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

Most weddings I have been to have been centered on the guests.
It means having a venue that people can get to fairly easily, within an 30 minutes or so of an airport if a lot of people are flying in, wheelchair accessible if guests are in wheelchairs, etc. It means having a block of rooms in a hotel nearby or holding the reception somewhere that people can stay. It means serving a meal if you know that people will be hungry. It means having kids at your wedding if that’s the only way your out of town guests can attend. It means NOT having kids at your wedding if your sister can’t handle having her kids and her bridesmaid duties. It has nothing to do with making sure everyone has their favorite flavor of cake.

If those closest to you cannot attend because you eloped, picked a really remote location that’s $$ or difficult to get to, picked an inconvenient date/time, excluded kids which makes it hard for parents to come, picked a location that’s not handicap accessible which makes it difficult for elderly people to come, etc., then this is a wedding that isn’t centered on your guests. It is just a party for you and your spouse—which is totally fine if that’s what you want to do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people are important enough to you to have them at your wedding, you help them find a way to be there. One of my bffs had a newborn and we hired a trusted sitter for her, and the sitter followed the wedding party everywhere so the mom could feed or hold the baby whenever she needed to.

This doesn't sound that great to me. I wouldn't have wanted a "trusted sitter" I've never met around my newborn. I would think it was strange that you thought it was so important for me to be in the wedding party that I would need to be separated from my newborn in order to participate, when you have a newborn that's your priority not a sibling wedding party. That's me though maybe your friend didn't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people are important enough to you to have them at your wedding, you help them find a way to be there. One of my bffs had a newborn and we hired a trusted sitter for her, and the sitter followed the wedding party everywhere so the mom could feed or hold the baby whenever she needed to.

This doesn't sound that great to me. I wouldn't have wanted a "trusted sitter" I've never met around my newborn. I would think it was strange that you thought it was so important for me to be in the wedding party that I would need to be separated from my newborn in order to participate, when you have a newborn that's your priority not a sibling wedding party. That's me though maybe your friend didn't care.

Meant silly not sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

To be fair, I would have exactly the same response of “why” if people wanted a backyard BBQ feel and insisted that people bring their children.
I just didn’t get why you would feel the need to specify what people do with their children rather than just do whatever is easiest.
I get it now though.

Nobody is telling you what to do with the kids they are saying they aren’t hosting them. The kids are not invited. If kids are welcome at the bbq its not a demand, you can still leave them home with a sitter. This is all so very easy to understand.

Not everyone has a sitter available that they can leave their children with for several days while they fly out to a wedding, and it’s more trouble to find one than to bring them. Some people do have a sitter available and find it easier to leave the kids.

Most people tell their guests to do whatever is easiest.

As I said above, I actually do understand now why some people would rather have their close family members not come than bring their children. This thread has been helpful.

I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand that many people don’t have reliable options for multi day, overnight childcare.

You don’t have to go. Send your regrets. We totally understand. But, no kids. Sorry you can’t make it.

I get where you are coming from, pp.
You want to have the wedding you want to have, and your family and friends are free to come or not come. It isn’t about them.

It isn't about them. Why did you think it was? People plan things like destination weddings knowing full well only some friends and family will come, in fact, they really only want some to come. But they have to invite a bunch of people who might otherwise get angry they weren't invited so they get the obligatory invite, which they decline, and everyone is happy. Nobody expects people to move heaven and earth to find a babysitter. It's really not that important. You will send the gift anyway, and not feel snubbed at being left off the invite list. Wedding planners tell you to plan on something like 2/3 or 3/4 of guests to come. Nobody expects 100% perfect attendance.

Well, people are different. I expected 100% attendance by my siblings at my wedding, and I would have moved Heaven and Earth to have them come.

And for a lot of people, the big wedding and reception are kind of a hardship and done out of love and respect for the people who want to see you married.

I can see though, that for some people, the wedding is about a special moment that they had with their spouse, or something that tradition dictates, and that, while they love their family, this day isn’t about that.

I really wanted people at my wedding. It is the only time that you have all your friends and family from many stages of your life together in one room. It's unique. I would say we had 90+% of guests we invited attend (and this was a 200+ person wedding).

I think it's sad when people say it isn't about the guests. The wedding is. The marriage is about the two people.

If you elope and have no guests is it not a wedding? The guests are not the main event. Sorry. If I want a religious ceremony and you're not religious, or you don't like churches, I don't really care. It's important to me and that's the way it will be. Only a selfish narcissist thinks the wedding revolves aren't the guests.

Look, I think we are crossing messages here.

I’m not saying that YOUR wedding has to be about your guests or has to have any guests at all. I’m saying that MY wedding and every wedding I have been involved in has centered on the guests.
That was why so many of us thought it was bizarre to tell the OP to just not go to her sister’s wedding.

Your wedding may have been all about your awesome Wiccan ceremony held on a mountain top with only your coven in attendance and you didn’t care if your sister couldn’t come. That’s cool.

It’s just a different POV.

I’ve never been involved in a wedding that was really centered on the guests. I don’t even know what that means.

I’m surprised no one has yet criticized the OP’s sister for not asking her to be matron of honor, or at least including her in the wedding party.

Most weddings I have been to have been centered on the guests.
It means having a venue that people can get to fairly easily, within an 30 minutes or so of an airport if a lot of people are flying in, wheelchair accessible if guests are in wheelchairs, etc. It means having a block of rooms in a hotel nearby or holding the reception somewhere that people can stay. It means serving a meal if you know that people will be hungry. It means having kids at your wedding if that’s the only way your out of town guests can attend. It means NOT having kids at your wedding if your sister can’t handle having her kids and her bridesmaid duties. It has nothing to do with making sure everyone has their favorite flavor of cake.

If those closest to you cannot attend because you eloped, picked a really remote location that’s $$ or difficult to get to, picked an inconvenient date/time, excluded kids which makes it hard for parents to come, picked a location that’s not handicap accessible which makes it difficult for elderly people to come, etc., then this is a wedding that isn’t centered on your guests. It is just a party for you and your spouse—which is totally fine if that’s what you want to do!

Doesn't this describe almost 98% of weddings?