No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All my cousins had no kid weddings. It makes me sad. Growing up in a big extended family, weddings are a core memory my kids don’t have. They are 10 and 12 and have only been to mt brothers wedding. FWIW, my wedding did not exclude kids but I was the oldest cousin so there really weren’t any.

So you did the same thing but are now judging your cosusins for it? Lol. I have a big extended family too but it means that there are now a LOT of young kids, and it's not always feasible to include them. Looking back I attended weddings of my actual aunt/uncles, but not my parents' cousins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Sure ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

Because they’re adults and she’s still a child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

Because they’re adults and she’s still a child?

Why the question mark? I know the reason and I won’t complain to them, but I privately find it annoying when we’re talking about family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

Because they’re adults and she’s still a child?

Why the question mark? I know the reason and I won’t complain to them, but I privately find it annoying when we’re talking about family.

That's crazy to me. My 16yo loves going to weddings and she's been going for years, but to be excluded from a family members wedding at any age is wrong but especially at 16 because my kid is an adult at this age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

Because they’re adults and she’s still a child?

There was pop Reddit post where a family member did not invite a 16 yr old to the wedding and all the posters were baffled, that is not normal. No child means under 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today for DCUM to weigh in on:

I'm thinking about not attending my cousin's wedding since children are not allowed.

Details:

-- This is my only cousin.
-- My children are 14 and 16, well behaved, and have been to formal events before (you already guessed: It's black tie).
-- My kids are my aunt's and uncle's only great-niece and great-nephew.
-- The kid-free thing is driven by the cousin's fiancee, the bride.
-- This is a 250-person wedding in Greenwich, CT, and bride's family, who is paying, is exceptionally affluent and from NYC society.
-- We live in Chicago and will need to travel in for the full weekend by plane
-- We have one local relative on our side who could watch our kids for the weekend, my husband's mom, who is 86 and can't drive after a stroke.

In other words, this is not a scenario where allowing siblings or cousins to bring their kids as an exception to the no-kids thing would mean 40 extra plates or something, or a wedding where headcount costs are sensitive.

Yes, it's their day. It's just so ... tacky.

Yes, the bride is 30, all of her friends are already married, she had the custom cocktail menu picked out two years ago, and she put my hapless cousin on a skincare routine.

If it weren't for potentially hurting the feelings of my aunt and uncle -- this is their only child -- I wouldn't attend at all. I'm just here to vent.

Can you go alone? I sort of understand the no little kids thing at a formal event, but I don’t get it for teens. My 16 year old is invited to a cousin’s upcoming wedding, but not to the rehearsal dinner. Which is fine—they can do what they want—but when my whole family has already traveled to be there, I’m just supposed to leave my kid alone in a hotel to have dinner by herself? It’s weird. I think I’ll send my husband to that alone and I’ll hang out with my kid.

That scenario especially is very strange and means they are simply not thinking of their guests. If you invite Out of town guests to the rehearsal dinner, you invite the entire immediate family.

So tacky and yes, per the original title of this thread, this is why the anger about no-kids weddings (with no exceptions for family member kids). It's not thinking about the guests - bad hosting is bad hosting, wedding or not - and it adds to the perception that the wedding is just an Instagram dress-up show instead of a marriage ceremony where a couple becomes, oh I don't know, family.

Oh I think not inviting kids is TOTALLY acceptable.

But if you invite a teen to the wedding, and you choose to invite the family to the Rehearsal dinner, then you should include the teen as well (unless you are in the teens hometown).

But I'm okay with the teen not being invited to the wedding.

It is not "bad hosting" to not invite kids to a wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today for DCUM to weigh in on:

I'm thinking about not attending my cousin's wedding since children are not allowed.

Details:

-- This is my only cousin.
-- My children are 14 and 16, well behaved, and have been to formal events before (you already guessed: It's black tie).
-- My kids are my aunt's and uncle's only great-niece and great-nephew.
-- The kid-free thing is driven by the cousin's fiancee, the bride.
-- This is a 250-person wedding in Greenwich, CT, and bride's family, who is paying, is exceptionally affluent and from NYC society.
-- We live in Chicago and will need to travel in for the full weekend by plane
-- We have one local relative on our side who could watch our kids for the weekend, my husband's mom, who is 86 and can't drive after a stroke.

In other words, this is not a scenario where allowing siblings or cousins to bring their kids as an exception to the no-kids thing would mean 40 extra plates or something, or a wedding where headcount costs are sensitive.

Yes, it's their day. It's just so ... tacky.

Yes, the bride is 30, all of her friends are already married, she had the custom cocktail menu picked out two years ago, and she put my hapless cousin on a skincare routine.

If it weren't for potentially hurting the feelings of my aunt and uncle -- this is their only child -- I wouldn't attend at all. I'm just here to vent.

Can you go alone? I sort of understand the no little kids thing at a formal event, but I don’t get it for teens. My 16 year old is invited to a cousin’s upcoming wedding, but not to the rehearsal dinner. Which is fine—they can do what they want—but when my whole family has already traveled to be there, I’m just supposed to leave my kid alone in a hotel to have dinner by herself? It’s weird. I think I’ll send my husband to that alone and I’ll hang out with my kid.

That scenario especially is very strange and means they are simply not thinking of their guests. If you invite Out of town guests to the rehearsal dinner, you invite the entire immediate family.

So tacky and yes, per the original title of this thread, this is why the anger about no-kids weddings (with no exceptions for family member kids). It's not thinking about the guests - bad hosting is bad hosting, wedding or not - and it adds to the perception that the wedding is just an Instagram dress-up show instead of a marriage ceremony where a couple becomes, oh I don't know, family.

Yes your last sentence so captures it for me.

You are entitled to include all your family (including toddlers) at your wedding. But many do NOT want that. I've seen many weddings where the kids are a disruptions and the parents do not control them (ie if disruptive, you remove them from the situation for everyone's sake).
There are plenty of opportunities to be "a family" that are not at the wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

Yeah, my 16 year old is pleasant to be around and likes going to weddings. It’s annoying to me that she’s being excluded from a cousin’s wedding, while other cousins (and their dates) in their 20s will be there.

Because they’re adults and she’s still a child?

Why the question mark? I know the reason and I won’t complain to them, but I privately find it annoying when we’re talking about family.

That's crazy to me. My 16yo loves going to weddings and she's been going for years, but to be excluded from a family members wedding at any age is wrong but especially at 16 because my kid is an adult at this age.

Did you miss the part that perhaps the bride and groom (who get to determine the guest list) cannot accommodate an extra dozen or two dozen kids/teens. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All my cousins had no kid weddings. It makes me sad. Growing up in a big extended family, weddings are a core memory my kids don’t have. They are 10 and 12 and have only been to mt brothers wedding. FWIW, my wedding did not exclude kids but I was the oldest cousin so there really weren’t any.

So then you didn't really "not exclude kids". They simply didn't exist within the family. You might have felt differently if you were the youngest cousin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today for DCUM to weigh in on:

I'm thinking about not attending my cousin's wedding since children are not allowed.

Details:

-- This is my only cousin.
-- My children are 14 and 16, well behaved, and have been to formal events before (you already guessed: It's black tie).
-- My kids are my aunt's and uncle's only great-niece and great-nephew.
-- The kid-free thing is driven by the cousin's fiancee, the bride.
-- This is a 250-person wedding in Greenwich, CT, and bride's family, who is paying, is exceptionally affluent and from NYC society.
-- We live in Chicago and will need to travel in for the full weekend by plane
-- We have one local relative on our side who could watch our kids for the weekend, my husband's mom, who is 86 and can't drive after a stroke.

In other words, this is not a scenario where allowing siblings or cousins to bring their kids as an exception to the no-kids thing would mean 40 extra plates or something, or a wedding where headcount costs are sensitive.

Yes, it's their day. It's just so ... tacky.

Yes, the bride is 30, all of her friends are already married, she had the custom cocktail menu picked out two years ago, and she put my hapless cousin on a skincare routine.

If it weren't for potentially hurting the feelings of my aunt and uncle -- this is their only child -- I wouldn't attend at all. I'm just here to vent.

Can you go alone? I sort of understand the no little kids thing at a formal event, but I don’t get it for teens. My 16 year old is invited to a cousin’s upcoming wedding, but not to the rehearsal dinner. Which is fine—they can do what they want—but when my whole family has already traveled to be there, I’m just supposed to leave my kid alone in a hotel to have dinner by herself? It’s weird. I think I’ll send my husband to that alone and I’ll hang out with my kid.

That scenario especially is very strange and means they are simply not thinking of their guests. If you invite Out of town guests to the rehearsal dinner, you invite the entire immediate family.

So tacky and yes, per the original title of this thread, this is why the anger about no-kids weddings (with no exceptions for family member kids). It's not thinking about the guests - bad hosting is bad hosting, wedding or not - and it adds to the perception that the wedding is just an Instagram dress-up show instead of a marriage ceremony where a couple becomes, oh I don't know, family.

Yes your last sentence so captures it for me.

You are entitled to include all your family (including toddlers) at your wedding. But many do NOT want that. I've seen many weddings where the kids are a disruptions and the parents do not control them (ie if disruptive, you remove them from the situation for everyone's sake).
There are plenty of opportunities to be "a family" that are not at the wedding

+1

And often people have to LIMIT GUEST LISTs for whatever reason. How do people not understand that the married couple does not need to fund your family reunion??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We just returned from my cousins wedding with our two b kids, 12 and 16. It was officially no kids, but an exception was made for family, which included cousins. There were a lot of kids in the end. I can see why they wanted it no kids in hindsight — parents chasing their kids around, taking them to the potty, the kids taking up most of the seats at tables sitting the reception. One of my cousins was stuck at a table with mute tween boys who clearly hated being there and no other adults. The reason we brought our kids was to see the rest of the family, whom we rarely meet, including elder relatives whom we may not see again. It was also our kids spring break, so we built a vacation around it. But in hindsight I would have saved the money.

The bride seemed chilly, and now I know why.

This is precisely why so many choose kidless weddings. Most kids don't want to be there, and most are not well behaved. It's one day, you can host a family reunion the next day if you want to have your kids see everyone. Or better yet, hire sitters and let the younger kids have a group party somewhere else for the evening.