Anonymous wrote:This place is so funny to me. In another thread, you guys trashed a woman because she didn't want to fly across the world to Australia on three-weeks' notice to go to her brother in law's second wedding. But this OP shouldn't bother going because you just happen to know the husband's nephew wouldn't want her there anyways and the invitation was just a formality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Meh. These are her in-laws excluding her kids. I don’t think there is much of a relationship to maintain there. If she wants to go as a break, sure.

Anonymous wrote:This place is so funny to me. In another thread, you guys trashed a woman because she didn't want to fly across the world to Australia on three-weeks' notice to go to her brother in law's second wedding. But this OP shouldn't bother going because you just happen to know the husband's nephew wouldn't want her there anyways and the invitation was just a formality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a ridiculous thread. OP has FOUR kids who aren't little. It's a NEPHEW getting married. In all likelihood it's the bride's family paying for the bulk of the wedding. And posters are laying guilt trips on the nephew for not inviting the whole, gigantic family.

OP chose to have a huge family. Good for her. But they can't ALL be invited to everything.

If OP wants to go, get a sitter and go. If she's doesn't want to do that, then great, the husband goes. Nobody is going to blink an eye. But the idea expressed by many that the couple should be "punished" or "face the consequences" of not inviting kids is so self-centered and ridiculous.

Yes, you have kids. You love them. That's great. Doesn't make any of them the Second Coming in the eyes of others.

I'm a parent of four (now grown) kids and I disagree with the bolded.

One, four kids is not a "huge" or "gigantic" family. One or two kids is small, three-five is kind of average, six-eight or nine is a large family. I feel like you need get into the double digits before you start describing a family as "gigantic."

But two, family size shouldn't dictate whether or not kids are included. If I found out my sibling with two kids had the whole family invited, but mine was not because we have more kids, I'd be very offended. I wouldn't go to the wedding, wouldn't send a gift.

The bride doesn't want 4 kids she's probably never met before taking up half a round table. It's a lot of kids and mouths to feed. She likely hasn't met OP before either. This was a family obligatory invite. Just send the husband and be done with it. Nobody cares if a distant relative will be offended her giant brood can't come.

But it's ok if a family with 2 kids (assuming approx. the same age) she's never met are taking up 1/3 of a round table?
Yeah, the couple can choose to invite or exclude whoever they want because it's their wedding, but to not invite someone because they have more siblings than their cousins do is just rude.
That doesn't appear to be the case in OP's situation though. OP said it's a 21+ wedding.

Where are you getting this from?

Look back at the quotes.
A pp indicated that OP's whole family couldn't be invited because they would take up 1/2 of a round table. That if you have 4 kids you should expect to not be invited, whereas a smaller family would.

I have no problem with kid-free events and weddings. I totally support any bride and groom choosing that.
But the pp seemed to think that (for example):
the nephew has two uncles (brothers) Jack and Steve.

Jack has 2 kids (ages 5 and 7)
Steve has 4 kids (ages 5, 7, 9, and 11)

Both Jack and Steve are equally close to their nephew.
Jack's whole family should be invited, but not Steve's, because Steve has more kids? Screw that.

OP has made it pretty clear that the kids aren't close to the B&G. OP has met the bride once she said? So yeah, if you have a large family and are that far out of the inner circle you should expect any of your kids to be invited, let alone 4. People with larger families get how this works. I have 3. If we show up with our 3, and so do a few other families it would be overrun by kids. I'm not selfish enough to realize this isn't practical or feasible for every host.

If you are not in the “inner circle” why go at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Meh. These are her in-laws excluding her kids. I don’t think there is much of a relationship to maintain there. If she wants to go as a break, sure.

Anonymous wrote:I’d still attend. Right now it seems all about your kids, but eventually it won’t be. It’s good to maintain relationships and be open to doing things without your kids unless it’s truly impossible. I’d be a good sport and go and enjoy a break from mothering.

Anonymous wrote:If it's really untenable for parents to go to the wedding without their children, I'd have sympathy. But it sounds like some of you are advising not to go out of spite. "It's a child-free wedding so they reap what they sow!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your DH strongly wants to see his relatives, RSVP no and send a nice gift. Young people having a 21+ wedding do not care if their aunt and uncle are there. This is not worth the time you are putting in.

If your parents are going to watch 4 kids, use that favor to go somewhere nice for an anniversary trip.

Now this is ridiculous. Another "punish the couple" poster.

How is it punishing the couple not to go when y’all are also saying they don’t care if you go, you aren’t in the inner circle, your kids are unwelcome … etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your DH strongly wants to see his relatives, RSVP no and send a nice gift. Young people having a 21+ wedding do not care if their aunt and uncle are there. This is not worth the time you are putting in.

If your parents are going to watch 4 kids, use that favor to go somewhere nice for an anniversary trip.

Now this is ridiculous. Another "punish the couple" poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a ridiculous thread. OP has FOUR kids who aren't little. It's a NEPHEW getting married. In all likelihood it's the bride's family paying for the bulk of the wedding. And posters are laying guilt trips on the nephew for not inviting the whole, gigantic family.

OP chose to have a huge family. Good for her. But they can't ALL be invited to everything.

If OP wants to go, get a sitter and go. If she's doesn't want to do that, then great, the husband goes. Nobody is going to blink an eye. But the idea expressed by many that the couple should be "punished" or "face the consequences" of not inviting kids is so self-centered and ridiculous.

Yes, you have kids. You love them. That's great. Doesn't make any of them the Second Coming in the eyes of others.

Ok bridezilla. The point is the couple is also not the Second Coming so hopefully nobody is surprised when people decline the invite.

Right. That in your eyes would be their "punishment" for not inviting four kids. You've proven my point.

Anonymous wrote:If it's really untenable for parents to go to the wedding without their children, I'd have sympathy. But it sounds like some of you are advising not to go out of spite. "It's a child-free wedding so they reap what they sow!"